12 ms·

Governments are the only people who can enact laws to move large numbers of people as a group to act.

by noja 7y ago

andrewstuart 7y ago
Well that certainty is what I am challenging. And your response is precisely the problem - people think only government can solve this. But government has not, will not and cannot solve it. We need to move beyond government as the solution. The first step in that is to loosen up your certainty that only via government can anything large scale happen.
- thomasmeeks 7y ago
  Merely stating something does not make it so. Would you like to give some reasoning for your stance?
- majormajor 7y ago
  > The first step in that is to loosen up your certainty that only via government can anything large scale happen. If you want to do that, you're gonna need to present some plausible alternatives... otherwise you're not truly "challenging" anything so much as saying "this is a belief you have that I will not provide any evidence to counter but merely point out."
  - andrewstuart 7y ago
    I don't agree that I need to come up with anything beyond raising the idea that we should stop thinking that government can/will solve this. Once many people come to accept the truth of this, many minds will think in directions other than obsessing about government and what it is not doing. People tend to disagree very strongly with new ideas. You can see that right here - this thread is voted to the bottom of the HN topic. That's OK. It's an idea that once planted cannot be unthought - the government is not the solution. Let's start thinking of how we can solve this without any dependence on government.
    - loup-vaillant 7y ago
      > I don't agree that I need to come up with anything beyond raising the idea that we should stop thinking that government can/will solve this. Oh yes you do. Certainly you think we can have an alternative to government for a reason? Care to share that with us? Besides, government or no, the only way to fix the problem is through collective action. Not destroying our environment needs to be a social norm. Whatever is required to stop the current train wreck needs to become mainstream. Otherwise, we'll just continue our merry way until our civilization collapses in a couple decades. Worst case, I'll be alive to see it. So. Besides begging our governments to do something, what do you propose? Overthrow them? Obsolete them? Ignore them? How? What would we need to succeed? We can vote with our wallets (or feet) all we want, if we don't get over 80% of the population onboard, it just won't work.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > > I don't agree that I need to come up with anything beyond raising the idea that we should stop thinking that government can/will solve this. > Oh yes you do. Certainly you think we can have an alternative to government for a reason? Care to share that with us? He did. You didn't listen. He said that we need something beside the government, because the government isn't actually going to do anything (or at least not anything like enough). So if you're going to argue with his position, I would ask you what evidence you see that the government will ever do anything close to enough to solve global warming? Because, as I look at the current situation, and the last 10 years, I'm with andrewstuart: government isn't going to get it done. That plan shows almost zero evidence that it will ever work. Now, look, you should keep trying to get government to do what you think needs done. But don't put all your eggs in that basket, because it looks like it's a pretty lousy basket.
        loup-vaillant 7y ago
        > He did. You didn't listen. He said that we need something beside the government I'm asking what. By what should governments be replaced? How? What should we do?
- adrianN 7y ago
  What's your plan if, like in Germany, the government passes laws that make building new wind turbines nearly impossible? Violent revolution?
- summerdown2 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you're implying. You seem to be missing out the bit describing which non-governmental actor can fix this. The first issue is that everyone else thinks only government can solve this. If you say governments can't, but have no other solution, you're essentially saying "no-one can do this." Which, while depressing, isn't going to achieve much. The second issue is that, clearly, governments could actually fix this. They most likely aren't going to. But the capital and human investments needed aren't impossible. It's not like a neolithic tribe building a computer for example. Resolving global warming is actually possible with our current resources and technology.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    > Resolving global warming is actually possible with our current resources and technology. Really? We'd all love to see a plan. Or by "resolving" did you mean "holding it to only a 2 degree rise"? > They most likely aren't going to. Yeah... I think that's kind of andrewstuart's point. They aren't going to. So, given that they aren't going to, what's the next move? > You seem to be missing out the bit describing which non-governmental actor can fix this. andrewstuart may not know. I certainly don't. But if the government isn't going to fix it, then the correct move is to stop expecting that the government is going to fix it. I don't know what else to do, you don't, and andrewstuart doesn't. But maybe we ought to start thinking like we've got to figure out how to solve it, because the government isn't going to.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Build enough renewables to replace all fossil fuels and then some, use any extra energy to suck carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it. Plant trees and turn them into charcoal. If you're very fancy you can do some more risky geoengineering.
      - loup-vaillant 7y ago
        > Build enough renewables to replace all fossil fuels and then some Might work if you throw lots and lots of nuclear reactors into the mix. It's less dangerous than most people think, and is most likely the most efficient way to amortise the energy shortage induced recession. (Renewables still need massive investment, I'm just saying they likely won't be enough.)
- apocalyptic0n3 7y ago
  You keep saying that government cannot do this. All the replies say that regulation, labeling, bans, and widespread legal action are the only things that can prompt the world at large to act, and those have to be enacted by government by definition. So what is the alternative you are suggesting?

