5 ms·

Environmentalism is the quintessential example of why compromise doesn't work. Climate change is an existential threat to humanity and has only become more of a

by imagist 10y ago

Environmentalism is the quintessential example of why compromise doesn't work. Climate change is an existential threat to humanity and has only become more of a threat since the origins of the modern environmental movement. I'm not sure how you can represent a failure of this catastrophic magnitude as "tremendous gains".

rocqua 10y ago
Were there any alternatives? Because the fact that our efforts had an undesirable outcome does not mean our methods were bad. Heck, even the very best methods can lead to undesirable outcomes. I feel that sometimes we expect that an acceptable outcomes is reachable. Sadly, it often isn't. A large part of my growing up has been realizing this. More to the point, the only real mistake I see environmentalism might have made is come in too hard in the middle. We needed to stir up the shit to get enough people on board. But after that, you need to calm down and get grinding on affecting change. Shooting down progressive action for 'not being good enough' is a great way of preventing progress.
- imagist 10y ago
  > Were there any alternatives? Because the fact that our efforts had an undesirable outcome does not mean our methods were bad. Heck, even the very best methods can lead to undesirable outcomes. A more hard line stance on greenhouse gas emissions is an alternative. You can claim that this isn't a viable alternative, but viability is made by a majority trying. I'm not just looking at outcomes. Ten years ago we knew that immediately halting greenhouse emissions wasn't enough to stop climate change, but there wasn't even a push to do that. We weren't even trying for desirable outcomes, so I don't think it's unreasonable to say our methods were bad. > I feel that sometimes we expect that an acceptable outcomes is reachable. Sadly, it often isn't. A large part of my growing up has been realizing this. You claim that taking a hard line stance for an acceptable outcome is unreachable, but the right has been making this work for years. They take an extreme right stance, even more extreme than they want, knowing that the left will compromise and the right will get what they want. You can't claim that compromise is a winning strategy when over and over the left compromises and loses while the right takes hard line stances and wins. > More to the point, the only real mistake I see environmentalism might have made is come in too hard in the middle. We needed to stir up the shit to get enough people on board. But after that, you need to calm down and get grinding on affecting change. Shooting down progressive action for 'not being good enough' is a great way of preventing progress. History does not bear out this assertion.
Lazare 10y ago
There's far more to environmentalism than climate change, however important climate change may be.
stcredzero 10y ago
I'm not sure how you can represent a failure of this catastrophic magnitude as "tremendous gains". Ozone.
JurgenJugglar 10y ago
Environmentalism failed, primarily, because it burdened cognitive units with an unrealistic appreciation and simulation of global disaster. How can we trust influencers and leaders to not use "Climate Change" as a pretext to impose onerous regulations? There are a lot of people who don't understand the coordination problem and want a "solution" without thinking through the multidimensional consequences. Not to mention that it was used as a masturbatory megaphone for shitheads to be holier than thou. Whatever campaign was organized failed because it failed to understand humans. Are you going to explain how and why all this data is correct and how the models are correct? Are you sure? While this is happening, most people suffer from cognitive taxation of a retarded society and a retarded mediaverse. This is a society that prompts and elicits emotional response to an immense number of things, without the understanding or foresight we might expect. Boil a frog slowly, etc. By the way, how can we reverse the irreversible? The planet has no "right" climatic system other than that which is convenient for humans. IMO, the bigger danger is from a mediaverse which elicits the simulation of emotional scenes, and addiction to those scenes and emotions, and which impairs human cognition with wrong information and terrible moral burdens. How can you sensibly model a world when your neural networks are waiting to find out if Ape A is going to cheat on Ape B with Ape C?

by imagist 10y ago

rocqua 10y ago

Were there any alternatives? Because the fact that our efforts had an undesirable outcome does not mean our methods were bad. Heck, even the very best methods can lead to undesirable outcomes. I feel that sometimes we expect that an acceptable outcomes is reachable. Sadly, it often isn't. A large part of my growing up has been realizing this. More to the point, the only real mistake I see environmentalism might have made is come in too hard in the middle. We needed to stir up the shit to get enough people on board. But after that, you need to calm down and get grinding on affecting change. Shooting down progressive action for 'not being good enough' is a great way of preventing progress.

imagist 10y ago
> Were there any alternatives? Because the fact that our efforts had an undesirable outcome does not mean our methods were bad. Heck, even the very best methods can lead to undesirable outcomes. A more hard line stance on greenhouse gas emissions is an alternative. You can claim that this isn't a viable alternative, but viability is made by a majority trying. I'm not just looking at outcomes. Ten years ago we knew that immediately halting greenhouse emissions wasn't enough to stop climate change, but there wasn't even a push to do that. We weren't even trying for desirable outcomes, so I don't think it's unreasonable to say our methods were bad. > I feel that sometimes we expect that an acceptable outcomes is reachable. Sadly, it often isn't. A large part of my growing up has been realizing this. You claim that taking a hard line stance for an acceptable outcome is unreachable, but the right has been making this work for years. They take an extreme right stance, even more extreme than they want, knowing that the left will compromise and the right will get what they want. You can't claim that compromise is a winning strategy when over and over the left compromises and loses while the right takes hard line stances and wins. > More to the point, the only real mistake I see environmentalism might have made is come in too hard in the middle. We needed to stir up the shit to get enough people on board. But after that, you need to calm down and get grinding on affecting change. Shooting down progressive action for 'not being good enough' is a great way of preventing progress. History does not bear out this assertion.

Lazare 10y ago

There's far more to environmentalism than climate change, however important climate change may be.

stcredzero 10y ago

I'm not sure how you can represent a failure of this catastrophic magnitude as "tremendous gains". Ozone.

JurgenJugglar 10y ago

Environmentalism failed, primarily, because it burdened cognitive units with an unrealistic appreciation and simulation of global disaster. How can we trust influencers and leaders to not use "Climate Change" as a pretext to impose onerous regulations? There are a lot of people who don't understand the coordination problem and want a "solution" without thinking through the multidimensional consequences. Not to mention that it was used as a masturbatory megaphone for shitheads to be holier than thou. Whatever campaign was organized failed because it failed to understand humans. Are you going to explain how and why all this data is correct and how the models are correct? Are you sure? While this is happening, most people suffer from cognitive taxation of a retarded society and a retarded mediaverse. This is a society that prompts and elicits emotional response to an immense number of things, without the understanding or foresight we might expect. Boil a frog slowly, etc. By the way, how can we reverse the irreversible? The planet has no "right" climatic system other than that which is convenient for humans. IMO, the bigger danger is from a mediaverse which elicits the simulation of emotional scenes, and addiction to those scenes and emotions, and which impairs human cognition with wrong information and terrible moral burdens. How can you sensibly model a world when your neural networks are waiting to find out if Ape A is going to cheat on Ape B with Ape C?