6 ms·

Agreed. It really touches on the emotional aspects of it, which I think really need to be discussed. When I picture why certain family members have a hard time

Agreed. It really touches on the emotional aspects of it, which I think really need to be discussed. When I picture why certain family members have a hard time accepting the reality of global warming, it certainly comes down to difficulty grappling with emotions, not a hard review of the literature. Recognizing emotions as part of the problem and solution feels like a big step.

RobertRoberts 7y ago
>Recognizing emotions as part of the problem and solution feels like a big step. I think this is actually the worst thing we can do. Science is facts, cold hard facts. If you want to get rid of the science and focus on emotions, then the solutions to the _real_ problem will get distorted.
- danharaj 7y ago
  > Science is facts, cold hard facts. How do you figure?
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    How I "feel" about a scientific result is irrelevant to the result. (ie, if I am mad or happy, it doesn't _affect_ the result) Therefore feelings are irrelevant to both the scientific process and the results found from using it.
    - arrrg 7y ago
      That’s correct, but science also won’t solve this. This is a political/social issue that has to be approached this way. The science should inform our decisions but in order to reach that goal one might have to do more than insist that the science is correct and doesn’t care about your emotions.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Is there a non-science based solution for fixing the climate? Those that argue against science tend to argue that myths are real. Like the existence of aliens, crystals have magic powers, aligning of chakras, etc... Edit: An example of science fixing pollution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20774621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20774621
    - n4r9 7y ago
      Right, but they're very relevant to the process of convincing people to accept those results, which is potentially a big part of the solution.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        This seems to be the mantra, justify manipulation of people through emotions to push through a solution. The problem with this is that who decides what solution? If the motive for the solution is emotions, then any solution that "feels good" or "appears to solve" the problem will suffice.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        n4r9 7y ago
        > If the motive for the solution is emotions This is a stark misrepresentation of my point. Persuading people to accept climate change is (or at least may well be) part of the solution. Persuasion involves an emotional aspect for the majority of people. On a broader note, motives unavoidably involve emotion, or at least a value judgement. Scientific results never inform what ought to be done. Science does not provide values. It's a tool that helps us to achieve valued outcomes.
    - danharaj 7y ago
      It does not follow, for either result or the process. For example, whether or not a scientist or you feels like a result is relevant or interesting is crucial to the scientific process. Have you ever met a scientist in their element? They are passionate, mercurial creatures who will bitterly feud as well as sing the highest praise about their work. This seems to be integral to the process. Curiosity is a feeling, too. I think you're idealizing science and I don't even think your ideal is a particularly useful aspiration for scientific activity.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Science is simple, if something works, you can prove it. I am not idealizing anything, it's an indisputable fact that repeatable scientific results are repeatable by anyone. There are real solutions to climate change, they can be implemented today, right now. And the followers in society have nothing to do with it, it's the leader responsibility to implement. “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” ― Carl Sandburg
    - Brain_Thief 7y ago
      In your fervor to dismiss the human experience it appears that you have played a bit loose with the logical formation of your argument and thereby missed an important point. Your premise is that the veracity of previously-achieved scientific results holds independent of human opinion or emotion. You then use this basis to conclude that "...feelings are irrelevant to both the scientific process and the results found from using it." But here you are 1) confusing the product of the scientific process (a distinctly human endeavor with obvious limitations) with the actual nature of reality that said process is attempting to probe, and 2) conflating the achieved results of the process with the process itself. In fact, nearly every novel scientific result achieved is the product of a human mind's creative efforts (and sometimes fortunate accidents). The enthusiasm, open-mindedness, and feelings of a scientist absolutely impact his or her line of thought and level of creativity and therefore directly influence the set of scientific results that are generated by the scientific process. Our ability to probe reality is correlated with our ability to imagine and intuit relationships (and to construct experiments that may illuminate them); our imagination and intuition are correlated with our current and past emotional states. Ergo, human feelings directly impact the output of the scientific process and our understanding of the natural laws underpinning reality. You may consider the case of pure mathematics, where intensely creative and open-minded individuals manipulate exotic structures atop towering ladders of abstraction; such exploration is the source of much of our most powerful technology and insights into reality. If you listen to explanations of the working methods employed by mathematicians many of them will claim that among the tools they rely upon most heavily are intuition and "feeling". Once you move beyond the unfortunate anti-human perspective of what I'll half-jokingly call "extreme scientific materialism" and accept the fundamental role of the human experience in the unfolding of the cosmos you might come to see that a mind bent on pure rationality (to the exclusion of all else) is like a beautiful, fueled-up airplane idling on the runway with no pilot in it.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        I won't pretend feelings don't exist, science can't even measure them. I am simply arguing that we need a real solution, and how we feel about that solution doesn't change whether it will work or not. A non-functioning solution that feels good won't fix the climate. Arguing that feelings are relevant isn't a fix. The great leaders down through history did not rely on making people feel good, they did the opposite. They inspired people to take on real difficulties. To face _not_ feeling good. That is the problem right now, hypocritical leadership has no ability to inspire or motivate and will not make any changes to the climate.