5 ms·

What actions can I take as a US citizen to fight this level of ignorance? I feel like calling or emailing my representative will yield no results. Does anyone

by hplust 9y ago

What actions can I take as a US citizen to fight this level of ignorance? I feel like calling or emailing my representative will yield no results. Does anyone have some ideas on what can be done by the average Bob?

taurath 9y ago
Nothing. It's only collective action that will solve anything, and whatever culture that pops up will get a near equal reaction from the other side. The US is trending to splitting down the middle on everything, just like our political system, a fact which is sadly getting more entrenched every day. Only thing I can think of is find a way to support independent local government officials and slowly kill the bipartisan system.
- gavinpc 9y ago
  Regarding this "other side." Isn't there an asymmetry here? I mean, aren't the people who see climate change as a DEFCON 1 emergency way more motivated to support environmental causes than the... um people who think it's a hoax are to oppose it? Are there people (not oligarchs) who really oppose environmental causes? Or isn't it just bundled up with all of the GOP's other value propositions? And the constituents just include it because tribalism? edit: my point is that it's us versus the oligarchs. This is not something like guns or abortion or hell even fiscal policy where individuals are going to dig in their heels. This issue is less partisan in that respect. I don't think it's a big deal to the right beyond being a part of their caricature of the left. Sure, some have bought the narrative that the economics are somehow bad for US. But that's a weak and indirect point, and one that just isn't going to activate grassroots opposition.
  - aeontech 9y ago
    The opposition does not oppose climate because they are anti-environment. In their minds, as I understand, climate change is a _pretext_ for more government control, taxes, and intrusion, and those are indeed reasons that make the people dig in their heels.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      They've been conned. Burson-Marsteller developed the basic strategy, and Philip Morris implemented it as the National Smokers Alliance. It worked well enough that the Koch Brothers worked with them on The Tea Party.[0] And now we have Trump. Ain't life grand? 0) http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/4/322 http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/4/322
  - taurath 9y ago
    It's an issue that needs resources and priorities assigned to it, and in a democracy that means there must be some agreed upon basis for which to act, or the action is not taken. Worse, we switch action for anti-action every election cycle
- guelo 9y ago
  Democracy has been proven a failure now that oligarchs have figured out mass propaganda. It will be dueling billionaires from here on out. Which is how government worked throughout most of history. The best we can hope for is a wise, benevolent king. Though unfortunately those were the rare exception.
crush-n-spread 9y ago
Hi, I am going to offer my opinion on how to fight ignorance for the purpose of inciting climate action. I will start by saying that my only qualifications are that I have thought about this since I was 13 years old. You can't fight the ignorance of the masses. Simply put, people don't have a real reason to care about the visibility of climate science. People all around the world are constantly struggling with the hierarchy of needs, and the invisible threat of climate-change-induced extinction is not something you can get people to care about. This is a tautology and will be one until the climate starts killing swaths of people, which may take decades to set in. Therefore, the people and the ignorance are the wrong thing to focus on. If you convince one person, there are going to be ten more people born in that time of such low socioeconomic status that your arguments that convinced the one will fall on deaf ears for the other ten. What you must focus on is making climate-friendly actions profitable and desirable. I am going to leave a link to a comment I made previously if you like what I'm saying so far. Basically, forget people. They are not going to care, and even if you convince all Americans, how will you convince China, India, Africa, etc? The answer is that you won't. I repeat, forget about the people. Here[1] is my old comment that discusses this in greater detail. Also, feel free to reply with some strawman rebuttal of this; you won't get the satisfaction of a reply from me, I've seen way too much negativity on this site (see the comments of the boring company video) to possibly care about contributing to some argument with reality-detached software engineers. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175468
Larrikin 9y ago
Honestly, the only thing I can think of is to spend money out of your district or state.
sfifs 9y ago
Same as democracies everywhere. Organize and vote out the reps in the next elections. Americans are unique in how frequently you get opportunities to vote out leaders (2 years for Congress and 4 years for president) but you rarely do.
- narrowrail 9y ago
  Sorry to nitpick, but the senate is 6 years (and the senate is part of the congress).
  - greenyoda 9y ago
    But about a third of the Senate is up for election every two years[1], so technically the original statement was correct. The voters of the states who elect senators in a particular year may have the opportunity to change which party has a majority in the Senate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Term
    - narrowrail 9y ago
      The original point being made was about turnover and being able to correct for bad choices, and no voter (unless they move) gets to vote for the same senate seat every 2 years.
blitmap 9y ago
Build a dome. Don't invite these people into the dome. Watch them cook, drown, or freeze upon retirement (if you have the luxury of retiring).
aaronbrethorst 9y ago
Call your Representative every day about matters of importance to you. A single call may not make a difference but thousands make a huge difference. Also, find a local group that supports the same policy aims that you have. There are lots to find, especially compared to just 100 days ago. Join up with them and see how you can help amplify each others' voices.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ximeng 9y ago
I'm wondering if there's a better designed version of the IPCC climate change reports. Good information but presented in a massive PDF file which doesn't really lend itself to being referenced or browsed easily.
Qwertious 9y ago
When the next election comes up, vote for whichever candidate is willing to ditch FTPTP and make third-party candidates mathematically viable. Even if the only candidate who does so is Trump (as long as you expect him to keep that particular promise).
- yellowapple 9y ago
  Considering that such a change would likely involve a constitutional amendment, the correct target for such voting would be the legislature (both state and federal).

