4 ms·

I think constructs of our society, and short-term political leadership in particular, is a bigger problem than the human brain. Politicians can and do make pled

I think constructs of our society, and short-term political leadership in particular, is a bigger problem than the human brain. Politicians can and do make pledges on being committed to "the green shift" while actually choosing easy "greenwashing" solutions that they publicise heavily. Meanwhile most of the can gets kicked down the road. And the term for a politician, even if it's 8 years, is so short that no single politician gets the blame in 50 years' time.

tux1968 8y ago
That's all true, but doesn't really come to terms with why we as individuals don't spontaneously leap into unified mass action. We keep our cars, our flights, our meat and our general over consumption. Even the tendency to defer to authority and expect our government to deal with the problem undermines potential solutions. It seems to be truly an innate human failing... at least so far. This kind of problem just doesn't trigger an existential threat response where we throw everything we have at it.
- Joe-Z 8y ago
  >This kind of problem just doesn't trigger an existential threat response where we throw everything we have at it. You're right, I think it's because the consequences are too abstract / too far in the future. I still think it's fair to expect governments to take the lead on this though. Of course, on an individual basis, people can choose to reduce their consumption. But we are social animals and seeing everyone else around you indulging in pleasures while you 'take the high road' just won't work on a societal level. Governments used to have this kind of authority / determination. What comes to mind is banning lead from gasoline (something which was also met with considerable opposition from industry). EDIT: Of course having lead in your gasoline won't give anyone much pleasure. We are dealing with a lot harder problem here. Still, many people are yearning for a change in the right direction. It just takes leaders with courage and determination (and a buttload of money presumably).
  - tux1968 8y ago
    > But we are social animals and seeing everyone else around you indulging in pleasures while you 'take the high road' just won't work on a societal level. For sure. But it's just humans running the government too, with the same short sighted and social biases as the rest of us. Expecting them to overcome our shared human nature might be wishful thinking.
  - rapnie 8y ago
    > Governments used to have this kind of authority / determination. I think the root cause of our climate change problems (and environmental destruction in general) goes deeper, and though it could be addressed by governments taking firm action, this will not happen: I think our economic systems are failing us, and are the real root cause. And this is a problem that is still not recognized fully, or actively denied. And it is a problem that governments and politicians are increasingly less able to address, as their power wanes in favour of corporate interests. For that last point this Guardian article 'The demise of the Nation State' is a revealing and interesting (though disturbing) read: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-n...
    - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
      > I think our economic systems are failing us, and are the real root cause. I think so too. Just look at carbon capture and storage (CCS). It's proven and mature technology at this point, it's been done at industrial scale and for up to a decade (in the North Sea). The total operating cost is approx. $80/ton and falling for a coal powerplant, meaning that the level of CCS that's projected for the 1.5 degree scenario in 2060 (10 gigatonnes CO2 captured per year) will cost less than $0.8 trillion annually worldwide with today's technology. For comparison, the global electricity market alone, which would be using around half of that CCS capacity, was $3.1 trillion in 2015. This means you could fund all the CCS we need for less than a 13% increase in electricity prices.
      - rapnie 8y ago
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > but doesn't really come to terms with why we as individuals don't spontaneously leap into unified mass action Because human beings don't do that. Period. Coordinating people is a hard problem. Probably the hardest problem of humanity, solving which would solve everything else in time - from war and crime to sickness and death (imagine all our best and brightest focused on R&D instead of chasing grants, citations and lucrative jobs). Coordination problems are a superset of the tragedy of the commons, the prisoner's dilemma, and other such game-theoretic concepts. They happen when there's a huge gain for everyone that, to be realized, requires everyone to make a small personal sacrifice or take some risk, but the system is set up so that people do not make those sacrifices, do not take those risks. In the tragedy of commons, the first person to defect wins big, so you're the loser for even starting to voluntarily limit your share. In prisoner's dilemma, if you cooperate but the other party doesn't, you lose big. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ is a great discussion of those problems.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

tux1968 8y ago

That's all true, but doesn't really come to terms with why we as individuals don't spontaneously leap into unified mass action. We keep our cars, our flights, our meat and our general over consumption. Even the tendency to defer to authority and expect our government to deal with the problem undermines potential solutions. It seems to be truly an innate human failing... at least so far. This kind of problem just doesn't trigger an existential threat response where we throw everything we have at it.

Joe-Z 8y ago
>This kind of problem just doesn't trigger an existential threat response where we throw everything we have at it. You're right, I think it's because the consequences are too abstract / too far in the future. I still think it's fair to expect governments to take the lead on this though. Of course, on an individual basis, people can choose to reduce their consumption. But we are social animals and seeing everyone else around you indulging in pleasures while you 'take the high road' just won't work on a societal level. Governments used to have this kind of authority / determination. What comes to mind is banning lead from gasoline (something which was also met with considerable opposition from industry). EDIT: Of course having lead in your gasoline won't give anyone much pleasure. We are dealing with a lot harder problem here. Still, many people are yearning for a change in the right direction. It just takes leaders with courage and determination (and a buttload of money presumably).
- tux1968 8y ago
  > But we are social animals and seeing everyone else around you indulging in pleasures while you 'take the high road' just won't work on a societal level. For sure. But it's just humans running the government too, with the same short sighted and social biases as the rest of us. Expecting them to overcome our shared human nature might be wishful thinking.
- rapnie 8y ago
  > Governments used to have this kind of authority / determination. I think the root cause of our climate change problems (and environmental destruction in general) goes deeper, and though it could be addressed by governments taking firm action, this will not happen: I think our economic systems are failing us, and are the real root cause. And this is a problem that is still not recognized fully, or actively denied. And it is a problem that governments and politicians are increasingly less able to address, as their power wanes in favour of corporate interests. For that last point this Guardian article 'The demise of the Nation State' is a revealing and interesting (though disturbing) read: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-n...
  - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
    > I think our economic systems are failing us, and are the real root cause. I think so too. Just look at carbon capture and storage (CCS). It's proven and mature technology at this point, it's been done at industrial scale and for up to a decade (in the North Sea). The total operating cost is approx. $80/ton and falling for a coal powerplant, meaning that the level of CCS that's projected for the 1.5 degree scenario in 2060 (10 gigatonnes CO2 captured per year) will cost less than $0.8 trillion annually worldwide with today's technology. For comparison, the global electricity market alone, which would be using around half of that CCS capacity, was $3.1 trillion in 2015. This means you could fund all the CCS we need for less than a 13% increase in electricity prices.
    - rapnie 8y ago
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> but doesn't really come to terms with why we as individuals don't spontaneously leap into unified mass action Because human beings don't do that. Period. Coordinating people is a hard problem. Probably the hardest problem of humanity, solving which would solve everything else in time - from war and crime to sickness and death (imagine all our best and brightest focused on R&D instead of chasing grants, citations and lucrative jobs). Coordination problems are a superset of the tragedy of the commons, the prisoner's dilemma, and other such game-theoretic concepts. They happen when there's a huge gain for everyone that, to be realized, requires everyone to make a small personal sacrifice or take some risk, but the system is set up so that people do not make those sacrifices, do not take those risks. In the tragedy of commons, the first person to defect wins big, so you're the loser for even starting to voluntarily limit your share. In prisoner's dilemma, if you cooperate but the other party doesn't, you lose big. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ is a great discussion of those problems.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]