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  I don't want to sound harsh, but you're wrong because you're missing the point, and badly. The author talks about cancer diagnoses. This is an apt analogy, and there is a huge body of science for helping individuals cope with personal tragedy. Global warming is a global and personal tragedy. People will have their livelihoods ruined, and people will die. People already have, but (since this is a anglophile community) this forum is mostly insulated from developments in North Africa, the Middle East, Central America... how it impacts us is in the nationalistic/xenophobic movements around the resulting human migrations. Acknowledging this will prevent conflict and harm those that cynically try to take advantage of groups of people in vulnerable states through demagoguing. The science should be cold an unemotional. The policy dictated by the science should be sensitive to the mental health of everyone as they absorb the magnitude of this disaster.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    Do you want to feel better about the climate? Or actually fix it? I'd rather have a cold hard doctor that fixes my cancer, than feel good about dying.
    - damnyou 7y ago
      Why are you presenting a false dichotomy?
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        A false dichotomy is when two opposing views are expressed as the only options. I am comparing a real solution (science) with a phony one (emotions). Can a warm fuzzy doctor cure cancer with science? Yes. Can a warm fuzzy doctor cure cancer with emotions and no science? No. So, this is not a false dichotomy. The climate can not be changed by feeling different about it. Is there a solution to climate change that does not involve science? I would argue no.
        IanCal 7y ago
- pfarrell 7y ago
  The science of what is happening is fact. The method by which we engage our collective powers to act is a people problem. We can come together in action, but that requires connecting with as many of our personalities and psyches as possible.
  - Rolivaw 7y ago
    There aren’t good solutions yet. That’s a cold hard fact. Reducing emission isn’t going to help and it’s not a start. It’s a losers battle. We need carbon sequestering tech, fusion, and new tech to solve this.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      There are perfectly good solutions. Wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and power-to-gas facilities. If you want to some nuclear reactors. Add insulation for homes, heat pumps, electric cars and public transport and you're there. We just need to build them. It's not hard, it's expensive. There is no new technology needed at this point.
      - Rolivaw 7y ago
        Most of what you mention are sustainability propositions, which are not useful long term, probably not even short term. We can’t create sustainability, it’s a fad we’ve all been fed, based on anthropometric views of the world which aren’t going to improve it. They will cause stagnation and that will cause collapse faster than climate change ever could. Electric cars still cost to produce what non electrics do, we have to take into account the backend (mining ect) as well. Gas is most likely as bad according to many reports. Countries which have made the switch like Brazil in cars haven’t produced the results expected, again the production is still not clean. Wind is unreliable in most cases and non scalable. Solar is ok, but expensive and we can’t deploy it for everything(think maritime transport). The way to solve our problem is with innovation that can really replace our main source of consumption. Think population bomb/explosion in the 50-60s. Whaling shift to electricity and vegetable oils late 1800s. All was replaced by new tech, which has decayed into bad tech, and the new tech we develop will probably also decay into bad tech again in 100years. That’s the way it works. Only realistic current solution is fusion. Fusion, carbon-sequestering tech, geo-engineering, betavoltaics(One can dream) and new innovations are always the way forward. The rest are bandaids on the dam + have cost us a lot of money/time at subpar results. Sorry for the quick type, but you can see more here: https://link.medium.com/4p3O0AuImZ https://link.medium.com/4p3O0AuImZ
- melling 7y ago
  “The climate is always changing” After you’ve had 100 people tell you that, you’ll probably change your mind. Social media has made the problem worse. For some reason, deniers flood the discussion with silly statements like that. I keep the xkcd cartoon handy for any discussions: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
  - kebman 7y ago
    There are people who stand ready to deny that cartoon too, though... :/ I mean, not even common sense insurance talk works on these guys. Here, kitty, kitty, insurance can save you (and me) from the cancer known as end of the world. No? You'd rather that we both die... Great...
    - melling 7y ago
      "You'd rather that we both die... Great..." Nothing I said can be interpreted as saying this.
      - kebman 7y ago
        No. I completely agree with you. I'm just lamenting about the people I meet, who deny all this, outside logic.
- mikelyons 7y ago
  If you believe that "cold hard facts" are what motivate human behavior, you are deeply ignorant of _critical_ aspects to understanding human behavior, working with humans, and solving human problems. You're not wrong or bad for this ignorance, we're all born into ignorance, it's the human condition.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    It's pure delusion to think you can get everyone to band together to change the climate. We can't people to stop murdering each other, stealing, lying, or many other harmful things. You are arguing that propaganda is the solution to climate change. That manipulating people by appealing to their emotions will lower the carbon in the air. But, you are missing that whoever controls the best manipulation tactic decides the outcome of that manipulation. Want to guess who that will be? The rich and powerful is my guess. I think we could fix the climate in one simple way, stop polluting. The problem with this is that then the US isn't the biggest polluter, so that is not a "feel good" message.
    - IanCal 7y ago
      We have absolutely done things which lower murder rates and theft though.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Have we done _nothing_ to improve the environment that effects the climate? Nothing at all?
    - mikelyons 7y ago
      I'm trying to show you that in your cynicism you're talking a lot without saying anything. The purpose of life is to become utterly selfless and infinitely loving, but this is the highest consciousness, failing to do this is living hell. If the collective level of consciousness in humanity rises, we will be much better equipped to choose correctly as a collective organism. Those people who are polluting, murdering, lying (deliberate or ignorant), stealing, raping etc., they are not separate from you.
- yread 7y ago
  I don't know. I read the article as, "yes, climate change is bad, there is not much you can do about it on individual level, this can cause depression, please don't be depressed". What's your problem with that?