by hplust 9y ago

taurath 9y ago

Nothing. It's only collective action that will solve anything, and whatever culture that pops up will get a near equal reaction from the other side. The US is trending to splitting down the middle on everything, just like our political system, a fact which is sadly getting more entrenched every day. Only thing I can think of is find a way to support independent local government officials and slowly kill the bipartisan system.

gavinpc 9y ago
Regarding this "other side." Isn't there an asymmetry here? I mean, aren't the people who see climate change as a DEFCON 1 emergency way more motivated to support environmental causes than the... um people who think it's a hoax are to oppose it? Are there people (not oligarchs) who really oppose environmental causes? Or isn't it just bundled up with all of the GOP's other value propositions? And the constituents just include it because tribalism? edit: my point is that it's us versus the oligarchs. This is not something like guns or abortion or hell even fiscal policy where individuals are going to dig in their heels. This issue is less partisan in that respect. I don't think it's a big deal to the right beyond being a part of their caricature of the left. Sure, some have bought the narrative that the economics are somehow bad for US. But that's a weak and indirect point, and one that just isn't going to activate grassroots opposition.
- aeontech 9y ago
  The opposition does not oppose climate because they are anti-environment. In their minds, as I understand, climate change is a _pretext_ for more government control, taxes, and intrusion, and those are indeed reasons that make the people dig in their heels.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    They've been conned. Burson-Marsteller developed the basic strategy, and Philip Morris implemented it as the National Smokers Alliance. It worked well enough that the Koch Brothers worked with them on The Tea Party.[0] And now we have Trump. Ain't life grand? 0) http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/4/322 http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/4/322
- taurath 9y ago
  It's an issue that needs resources and priorities assigned to it, and in a democracy that means there must be some agreed upon basis for which to act, or the action is not taken. Worse, we switch action for anti-action every election cycle
guelo 9y ago
Democracy has been proven a failure now that oligarchs have figured out mass propaganda. It will be dueling billionaires from here on out. Which is how government worked throughout most of history. The best we can hope for is a wise, benevolent king. Though unfortunately those were the rare exception.

crush-n-spread 9y ago

Hi, I am going to offer my opinion on how to fight ignorance for the purpose of inciting climate action. I will start by saying that my only qualifications are that I have thought about this since I was 13 years old. You can't fight the ignorance of the masses. Simply put, people don't have a real reason to care about the visibility of climate science. People all around the world are constantly struggling with the hierarchy of needs, and the invisible threat of climate-change-induced extinction is not something you can get people to care about. This is a tautology and will be one until the climate starts killing swaths of people, which may take decades to set in. Therefore, the people and the ignorance are the wrong thing to focus on. If you convince one person, there are going to be ten more people born in that time of such low socioeconomic status that your arguments that convinced the one will fall on deaf ears for the other ten. What you must focus on is making climate-friendly actions profitable and desirable. I am going to leave a link to a comment I made previously if you like what I'm saying so far. Basically, forget people. They are not going to care, and even if you convince all Americans, how will you convince China, India, Africa, etc? The answer is that you won't. I repeat, forget about the people. Here[1] is my old comment that discusses this in greater detail. Also, feel free to reply with some strawman rebuttal of this; you won't get the satisfaction of a reply from me, I've seen way too much negativity on this site (see the comments of the boring company video) to possibly care about contributing to some argument with reality-detached software engineers. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175468

Larrikin 9y ago

Honestly, the only thing I can think of is to spend money out of your district or state.

sfifs 9y ago

Same as democracies everywhere. Organize and vote out the reps in the next elections. Americans are unique in how frequently you get opportunities to vote out leaders (2 years for Congress and 4 years for president) but you rarely do.

narrowrail 9y ago
Sorry to nitpick, but the senate is 6 years (and the senate is part of the congress).
- greenyoda 9y ago
  But about a third of the Senate is up for election every two years[1], so technically the original statement was correct. The voters of the states who elect senators in a particular year may have the opportunity to change which party has a majority in the Senate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Term
  - narrowrail 9y ago
    The original point being made was about turnover and being able to correct for bad choices, and no voter (unless they move) gets to vote for the same senate seat every 2 years.

blitmap 9y ago

Build a dome. Don't invite these people into the dome. Watch them cook, drown, or freeze upon retirement (if you have the luxury of retiring).

aaronbrethorst 9y ago

Call your Representative every day about matters of importance to you. A single call may not make a difference but thousands make a huge difference. Also, find a local group that supports the same policy aims that you have. There are lots to find, especially compared to just 100 days ago. Join up with them and see how you can help amplify each others' voices.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ximeng 9y ago

I'm wondering if there's a better designed version of the IPCC climate change reports. Good information but presented in a massive PDF file which doesn't really lend itself to being referenced or browsed easily.

Qwertious 9y ago

When the next election comes up, vote for whichever candidate is willing to ditch FTPTP and make third-party candidates mathematically viable. Even if the only candidate who does so is Trump (as long as you expect him to keep that particular promise).

yellowapple 9y ago
Considering that such a change would likely involve a constitutional amendment, the correct target for such voting would be the legislature (both state and federal).