5 ms·

Any "solution" that does not take into account human nature is not a solution.

by HunOL 7y ago

Johnny555 7y ago
Society already has many conventions and laws that regulate human nature -- why is transportation off limits?
- westiseast 7y ago
  I think that’s the point - simply asking people to fly less and drive less and eat les meat will never ever ever work. We need big carrots and big sticks in order to achieve things like less flying - that means government regulation, huge material incentives for not flying/driving/etc.
  - the_seraphim 7y ago
    somebody should tell the UK government... if they could only fix the trains and drop the prices, we could easily meet our carbon targets
  - lm28469 7y ago
    I'm sure when half of africa and south america will migrate north to avoid dying the carrot will be big enough. But it'll be too little too late.
    - netsharc 7y ago
      If only a politician could get elected by saying "more green stuff, then there'll be less refugees!". The populace would not bother to understand the relationship. Also, yeah, maybe it's too late now. If only one could reload from a savegame and learn from experience next time around. Amazingly now a lot of the "Western world" would prefer those other human beings die rather than suffer a downgrade of their comfortable lives...
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    The incentive model is simple -- just tax carbon sources, the markets will figure out the rest themselves. Of course, it would have been better to phase in the taxes decades ago since some solutions (mass transit, for example) can take a decade or more to build.
ionised 7y ago
Human nature has been changed countless times throughout history.
re-actor 7y ago
What human nature? If the last few centuries have thought us anything is that "human nature" doesn't really mean anything. It's way more arbitrary than people trying to find truths in lobster hierarchies would let you believe.
- scotty79 7y ago
  Communists thought the exactly same thing and see how it turned out. Greed and lazyness are so innate that you could probably trace them back to lobsters.
  - jf22 7y ago
    Being able to overcome greed and laziness is human nature. Lobsters are a slave to their instincts, humans are not.
    - scotty79 7y ago
      Lobsters thing was a joke. And communism was based exactlyu on the idea that people will be able to overcome greed and laziness for common good. They are but just occasionally and briefly.
- graeme 7y ago
  If this were true we couldn't read Machiavelli, Baltasar Gracian, Francis Bacon, Dale Carnegie. Even Shakespeare. Superficial customs have changed. Not how underlying perceptions of interests are governed.
  - re-actor 7y ago
    Our "underlying perceptions" for most things concerned with society are nigh completely incompatible with that of Shakespare and most certainly Machiavelli. Sure we can still understand thinkers of old in a limited capacity, but that's not due to us thinking like them or even experiencing the world like them as our experience is coloured by the concepts we use. We can understand them because of the continuity of society, the constant translation of the old into the new. Capitalism can only exist now because of how much those underlying assumptions have changed.
lm28469 7y ago
I don't think taking the plane to go to cheap generic touristic destinations, driving 2000kg of steel to move 1 human being, eating fruits and veggies shipped from the other side of the world or eating meat 2 times a day, everyday is intrinsically part of the human nature. And if it is let's continue and end it all because it's just plain sad. What a way to go !
netsharc 7y ago
This whole debate is like a doc telling a lung cancer patient who has recently started coughing blood to cut out smoking, but he's saying "but I need to smoke!"...
smolder 7y ago
Based on the expectation that humans can't possibly, at this scale, organize themselves around good ideas like reducing consumption and fossil fuel use, we have no options at all and we're on a trajectory to extinction. If that seems extreme to say, just look at the evidence. Believing some other solution will appear is blind faith bordering on delusion.
- bouncycastle 7y ago
  > we're on a trajectory to extinction Let them carry on. Perhaps our exction will be exactly what saves the planet! Our archeological records will serve only as a warning for whatever "intelligent" life evolves in the future ;-)
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    Not sure why this was voted down, it's true, extinction (or mass population reduction) of humans will go a long way towards letting the planet restore its biodiversity. It seems like a flippant attitude, but it seems to be the way many people are treating climate change (probably because the worst effects won't hit for decades, when many of the people responsible (i.e. voters) will be dead.) We're leaving an unsustainable mess for our children, I'd like to see some action in their lawsuit: https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us Since they are the ones that will be paying the full price of climate change.
- dfilppi 7y ago
  Well we had a good run.
thatcat 7y ago
Your political beliefs and culture are not inherent to human nature. Plenty of historical cultures have lived sustainably.
sfink 7y ago
Let's say someone comes to you and says that if you don't change certain behaviors then they will cook your children. Like, literally cook them to death. And you (maybe not at first, but eventually) believe the threat is real. Then I would say that it is wholly compatible with human nature for you to change your behavior even with no other benefit to yourself, even if you are very attached to that behavior. At the same time, you're right -- the 2 missing pieces are believing the threat is real, and thinking that you can get by if lots of other people change their behavior instead. Which they won't any more than you will, but that leads us back to human nature again.

