Extremism

 My opinion is that my most extreme opinion is that employees, including CEOs, have no control over their employers. Socialists like to imagine some line between human employers and human employees. I believe the employers are not human; the employers are corporations. I try to annoy socialists and capitalists alike, by calling corporations collectives. To me, a collective is a collection of humans. My extreme view, that collectives have emergent properties, is not original; it comes straight from system dynamics. Perhaps, I go further out on the limb than system dynamics does, by claiming that those emergent properties include a survival instinct for corporations. I admit I'm more metaphysical than pure system dynamics; I explain the irresponsible opposition to change of hierarchical collectives, such as corporations, by thinking of them like jello; one human employee of the corporation tries to change, but is pulled back by others that do not simultaneously change in the same way. Each employee of a company may temporarily change towards transitioning to renewables without all of them transitioning simultaneously, and the company will not change. To change the company, all employees have to change simultaneously, and that only happens with outside influence. Perhaps a more extreme idea than companies with survival instinct would be that companies have self awareness. If a company is self aware, then it could know it is against changing, and lobby government to make change unpopular. That would explain what climate activists call predatory delay. To me, predatory delay is the substitution of marginal change for actual change. Bloomberg credits itself with the reduction of coal in the USofA. Unfortunately, PeabodyEnergy still exists, so the USofA is still producing coal. In my opinion, the USofA will produce coal so long as PeabodyEnergy exists, and PeabodyEnergy will exist so long as the USofA produces coal. I say the USofA produces coal, instead of saying PeabodyEnergy produces coal, because I've established that I believe PeabodyEnergy cannot change; the existence of PeabodyEnergy is synonymous with the production of coal. PeabodyEnergy exists in the USofA, so the USofA is producing coal. Anyway, producing coal is bad, no matter how little of it is produced, because CO2, and pollution in general, is cumulative. If it's not cumulative, is it pollution? If it is not cumulative, it is being consumed by the environment, so it is nutrition, not pollution; if it kills a species, then when the species dies, it stops being consumed, and accumulates, so it is pollution. How does noise pollution accumulate? Perhaps, it drives away quietness, making the noisy things more necessary, because alternatives require quietness to think of. Anyway, the only policy that is not "blah blah blah", as GT would say, or predatory delay, as others would say, is one with a goal of making PeabodyEnergy stop existing before the time we wish the climate to stop getting worse. Policy taken on faith never works, because the collective brainpower of companies that want to exist is superior to the brainpower of individual voters, and it takes no faith to believe corporations are not afraid to lie. Even though a majority of voters want to exist, they cannot eliminate companies that threaten their existence, because corporations don't want them to. Unless an election is spelled out as a referendum on the existence of a company, instead of a popularity contest, democracy will collapse. Delicense an oil major.