5 ms·

> Usually because 'doing something about it' on a personal level means sacrificing luxuries Yes and the sooner we accept that this is a part of human nature th

by ux-app 8y ago

> Usually because 'doing something about it' on a personal level means sacrificing luxuries Yes and the sooner we accept that this is a part of human nature the better. Fighting what is clearly innate is futile. We have not evolved the ability to ever be satisfied. We a stupid apes who want more, more, more at all costs. We need to accept this reality instead of shaking our heads at one another in faux reproach (probably over dinner, made from 20 ingredients shipped from all across the globe). The only way to make actions against climate change a reality is to make it profitable. If we can work out how to make it so that people make gobs of money by reversing climate change then things will be peachy. If we can't figure out a way to turn a buck from fixing climate change then we are all, collectively, fucked.

titzer 8y ago
> The only way to make actions against climate change a reality is to make it profitable. If we can work out how to make it so that people make gobs of money by reversing climate change then things will be peachy. > If we can't figure out a way to turn a buck from fixing climate change then we are all, collectively, fucked. Well, that old world is fucked. But if you look at the lifestyles of, e.g. American Indians, they lasted 10,000 years in North America in a much more sustainable fashion. Granted, it wasn't perfect. Humans caused the extinction of megafauna in North America as elsewhere, but organized agriculture never really took off there, and because of that, that continent was relatively unspoiled until Columbus.
- aidos 8y ago
  I’m unsure of the connection you’re making in this context. Are you suggesting that the solution is to live more sustainably once most of modern society is destroyed?
  - titzer 8y ago
    I honestly don't know what the "solution" is. But it is clear from our current trajectory and the willful blindness of the vast majority of humanity, not to mention the politically motivated disinformation campaigns, that we're looking at inevitable, drastic climate change that will almost certainly destroy modern society, yeah...unfortunately.
- pif 8y ago
  > e.g. American Indians, they lasted 10,000 years in North America in a much more sustainable fashion. Sure! And why did they change their lifestyle as soon as they could? Before it was MUCH more comfortable! Cheap energy has revolutionized the world. It is unfortunate that, for the moment, we can only find cheap energy in polluting fossil fuels but, short of discovering a less polluting cheap energy source (if it ever exists), there is no going back! You'll never be able to convince billions of people to give up their car and air conditioning to go back ploughing the fields. Climate change will get irreversible if we don't drastically lower our quality life? OK, let it be! Let's accept it already and start doing what we can do to adapt. But don't talk about going back: nobody will listen to you.
  - titzer 8y ago
    I would suggest reading Sapiens by Yuval Harari to get some more perspective on what the agricultural revolution has done to this planet, and to humans. And for Native Americans just "up and changing their lifestyle"--nothing could be further from the truth. They initially died by the millions from diseases brought by westerns and were then harassed, betrayed, murdered, warred upon, and pushed territory by terrority away from their lands and eventually corralled into reservations.
  - stukh 8y ago
    Quite a few Native Americans did not willingly give up their lifestyle as soon as they could. They were herded into reservations that were way too small to continue their lifestyle. Change was forced upon them. This was especially true when the buffalo herds died off. I’m thinking in particular of the Great Plains Indians. Overall though your point stands. It’s not like billions of people are going to willingly give up the comforts that we have. Though in part this is because it is no longer feasible to live off the land as people did thousands of years ago. The only way to go back, as you call it, is for the population of the world to decline. This would mean a drastic reduction in the birth rate. There is a number for the size of the population of the world such that if everyone of those people lived like Americans pollution wouldn’t be large enough to be a problem.
    - 8y ago
pmoriarty 8y ago
"this is a part of human nature ... We a stupid apes who want more, more, more at all costs." That's not part of human nature. There have always been people who've renounced much of the world and made a lot of sacrifices, even to the point of giving everything they own away and dedicating themselves completely to helping others. At times there were even mass social movements in that direction. It's just that we're going through a period in history where some people are particularly selfish. Many of these people are unfortunately in control at the moment, or have undue influence on what happens. But there are others who are less self-centered and are even actively working towards constructive change, even at great cost to themselves. There always have been. The question is how to get more people to act constructively and not passively accept what's happening. Education, discussion, and consciousness-raising are all great ways to do that. Disempowering narratives about limitless consumerism being an inevitable part of human nature are not.
- graeme 8y ago
  The fact that some people consume less doesn't matter. This is a game theory situation. If one set of people reduces, another can increase. The OP was right. We need to make using less profitable. A carbon tax would be perfect for that, and we could reduce the income tax to offset. We get less of what we tax, so we'd have more income and less carbon. I actually think international efforts should be focussed on getting countried to agree to swap existing taxes for carbon taxes.
singularity2001 8y ago
> The only way to make actions against climate change a reality is to make it profitable. The other way would be 'international politics'. I know it has run out of fashion, but maybe in 10 years we can re-instantiate democracy.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  The problem is, if you go the political (whether national or international) instead of what 'ux-app proposes, you'll be fighting an uphill battle against people who do make money off the status quo, and who stand to lose it if you get things your way.
lordlimecat 8y ago
>We need to accept this reality instead of shaking our heads at one another in faux reproach (probably over dinner, made from 20 ingredients shipped from all across the globe). FWIW, the carbon footprint of shipping produce from e.g. Chile is so low that you would create a bigger impact by driving an extra mile to get farm-fresh produce. Whatever the solution is, "eating local" isn't it: it literally makes things worse.

