5 ms·

>"Any proposed solution that relies on mass lifestyle overhauls is a non-starter" Too bad, because that is what we actually must do, in order to halt this disa

>"Any proposed solution that relies on mass lifestyle overhauls is a non-starter" Too bad, because that is what we actually must do, in order to halt this disaster. The scale of our problems cannot be overstated, humanity is genuinely capital-F Fucked, unless we make drastic changes. We can't just coast along and hope for the best anymore. With the scale of what we're facing, we need big changes like moving to collective living rather than single-family housing, and scaling down our consumption drastically. We need to start sharing everything on a massive scale, instead of insisting on everyone having their own personal collection of junk that just sits unused 99% of the time. We need to stop shipping junk literally around the world for profit margins. We need to stop buying so much stuff to fill the emptiness in our lives. We need to cool off the incessant bull-headed drive for every bigger profits, ever more growth. We need to either put the brakes on capitalism itself, or kill it entirely. All of this is of course heresy of the worst kind to capitalists and other profiteers. And since these people sit on the majority of capital and basically own our politicians outright, it's one hell of an uphill battle. They would literally rather doom humanity than take the necessary steps to save us. You can write me off as a doomsayer or idealist, but simply put, the odds are that if humanity still exists by 2100, it will look massively different from today's societies, because we took the necessary steps to save ourselves.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
This right here, aside from being wrong, is why a majority of the worlds population are completely disengaged with environmentalists values. You’re promoting a completely impractical solution as if it were the only one available, when it’s absolutely not, and your demonizing the very people you’re (presumably) hoping to reach. Telling people that they’re to blame, and that if they don’t change everything about their life then they’re going to die is a message you’re never going to be able to sell to people. I couldn’t even imagine a better method of getting people to disengage than that, you’re doing a far better job than any oil company PR department could even dream of. In addition to that you’re also demanding that the rug be pulled from beneath the entire global economy? None of that is required, and if you can’t see how dangerous this message is, then there’s nothing I could say that would help you.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  The rug does need to be pulled out from under capitalism. Our relentless march for ever greater profits and "productivity" is what's dooming our society. Until we put the future of humanity, of life and of the environment above profit and everything else, we are doomed. While we do need to act as individuals and we will have to accept important and significant lifestyle change, the greatest changes will have to made in industry and shipping. We need to stop the massive exploitation of the environment by industry and big business. Your reaction is perfectly normal, it's hard to accept that we're standing face to face with our doom. Your approach appeals to a more "sensible, step-wise and piecemeal approach", one that won't inconvenience people too much. How would you suggest that approach would work? Gradual reduction, slow adoption of more sensible policies over the next century or so? What is your proposed solution, that will actually be effective enough to make the required change? If we stick with our current systems, at the very least we need politicians who realize that the environment is our #1 priority, above anything else, and are competent enough to sell that message to the public. And to convince people that massively reduced consumption at all levels is the way forward.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    You appear to have a problem with capitalism, consumerism, and carbon emissions, as if they were all one inseparable package. Which is intellectually nonsense. The worlds largest pollutor is communist China. There is no system of economics that is either more or less friendly to the environment. All systems of economics revolve around production and consumption. Aside from all the FUD and illogical nonsense that people like you spread, the core problem you have is extremism. You can’t accept a workable solution, because anything less than your view of a perfect solution is impossible in your eyes. It doesn’t matter how viable nuclear and hydro could be, and how beneficial they could be overall, because they are less than perfect, they are unacceptable.
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      Yes, I do have a problem with capitalism and consumerism, because they are at the root of our increasing mistreatment of the world we live in. The entire focus on economics as the only way to run the world is crazy. Money and economics are nothing but abstract concepts invented by humans, they're not some sort of natural universal truth. We cannot consume nor bargain ourselves out of this problem, the solution will not be market-based. We need an entirely different paradigm, to use a hackneyed term. One that revolves around cooperation, rather than competition. China has been "communist" in name only for decades, and you will note that their emissions increased sharply when they started adopted western capitalist ideas and let the market economy take over. Partylr because we started exporting our dirtiest industries to them. Have you read the IPCC report? You really should, it's a rather sobering read. It gives us 12 years to reverse our doomed course. 12 years. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/09/ipcc-6-climate-change-report-we-only-have-12-years-to-fix-this/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/09/ipcc-6-climate-change-r... And then consider that the IPCC is even considered optimistic by some environmentalists, ostensibly written that way to not rock the boat too much and cause panic. I am not joking. It is that serious. So we can either act and try to change the world, or we can go about our business as usual and cause our own extinction. In other words, the planet isn't dying, it's being killed. But please, explain which solution you think could solve or at least halt the problem within 12 years? I think you should save this little exchange, and revisit it in 10 or 20 years, and consider what we could have done, but didn't do, because it was "too extreme".