Any "solution" that does not take into account human nature is not a solution.

by HunOL 7y ago

Any "solution" that does not take into account human nature is not a solution.

Johnny555 7y ago

Society already has many conventions and laws that regulate human nature -- why is transportation off limits?

westiseast 7y ago
I think that’s the point - simply asking people to fly less and drive less and eat les meat will never ever ever work. We need big carrots and big sticks in order to achieve things like less flying - that means government regulation, huge material incentives for not flying/driving/etc.
- the_seraphim 7y ago
  somebody should tell the UK government... if they could only fix the trains and drop the prices, we could easily meet our carbon targets
- lm28469 7y ago
  I'm sure when half of africa and south america will migrate north to avoid dying the carrot will be big enough. But it'll be too little too late.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    If only a politician could get elected by saying "more green stuff, then there'll be less refugees!". The populace would not bother to understand the relationship. Also, yeah, maybe it's too late now. If only one could reload from a savegame and learn from experience next time around. Amazingly now a lot of the "Western world" would prefer those other human beings die rather than suffer a downgrade of their comfortable lives...
- Johnny555 7y ago
  The incentive model is simple -- just tax carbon sources, the markets will figure out the rest themselves. Of course, it would have been better to phase in the taxes decades ago since some solutions (mass transit, for example) can take a decade or more to build.

ionised 7y ago

Human nature has been changed countless times throughout history.

re-actor 7y ago

What human nature? If the last few centuries have thought us anything is that "human nature" doesn't really mean anything. It's way more arbitrary than people trying to find truths in lobster hierarchies would let you believe.

scotty79 7y ago
Communists thought the exactly same thing and see how it turned out. Greed and lazyness are so innate that you could probably trace them back to lobsters.
- jf22 7y ago
  Being able to overcome greed and laziness is human nature. Lobsters are a slave to their instincts, humans are not.
  - scotty79 7y ago
    Lobsters thing was a joke. And communism was based exactlyu on the idea that people will be able to overcome greed and laziness for common good. They are but just occasionally and briefly.
graeme 7y ago
If this were true we couldn't read Machiavelli, Baltasar Gracian, Francis Bacon, Dale Carnegie. Even Shakespeare. Superficial customs have changed. Not how underlying perceptions of interests are governed.
- re-actor 7y ago
  Our "underlying perceptions" for most things concerned with society are nigh completely incompatible with that of Shakespare and most certainly Machiavelli. Sure we can still understand thinkers of old in a limited capacity, but that's not due to us thinking like them or even experiencing the world like them as our experience is coloured by the concepts we use. We can understand them because of the continuity of society, the constant translation of the old into the new. Capitalism can only exist now because of how much those underlying assumptions have changed.

lm28469 7y ago

I don't think taking the plane to go to cheap generic touristic destinations, driving 2000kg of steel to move 1 human being, eating fruits and veggies shipped from the other side of the world or eating meat 2 times a day, everyday is intrinsically part of the human nature. And if it is let's continue and end it all because it's just plain sad. What a way to go !

netsharc 7y ago

This whole debate is like a doc telling a lung cancer patient who has recently started coughing blood to cut out smoking, but he's saying "but I need to smoke!"...

smolder 7y ago

Based on the expectation that humans can't possibly, at this scale, organize themselves around good ideas like reducing consumption and fossil fuel use, we have no options at all and we're on a trajectory to extinction. If that seems extreme to say, just look at the evidence. Believing some other solution will appear is blind faith bordering on delusion.

bouncycastle 7y ago
> we're on a trajectory to extinction Let them carry on. Perhaps our exction will be exactly what saves the planet! Our archeological records will serve only as a warning for whatever "intelligent" life evolves in the future ;-)
- Johnny555 7y ago
  Not sure why this was voted down, it's true, extinction (or mass population reduction) of humans will go a long way towards letting the planet restore its biodiversity. It seems like a flippant attitude, but it seems to be the way many people are treating climate change (probably because the worst effects won't hit for decades, when many of the people responsible (i.e. voters) will be dead.) We're leaving an unsustainable mess for our children, I'd like to see some action in their lawsuit: https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us Since they are the ones that will be paying the full price of climate change.
dfilppi 7y ago
Well we had a good run.

thatcat 7y ago

Your political beliefs and culture are not inherent to human nature. Plenty of historical cultures have lived sustainably.

sfink 7y ago

Let's say someone comes to you and says that if you don't change certain behaviors then they will cook your children. Like, literally cook them to death. And you (maybe not at first, but eventually) believe the threat is real. Then I would say that it is wholly compatible with human nature for you to change your behavior even with no other benefit to yourself, even if you are very attached to that behavior. At the same time, you're right -- the 2 missing pieces are believing the threat is real, and thinking that you can get by if lots of other people change their behavior instead. Which they won't any more than you will, but that leads us back to human nature again.