by ux-app 8y ago

titzer 8y ago

> The only way to make actions against climate change a reality is to make it profitable. If we can work out how to make it so that people make gobs of money by reversing climate change then things will be peachy. > If we can't figure out a way to turn a buck from fixing climate change then we are all, collectively, fucked. Well, that old world is fucked. But if you look at the lifestyles of, e.g. American Indians, they lasted 10,000 years in North America in a much more sustainable fashion. Granted, it wasn't perfect. Humans caused the extinction of megafauna in North America as elsewhere, but organized agriculture never really took off there, and because of that, that continent was relatively unspoiled until Columbus.

aidos 8y ago
I’m unsure of the connection you’re making in this context. Are you suggesting that the solution is to live more sustainably once most of modern society is destroyed?
- titzer 8y ago
  I honestly don't know what the "solution" is. But it is clear from our current trajectory and the willful blindness of the vast majority of humanity, not to mention the politically motivated disinformation campaigns, that we're looking at inevitable, drastic climate change that will almost certainly destroy modern society, yeah...unfortunately.
pif 8y ago
> e.g. American Indians, they lasted 10,000 years in North America in a much more sustainable fashion. Sure! And why did they change their lifestyle as soon as they could? Before it was MUCH more comfortable! Cheap energy has revolutionized the world. It is unfortunate that, for the moment, we can only find cheap energy in polluting fossil fuels but, short of discovering a less polluting cheap energy source (if it ever exists), there is no going back! You'll never be able to convince billions of people to give up their car and air conditioning to go back ploughing the fields. Climate change will get irreversible if we don't drastically lower our quality life? OK, let it be! Let's accept it already and start doing what we can do to adapt. But don't talk about going back: nobody will listen to you.
- titzer 8y ago
  I would suggest reading Sapiens by Yuval Harari to get some more perspective on what the agricultural revolution has done to this planet, and to humans. And for Native Americans just "up and changing their lifestyle"--nothing could be further from the truth. They initially died by the millions from diseases brought by westerns and were then harassed, betrayed, murdered, warred upon, and pushed territory by terrority away from their lands and eventually corralled into reservations.
- stukh 8y ago
  Quite a few Native Americans did not willingly give up their lifestyle as soon as they could. They were herded into reservations that were way too small to continue their lifestyle. Change was forced upon them. This was especially true when the buffalo herds died off. I’m thinking in particular of the Great Plains Indians. Overall though your point stands. It’s not like billions of people are going to willingly give up the comforts that we have. Though in part this is because it is no longer feasible to live off the land as people did thousands of years ago. The only way to go back, as you call it, is for the population of the world to decline. This would mean a drastic reduction in the birth rate. There is a number for the size of the population of the world such that if everyone of those people lived like Americans pollution wouldn’t be large enough to be a problem.
  - 8y ago

pmoriarty 8y ago

"this is a part of human nature ... We a stupid apes who want more, more, more at all costs." That's not part of human nature. There have always been people who've renounced much of the world and made a lot of sacrifices, even to the point of giving everything they own away and dedicating themselves completely to helping others. At times there were even mass social movements in that direction. It's just that we're going through a period in history where some people are particularly selfish. Many of these people are unfortunately in control at the moment, or have undue influence on what happens. But there are others who are less self-centered and are even actively working towards constructive change, even at great cost to themselves. There always have been. The question is how to get more people to act constructively and not passively accept what's happening. Education, discussion, and consciousness-raising are all great ways to do that. Disempowering narratives about limitless consumerism being an inevitable part of human nature are not.

graeme 8y ago
The fact that some people consume less doesn't matter. This is a game theory situation. If one set of people reduces, another can increase. The OP was right. We need to make using less profitable. A carbon tax would be perfect for that, and we could reduce the income tax to offset. We get less of what we tax, so we'd have more income and less carbon. I actually think international efforts should be focussed on getting countried to agree to swap existing taxes for carbon taxes.

singularity2001 8y ago

> The only way to make actions against climate change a reality is to make it profitable. The other way would be 'international politics'. I know it has run out of fashion, but maybe in 10 years we can re-instantiate democracy.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
The problem is, if you go the political (whether national or international) instead of what 'ux-app proposes, you'll be fighting an uphill battle against people who do make money off the status quo, and who stand to lose it if you get things your way.

lordlimecat 8y ago

>We need to accept this reality instead of shaking our heads at one another in faux reproach (probably over dinner, made from 20 ingredients shipped from all across the globe). FWIW, the carbon footprint of shipping produce from e.g. Chile is so low that you would create a bigger impact by driving an extra mile to get farm-fresh produce. Whatever the solution is, "eating local" isn't it: it literally makes things worse.