7 ms·

Why Is Hollywood So Scared of Climate Change?

30 points by adrian_mrd 7y ago

crimsonalucard 7y ago
Hollywood isn't scared of climate change. They are good at understanding what we're scared of and making entertainment out of it. What you see in Hollywood is nothing but a reflection of our own fears. Also note that Thanos cutting the population in half isn't going to solve environmental problems. Humans reproduce at an exponential rate so cutting the population in half is ultimately futile.
- avip 7y ago
  Most of the developed world is already reproducing below replacement rate.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    Most of the world is not the developed world (population-wise), and is reproducing well above replacement rate. So, what's your point?
    - avip 7y ago
      Most of the world is already on sub-replacement. The only worth mentioning exception is Africa.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        I really don't know where you're getting your information. Geographically, most of the world's nations still have a positive population growth rate, including some developed nations such as the US[1]. India may have a lower proportional growth rate than some African nations, but since its population is already very large, it contributes more to the overall world population growth than any country[2]--surely this is "worth mentioning"? [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-rates https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-rates [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Growth_regions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
        avip 7y ago
        As always, I rely on OWID https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-UN?tab=chart&time=1950..2015&country=OWID_WRL+IND+USA+Africa https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-UN?tab... Go to interactive mode. India and USA are already on sub-replacement. China is way under. Africa is the main reason world’s population is still growing.
        kerkeslager 7y ago
        Did you even read my post? OWID was one of the links I cited. I'm not sure how to go to interactive mode, but the chart you linked does not say that India and the USA are on sub-replacement. That's a graph of TFR, not population change, and it shows 2.35 children being born per woman in India as of 2015, so by itself the chart proves that India is increasing the world population. The rates are 1.87 for the US, which is sub-replacement, but the US also has increasing population due to immigration. Obviously that isn't a change to the world's population, but if you're counting immigration out of other countries in population change, you have to count immigration into the US. To quote Wikipedia: > From 2017 to 2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Uganda, and Indonesia, listed according to the expected size of their contribution to that projected population growth. 5 out of 9 of those countries are in Africa, but note that India is #1. Note that if you look into where they are getting their data, both OWID and Wikipedia are citing the UN DESA. Also note that a decline in population growth rate is not the same as a decline in population. Growth rates have been in decline worldwide since the 1950s, but are still positive, meaning population in those countries is still growing.
        avip 7y ago
        India's TFR is reported 2.2-2.3 for 2018. That is, for a developing country with high child mortality, the replacement rate.
        kerkeslager 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- leftyted 7y ago
  > Hollywood isn't scared of climate change. They are good at understanding what we're scared of and making entertainment out of it. I don't think it's fear. People fantasize about the collapse of civilization. It doesn't matter whether it's due to zombies, meteors, or manmade ecological disaster. I think there's something in the modern human psyche that longs for simpler times where success is measured by survival and all of the barriers we've built between ourselves and our biological needs vanish. That might not be a smart fantasy but I think it's present in most of us.
criddell 7y ago
> “The past 25 years of the environmental narrative is about sacrifice and doom and not doing what you want and not getting what you want,” said Aaron Matthews, head of industry sustainability at BAFTA. “We don’t think that’s the right tone to get people over the line.” It's not Hollywood's job to get people over the line. BAFTA could always create an incentive to make the kind of film they want to see. Maybe an award for best film featuring environmental issues.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
zajd 7y ago
It's easier to imagine a world where we fail and the world turns into an uninhabitable hellscape than it is to imagine a world where we succeed and live in harmony with the Earth's natural limits
colechristensen 7y ago
What I'm getting tired of is Hollywood films, documentaries, awards, etc. preaching to me. Specifically nature documentaries, when I watch recent productions I get the feeling that they aren't trying to show the results of studying nature, to educate about this or that: I get the feeling that they are packaged environmentalist manifestos (look at all these cute little animals that are going to die because you don't recycle) either made to shame/enlighten people who don't do the right thing or to boost the egos of people who do good. It bothers me because it so often feels shoehorned in and off topic. I wouldn't mind at all if it were the topic, but injecting it into every topic is the problem. Using art as a tool is complicated. When overdone it is unambiguously wrong, when done correctly it can be a powerful good force, and somewhere in the middle is a wide grey area which is difficult to navigate.
- busterarm 7y ago
  It's all about ego-stroking. Don't forget that we just switched all our plastic straws to paper straws that are 1) less recyclable than plastic (or straight-up non-recyclable), 2) cost more in energy and carbon to produce, 3) cost more, and 4) are less effective. All because some 9 year old conducted a survey...
  - genericone 7y ago
    less effective: functionally miserable after 15 minutes, unusable after 30...
    - busterarm 7y ago
      More like "functionally miserable after 3, unusable after 5".
  - TehCorwiz 7y ago
    They’re not recyclable because they biodegrade instead.
    - busterarm 7y ago
hashberry 7y ago
Why is the working class responsible for fighting climate change? Why must Hollywood "challenge audiences to change their ways"? Especially when China is building 300-500 new coal plants?[0][1] Actually, as individual consumers, the best way one can lower one's carbon footprint is to not spend money. Don't buy the brand new cars product placed in films. Don't drive to the theater, wait until the movie can be streamed. And don't buy candy or soda or beer in theaters. Use as little resources as possible. [0] https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/ https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-p... [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placin...
- triceratops 7y ago
  > Especially when China is building 300-500 new coal plants? China is also building a ton of renewable energy. They're building a ton of everything and "India and China are doing X" isn't a reason for others to do nothing. > Actually, as individual consumers, the best way one can lower one's carbon footprint is to not spend money. I can't upvote this enough. This is the best way for individual consumers to make a difference.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    > This is the best way for individual consumers to make a difference. Disagree strongly. Individuals cannot solve this on their own, it can only be solved at the national and international level. This means voting and ensuring that politicians know that your vote rides on their action: letter writing, protests, et cetera. And of course politicians won't do anything until such intentions are widespread, so this means grass-roots movements.
    - triceratops 7y ago
      I'm not advocating selective boycotts of things or companies that are bad actors - those are not effective. I'm also not saying it's the best way for individual citizens to make a difference. Obviously laws are better because of the tragedy of the commons/prisoner's dilemma nature of the problem. Whoever pollutes will outcompete whoever does not because (currently) it's cheaper to pollute than to not. I was saying that the best way to make a difference as a consumer is to be less of a consumer. Most people in developed countries buy way too much shit. Changing that is a win for the individual (more money in your pocket) and the environment. And doing this does not preclude pressuring your elected representatives for broader change.

