6 ms·

why not engage actively in an NGO fighting to battle climate change? Most of them have developed ties to the government where they can really push for a certain

why not engage actively in an NGO fighting to battle climate change? Most of them have developed ties to the government where they can really push for a certain agenda and have a realistic chance of success. Most of the major cities (in the west, idk about the other parts of the world) have their own small NGOs, but there is always greenpeace etc. They need support on the streets, but also help with their infrastructure...

Noseshine 10y ago
That doesn't really answer the question though. You merely named a proxy - what you can do is support that other guy. It doesn't say what that other guy - the NGO - is supposed to do, it merely presupposes that the NGOs know what they are doing, without saying anything about what that is in concrete terms. I don't consider anything along the lines of "raising awareness" an answer, so just increasing the size of the movement (movement for and/or towards what?). I don't see lowering energy consumption worldwide as a realistic goal, the opposite may happen and be necessary. In the coming decades the already waaayyyyy too warm regions of the earth like the Middle East will become even warmer, their only options are moving somewhere else or using energy to create livable spaces (i.e. AC). Just like they made cities like Phoenix, AZ, possible. Without greater energy use we will have another "Völkerwanderung". By the way, the problem of heat isn't just to survive it - doing any productive work, brain work or manual labor, requires lower temperatures than mere survival. Given the advances in renewable energy technology that seems feasible. Nor do I think restriction would significantly help, it seems we've already gone too far. It's like walking on ice and the path back now has so many cracks it's actually more dangerous than the path forward. Of course, which path forward still matters, but "use less energy" is the path back. Not to mention psychology: Setting a goal of "go back to when we used less resources, limit yourself, live your life with as little impact as possible - don't move around (travel) so much, etc." doesn't sound nearly as appealing than a goal that encompasses activity and progress. Resources are finite - but our abilities to create actual cycles instead of one-way streets (to huge waste dumps) are not. I don't think the main message can or should be one of limitation and restriction, that's not what makes humans "tick" - no matter how you think about it (i.e. for better or worse). That said, I think it's not outside the realm of possibilities that huge disruptions are possible and the death of a lot - and I mean a lot - of people. I don't know enough about agriculture, but I think our food production - and let's not forget water - are systems that are "anti-fragile", to use Taleb's term.
- nathan_f77 10y ago
  Raising awareness of climate change is probably one of the most important things we can do right now. An incredibly large percentage of the world's population simply doesn't believe that climate change is a real problem, and then they vote for leaders who are also climate change deniers (or leaders who call it a Chinese conspiracy). It's a real problem.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    Your answer is based on the assumption that numbers (of people) matter. However, it is the decisions of some very few people (compared to the overall population) that has orders of magnitude higher influence compared to the decisions of everybody else, so making the rest "aware" of whatever issue has next to zero influence. That is simply the outcome of human society's organization for scalability and nothing nefarious. An equivalent in the brain is that even thousands of synaptic connections to a neuron a few matter orders of magnitude more than all others, a handful of those can together trigger an action potential but if they don't contribute a graded potential it takes hundreds or even thousands of the others. In addition, the (much less numerous) inhibitory neurons have far greater weight than the excitatory ones, similarly in a human network key players have a much easier time blocking something than getting something to be done. In a network some nodes matter much more than others. You are better off identifying who actually matters instead of yelling into the forest. That approach also has the disadvantage of leading to disillusionment and in the end disengagement of those trying it because the results are meager.
- LeanderK 10y ago
  well, i have worked for a year in an environmental NGO, so here is my view to your arguments: First, i think raising awareness is very important. I know its frustrating and seems like an endless battle, but it's the only sustainable route. Also i think its working, when i compare myself to my parents or grandparents the environmental consciousness increased (at least in germany). They bike to work, many even don't own a car, they think about their footprint when they buy groceries, they support public transport instead of highways (and in some areas even accept a worse driving experience for better public transport) etc. "Of course, which path forward still matters, but "use less energy" is the path back." Well Germanys energy consumption peaked 1979 (i think) because of efficiency. Also the discussion is not about the amount of energy, but the environmental impact of the energy. now about "supporting the other guy". NGOs do much more then raising awareness, for example they employ experts that monitor the government and the industry. They help develop legislature, they lobby, they investigate etc. They have knowledge you and i can not gain, because it is impossible for an single human being to study so much topics and gather so much experience. Look at it like you want to disrupt the automotive industry, you can't do it...at least not alone ;) You need to assemble a team, raise capital and spread awareness of your masterplan while researching your secret, disruptive technology. Since most of the people here are located in 'merica, i don't know exactly what the situation is over there, but here in germany every city have their own NGOs and they need help. Every kind of help, from replacing their shitty website to creating interactive campaign pages etc. Also there is a lot of room for ideas to create nonprofit startups with. In munich, germany there is even an incubator-like facility (impact-hub) to help nonprofit and for-profit startups that pursue ideas that help the people, environment etc.