AmericanChopper 8y ago

This right here, aside from being wrong, is why a majority of the worlds population are completely disengaged with environmentalists values. You’re promoting a completely impractical solution as if it were the only one available, when it’s absolutely not, and your demonizing the very people you’re (presumably) hoping to reach. Telling people that they’re to blame, and that if they don’t change everything about their life then they’re going to die is a message you’re never going to be able to sell to people. I couldn’t even imagine a better method of getting people to disengage than that, you’re doing a far better job than any oil company PR department could even dream of. In addition to that you’re also demanding that the rug be pulled from beneath the entire global economy? None of that is required, and if you can’t see how dangerous this message is, then there’s nothing I could say that would help you.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
The rug does need to be pulled out from under capitalism. Our relentless march for ever greater profits and "productivity" is what's dooming our society. Until we put the future of humanity, of life and of the environment above profit and everything else, we are doomed. While we do need to act as individuals and we will have to accept important and significant lifestyle change, the greatest changes will have to made in industry and shipping. We need to stop the massive exploitation of the environment by industry and big business. Your reaction is perfectly normal, it's hard to accept that we're standing face to face with our doom. Your approach appeals to a more "sensible, step-wise and piecemeal approach", one that won't inconvenience people too much. How would you suggest that approach would work? Gradual reduction, slow adoption of more sensible policies over the next century or so? What is your proposed solution, that will actually be effective enough to make the required change? If we stick with our current systems, at the very least we need politicians who realize that the environment is our #1 priority, above anything else, and are competent enough to sell that message to the public. And to convince people that massively reduced consumption at all levels is the way forward.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  You appear to have a problem with capitalism, consumerism, and carbon emissions, as if they were all one inseparable package. Which is intellectually nonsense. The worlds largest pollutor is communist China. There is no system of economics that is either more or less friendly to the environment. All systems of economics revolve around production and consumption. Aside from all the FUD and illogical nonsense that people like you spread, the core problem you have is extremism. You can’t accept a workable solution, because anything less than your view of a perfect solution is impossible in your eyes. It doesn’t matter how viable nuclear and hydro could be, and how beneficial they could be overall, because they are less than perfect, they are unacceptable.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    Yes, I do have a problem with capitalism and consumerism, because they are at the root of our increasing mistreatment of the world we live in. The entire focus on economics as the only way to run the world is crazy. Money and economics are nothing but abstract concepts invented by humans, they're not some sort of natural universal truth. We cannot consume nor bargain ourselves out of this problem, the solution will not be market-based. We need an entirely different paradigm, to use a hackneyed term. One that revolves around cooperation, rather than competition. China has been "communist" in name only for decades, and you will note that their emissions increased sharply when they started adopted western capitalist ideas and let the market economy take over. Partylr because we started exporting our dirtiest industries to them. Have you read the IPCC report? You really should, it's a rather sobering read. It gives us 12 years to reverse our doomed course. 12 years. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/09/ipcc-6-climate-change-report-we-only-have-12-years-to-fix-this/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/09/ipcc-6-climate-change-r... And then consider that the IPCC is even considered optimistic by some environmentalists, ostensibly written that way to not rock the boat too much and cause panic. I am not joking. It is that serious. So we can either act and try to change the world, or we can go about our business as usual and cause our own extinction. In other words, the planet isn't dying, it's being killed. But please, explain which solution you think could solve or at least halt the problem within 12 years? I think you should save this little exchange, and revisit it in 10 or 20 years, and consider what we could have done, but didn't do, because it was "too extreme".