30 points by adrian_mrd 7y ago

Hollywood isn't scared of climate change. They are good at understanding what we're scared of and making entertainment out of it. What you see in Hollywood is nothing but a reflection of our own fears. Also note that Thanos cutting the population in half isn't going to solve environmental problems. Humans reproduce at an exponential rate so cutting the population in half is ultimately futile.

avip 7y ago
Most of the developed world is already reproducing below replacement rate.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Most of the world is not the developed world (population-wise), and is reproducing well above replacement rate. So, what's your point?
  - avip 7y ago
    Most of the world is already on sub-replacement. The only worth mentioning exception is Africa.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      I really don't know where you're getting your information. Geographically, most of the world's nations still have a positive population growth rate, including some developed nations such as the US[1]. India may have a lower proportional growth rate than some African nations, but since its population is already very large, it contributes more to the overall world population growth than any country[2]--surely this is "worth mentioning"? [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-rates https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-rates [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Growth_regions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
      - avip 7y ago
        As always, I rely on OWID https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-UN?tab=chart&time=1950..2015&country=OWID_WRL+IND+USA+Africa https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-UN?tab... Go to interactive mode. India and USA are already on sub-replacement. China is way under. Africa is the main reason world’s population is still growing.
        kerkeslager 7y ago
        Did you even read my post? OWID was one of the links I cited. I'm not sure how to go to interactive mode, but the chart you linked does not say that India and the USA are on sub-replacement. That's a graph of TFR, not population change, and it shows 2.35 children being born per woman in India as of 2015, so by itself the chart proves that India is increasing the world population. The rates are 1.87 for the US, which is sub-replacement, but the US also has increasing population due to immigration. Obviously that isn't a change to the world's population, but if you're counting immigration out of other countries in population change, you have to count immigration into the US. To quote Wikipedia: > From 2017 to 2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Uganda, and Indonesia, listed according to the expected size of their contribution to that projected population growth. 5 out of 9 of those countries are in Africa, but note that India is #1. Note that if you look into where they are getting their data, both OWID and Wikipedia are citing the UN DESA. Also note that a decline in population growth rate is not the same as a decline in population. Growth rates have been in decline worldwide since the 1950s, but are still positive, meaning population in those countries is still growing.
        avip 7y ago
        India's TFR is reported 2.2-2.3 for 2018. That is, for a developing country with high child mortality, the replacement rate.
        kerkeslager 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
leftyted 7y ago
> Hollywood isn't scared of climate change. They are good at understanding what we're scared of and making entertainment out of it. I don't think it's fear. People fantasize about the collapse of civilization. It doesn't matter whether it's due to zombies, meteors, or manmade ecological disaster. I think there's something in the modern human psyche that longs for simpler times where success is measured by survival and all of the barriers we've built between ourselves and our biological needs vanish. That might not be a smart fantasy but I think it's present in most of us.