Noseshine 10y ago

That doesn't really answer the question though. You merely named a proxy - what you can do is support that other guy. It doesn't say what that other guy - the NGO - is supposed to do, it merely presupposes that the NGOs know what they are doing, without saying anything about what that is in concrete terms. I don't consider anything along the lines of "raising awareness" an answer, so just increasing the size of the movement (movement for and/or towards what?). I don't see lowering energy consumption worldwide as a realistic goal, the opposite may happen and be necessary. In the coming decades the already waaayyyyy too warm regions of the earth like the Middle East will become even warmer, their only options are moving somewhere else or using energy to create livable spaces (i.e. AC). Just like they made cities like Phoenix, AZ, possible. Without greater energy use we will have another "Völkerwanderung". By the way, the problem of heat isn't just to survive it - doing any productive work, brain work or manual labor, requires lower temperatures than mere survival. Given the advances in renewable energy technology that seems feasible. Nor do I think restriction would significantly help, it seems we've already gone too far. It's like walking on ice and the path back now has so many cracks it's actually more dangerous than the path forward. Of course, which path forward still matters, but "use less energy" is the path back. Not to mention psychology: Setting a goal of "go back to when we used less resources, limit yourself, live your life with as little impact as possible - don't move around (travel) so much, etc." doesn't sound nearly as appealing than a goal that encompasses activity and progress. Resources are finite - but our abilities to create actual cycles instead of one-way streets (to huge waste dumps) are not. I don't think the main message can or should be one of limitation and restriction, that's not what makes humans "tick" - no matter how you think about it (i.e. for better or worse). That said, I think it's not outside the realm of possibilities that huge disruptions are possible and the death of a lot - and I mean a lot - of people. I don't know enough about agriculture, but I think our food production - and let's not forget water - are systems that are "anti-fragile", to use Taleb's term.

nathan_f77 10y ago
Raising awareness of climate change is probably one of the most important things we can do right now. An incredibly large percentage of the world's population simply doesn't believe that climate change is a real problem, and then they vote for leaders who are also climate change deniers (or leaders who call it a Chinese conspiracy). It's a real problem.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  Your answer is based on the assumption that numbers (of people) matter. However, it is the decisions of some very few people (compared to the overall population) that has orders of magnitude higher influence compared to the decisions of everybody else, so making the rest "aware" of whatever issue has next to zero influence. That is simply the outcome of human society's organization for scalability and nothing nefarious. An equivalent in the brain is that even thousands of synaptic connections to a neuron a few matter orders of magnitude more than all others, a handful of those can together trigger an action potential but if they don't contribute a graded potential it takes hundreds or even thousands of the others. In addition, the (much less numerous) inhibitory neurons have far greater weight than the excitatory ones, similarly in a human network key players have a much easier time blocking something than getting something to be done. In a network some nodes matter much more than others. You are better off identifying who actually matters instead of yelling into the forest. That approach also has the disadvantage of leading to disillusionment and in the end disengagement of those trying it because the results are meager.
LeanderK 10y ago
well, i have worked for a year in an environmental NGO, so here is my view to your arguments: First, i think raising awareness is very important. I know its frustrating and seems like an endless battle, but it's the only sustainable route. Also i think its working, when i compare myself to my parents or grandparents the environmental consciousness increased (at least in germany). They bike to work, many even don't own a car, they think about their footprint when they buy groceries, they support public transport instead of highways (and in some areas even accept a worse driving experience for better public transport) etc. "Of course, which path forward still matters, but "use less energy" is the path back." Well Germanys energy consumption peaked 1979 (i think) because of efficiency. Also the discussion is not about the amount of energy, but the environmental impact of the energy. now about "supporting the other guy". NGOs do much more then raising awareness, for example they employ experts that monitor the government and the industry. They help develop legislature, they lobby, they investigate etc. They have knowledge you and i can not gain, because it is impossible for an single human being to study so much topics and gather so much experience. Look at it like you want to disrupt the automotive industry, you can't do it...at least not alone ;) You need to assemble a team, raise capital and spread awareness of your masterplan while researching your secret, disruptive technology. Since most of the people here are located in 'merica, i don't know exactly what the situation is over there, but here in germany every city have their own NGOs and they need help. Every kind of help, from replacing their shitty website to creating interactive campaign pages etc. Also there is a lot of room for ideas to create nonprofit startups with. In munich, germany there is even an incubator-like facility (impact-hub) to help nonprofit and for-profit startups that pursue ideas that help the people, environment etc.