3 ms·
Then you don't really agree with the post. It literally said "people aren't changing behavior because you're making them feel guilty". Which is really an imposs
by mrkurt 9y ago
Then you don't really agree with the post. It literally said "people aren't changing behavior because you're making them feel guilty". Which is really an impossible-to-address pretend argument.
Cheaper and more plentiful? Sure, those are helpful to talk about. Whether the government should be subsidizing particular things? Also useful.
"Making me feel guilty" or the science? Probably not productive.
- ars 9y ago> It literally said "people aren't changing behavior because you're making them feel guilty". No it did not. It said "stop using guilt to try to change behavior". People hate that, and it turned this subject in a political issue (which it should never have become) instead of the engineering issue it should have been.
- mrkurt 9y ago> All in order to make people feel guilty and thereby get people to reduce their usage. Once that happened there was a backlash, that backlash needed a target and the science was chosen. Guilt -> backlash -> people reject science. That sounds an awful lot like you're saying science would drive progress but people aren't changing behavior because "you're" making them feel guilty. It's not _just_ an engineering issue, but if you believe it is why on earth are you contributing to the politics?