criddell 7y ago

> “The past 25 years of the environmental narrative is about sacrifice and doom and not doing what you want and not getting what you want,” said Aaron Matthews, head of industry sustainability at BAFTA. “We don’t think that’s the right tone to get people over the line.” It's not Hollywood's job to get people over the line. BAFTA could always create an incentive to make the kind of film they want to see. Maybe an award for best film featuring environmental issues.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

zajd 7y ago

It's easier to imagine a world where we fail and the world turns into an uninhabitable hellscape than it is to imagine a world where we succeed and live in harmony with the Earth's natural limits

colechristensen 7y ago

What I'm getting tired of is Hollywood films, documentaries, awards, etc. preaching to me. Specifically nature documentaries, when I watch recent productions I get the feeling that they aren't trying to show the results of studying nature, to educate about this or that: I get the feeling that they are packaged environmentalist manifestos (look at all these cute little animals that are going to die because you don't recycle) either made to shame/enlighten people who don't do the right thing or to boost the egos of people who do good. It bothers me because it so often feels shoehorned in and off topic. I wouldn't mind at all if it were the topic, but injecting it into every topic is the problem. Using art as a tool is complicated. When overdone it is unambiguously wrong, when done correctly it can be a powerful good force, and somewhere in the middle is a wide grey area which is difficult to navigate.

busterarm 7y ago
It's all about ego-stroking. Don't forget that we just switched all our plastic straws to paper straws that are 1) less recyclable than plastic (or straight-up non-recyclable), 2) cost more in energy and carbon to produce, 3) cost more, and 4) are less effective. All because some 9 year old conducted a survey...
- genericone 7y ago
  less effective: functionally miserable after 15 minutes, unusable after 30...
  - busterarm 7y ago
    More like "functionally miserable after 3, unusable after 5".
- TehCorwiz 7y ago
  They’re not recyclable because they biodegrade instead.
  - busterarm 7y ago

hashberry 7y ago

Why is the working class responsible for fighting climate change? Why must Hollywood "challenge audiences to change their ways"? Especially when China is building 300-500 new coal plants?[0][1] Actually, as individual consumers, the best way one can lower one's carbon footprint is to not spend money. Don't buy the brand new cars product placed in films. Don't drive to the theater, wait until the movie can be streamed. And don't buy candy or soda or beer in theaters. Use as little resources as possible. [0] https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/ https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-p... [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placin...

triceratops 7y ago
> Especially when China is building 300-500 new coal plants? China is also building a ton of renewable energy. They're building a ton of everything and "India and China are doing X" isn't a reason for others to do nothing. > Actually, as individual consumers, the best way one can lower one's carbon footprint is to not spend money. I can't upvote this enough. This is the best way for individual consumers to make a difference.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  > This is the best way for individual consumers to make a difference. Disagree strongly. Individuals cannot solve this on their own, it can only be solved at the national and international level. This means voting and ensuring that politicians know that your vote rides on their action: letter writing, protests, et cetera. And of course politicians won't do anything until such intentions are widespread, so this means grass-roots movements.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    I'm not advocating selective boycotts of things or companies that are bad actors - those are not effective. I'm also not saying it's the best way for individual citizens to make a difference. Obviously laws are better because of the tragedy of the commons/prisoner's dilemma nature of the problem. Whoever pollutes will outcompete whoever does not because (currently) it's cheaper to pollute than to not. I was saying that the best way to make a difference as a consumer is to be less of a consumer. Most people in developed countries buy way too much shit. Changing that is a win for the individual (more money in your pocket) and the environment. And doing this does not preclude pressuring your elected representatives for broader change.