Governments are the only people who can enact laws to move large numbers of people as a group to act.

by noja 7y ago

Governments are the only people who can enact laws to move large numbers of people as a group to act.

Well that certainty is what I am challenging. And your response is precisely the problem - people think only government can solve this. But government has not, will not and cannot solve it. We need to move beyond government as the solution. The first step in that is to loosen up your certainty that only via government can anything large scale happen.

thomasmeeks 7y ago
Merely stating something does not make it so. Would you like to give some reasoning for your stance?
majormajor 7y ago
> The first step in that is to loosen up your certainty that only via government can anything large scale happen. If you want to do that, you're gonna need to present some plausible alternatives... otherwise you're not truly "challenging" anything so much as saying "this is a belief you have that I will not provide any evidence to counter but merely point out."
- andrewstuart 7y ago
  I don't agree that I need to come up with anything beyond raising the idea that we should stop thinking that government can/will solve this. Once many people come to accept the truth of this, many minds will think in directions other than obsessing about government and what it is not doing. People tend to disagree very strongly with new ideas. You can see that right here - this thread is voted to the bottom of the HN topic. That's OK. It's an idea that once planted cannot be unthought - the government is not the solution. Let's start thinking of how we can solve this without any dependence on government.
  - loup-vaillant 7y ago
    > I don't agree that I need to come up with anything beyond raising the idea that we should stop thinking that government can/will solve this. Oh yes you do. Certainly you think we can have an alternative to government for a reason? Care to share that with us? Besides, government or no, the only way to fix the problem is through collective action. Not destroying our environment needs to be a social norm. Whatever is required to stop the current train wreck needs to become mainstream. Otherwise, we'll just continue our merry way until our civilization collapses in a couple decades. Worst case, I'll be alive to see it. So. Besides begging our governments to do something, what do you propose? Overthrow them? Obsolete them? Ignore them? How? What would we need to succeed? We can vote with our wallets (or feet) all we want, if we don't get over 80% of the population onboard, it just won't work.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      > > I don't agree that I need to come up with anything beyond raising the idea that we should stop thinking that government can/will solve this. > Oh yes you do. Certainly you think we can have an alternative to government for a reason? Care to share that with us? He did. You didn't listen. He said that we need something beside the government, because the government isn't actually going to do anything (or at least not anything like enough). So if you're going to argue with his position, I would ask you what evidence you see that the government will ever do anything close to enough to solve global warming? Because, as I look at the current situation, and the last 10 years, I'm with andrewstuart: government isn't going to get it done. That plan shows almost zero evidence that it will ever work. Now, look, you should keep trying to get government to do what you think needs done. But don't put all your eggs in that basket, because it looks like it's a pretty lousy basket.
      - loup-vaillant 7y ago
        > He did. You didn't listen. He said that we need something beside the government I'm asking what. By what should governments be replaced? How? What should we do?
adrianN 7y ago
What's your plan if, like in Germany, the government passes laws that make building new wind turbines nearly impossible? Violent revolution?
summerdown2 7y ago
I'm not sure what you're implying. You seem to be missing out the bit describing which non-governmental actor can fix this. The first issue is that everyone else thinks only government can solve this. If you say governments can't, but have no other solution, you're essentially saying "no-one can do this." Which, while depressing, isn't going to achieve much. The second issue is that, clearly, governments could actually fix this. They most likely aren't going to. But the capital and human investments needed aren't impossible. It's not like a neolithic tribe building a computer for example. Resolving global warming is actually possible with our current resources and technology.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > Resolving global warming is actually possible with our current resources and technology. Really? We'd all love to see a plan. Or by "resolving" did you mean "holding it to only a 2 degree rise"? > They most likely aren't going to. Yeah... I think that's kind of andrewstuart's point. They aren't going to. So, given that they aren't going to, what's the next move? > You seem to be missing out the bit describing which non-governmental actor can fix this. andrewstuart may not know. I certainly don't. But if the government isn't going to fix it, then the correct move is to stop expecting that the government is going to fix it. I don't know what else to do, you don't, and andrewstuart doesn't. But maybe we ought to start thinking like we've got to figure out how to solve it, because the government isn't going to.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Build enough renewables to replace all fossil fuels and then some, use any extra energy to suck carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it. Plant trees and turn them into charcoal. If you're very fancy you can do some more risky geoengineering.
    - loup-vaillant 7y ago
      > Build enough renewables to replace all fossil fuels and then some Might work if you throw lots and lots of nuclear reactors into the mix. It's less dangerous than most people think, and is most likely the most efficient way to amortise the energy shortage induced recession. (Renewables still need massive investment, I'm just saying they likely won't be enough.)
apocalyptic0n3 7y ago
You keep saying that government cannot do this. All the replies say that regulation, labeling, bans, and widespread legal action are the only things that can prompt the world at large to act, and those have to be enacted by government by definition. So what is the alternative you are suggesting?