RobertRoberts 7y ago

>Recognizing emotions as part of the problem and solution feels like a big step. I think this is actually the worst thing we can do. Science is facts, cold hard facts. If you want to get rid of the science and focus on emotions, then the solutions to the _real_ problem will get distorted.

danharaj 7y ago
> Science is facts, cold hard facts. How do you figure?
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  How I "feel" about a scientific result is irrelevant to the result. (ie, if I am mad or happy, it doesn't _affect_ the result) Therefore feelings are irrelevant to both the scientific process and the results found from using it.
  - arrrg 7y ago
    That’s correct, but science also won’t solve this. This is a political/social issue that has to be approached this way. The science should inform our decisions but in order to reach that goal one might have to do more than insist that the science is correct and doesn’t care about your emotions.
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      Is there a non-science based solution for fixing the climate? Those that argue against science tend to argue that myths are real. Like the existence of aliens, crystals have magic powers, aligning of chakras, etc... Edit: An example of science fixing pollution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20774621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20774621
  - n4r9 7y ago
    Right, but they're very relevant to the process of convincing people to accept those results, which is potentially a big part of the solution.
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      This seems to be the mantra, justify manipulation of people through emotions to push through a solution. The problem with this is that who decides what solution? If the motive for the solution is emotions, then any solution that "feels good" or "appears to solve" the problem will suffice.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - n4r9 7y ago
        > If the motive for the solution is emotions This is a stark misrepresentation of my point. Persuading people to accept climate change is (or at least may well be) part of the solution. Persuasion involves an emotional aspect for the majority of people. On a broader note, motives unavoidably involve emotion, or at least a value judgement. Scientific results never inform what ought to be done. Science does not provide values. It's a tool that helps us to achieve valued outcomes.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    It does not follow, for either result or the process. For example, whether or not a scientist or you feels like a result is relevant or interesting is crucial to the scientific process. Have you ever met a scientist in their element? They are passionate, mercurial creatures who will bitterly feud as well as sing the highest praise about their work. This seems to be integral to the process. Curiosity is a feeling, too. I think you're idealizing science and I don't even think your ideal is a particularly useful aspiration for scientific activity.
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      Science is simple, if something works, you can prove it. I am not idealizing anything, it's an indisputable fact that repeatable scientific results are repeatable by anyone. There are real solutions to climate change, they can be implemented today, right now. And the followers in society have nothing to do with it, it's the leader responsibility to implement. “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” ― Carl Sandburg
  - Brain_Thief 7y ago
    In your fervor to dismiss the human experience it appears that you have played a bit loose with the logical formation of your argument and thereby missed an important point. Your premise is that the veracity of previously-achieved scientific results holds independent of human opinion or emotion. You then use this basis to conclude that "...feelings are irrelevant to both the scientific process and the results found from using it." But here you are 1) confusing the product of the scientific process (a distinctly human endeavor with obvious limitations) with the actual nature of reality that said process is attempting to probe, and 2) conflating the achieved results of the process with the process itself. In fact, nearly every novel scientific result achieved is the product of a human mind's creative efforts (and sometimes fortunate accidents). The enthusiasm, open-mindedness, and feelings of a scientist absolutely impact his or her line of thought and level of creativity and therefore directly influence the set of scientific results that are generated by the scientific process. Our ability to probe reality is correlated with our ability to imagine and intuit relationships (and to construct experiments that may illuminate them); our imagination and intuition are correlated with our current and past emotional states. Ergo, human feelings directly impact the output of the scientific process and our understanding of the natural laws underpinning reality. You may consider the case of pure mathematics, where intensely creative and open-minded individuals manipulate exotic structures atop towering ladders of abstraction; such exploration is the source of much of our most powerful technology and insights into reality. If you listen to explanations of the working methods employed by mathematicians many of them will claim that among the tools they rely upon most heavily are intuition and "feeling". Once you move beyond the unfortunate anti-human perspective of what I'll half-jokingly call "extreme scientific materialism" and accept the fundamental role of the human experience in the unfolding of the cosmos you might come to see that a mind bent on pure rationality (to the exclusion of all else) is like a beautiful, fueled-up airplane idling on the runway with no pilot in it.
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      I won't pretend feelings don't exist, science can't even measure them. I am simply arguing that we need a real solution, and how we feel about that solution doesn't change whether it will work or not. A non-functioning solution that feels good won't fix the climate. Arguing that feelings are relevant isn't a fix. The great leaders down through history did not rely on making people feel good, they did the opposite. They inspired people to take on real difficulties. To face _not_ feeling good. That is the problem right now, hypocritical leadership has no ability to inspire or motivate and will not make any changes to the climate.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway5752 7y ago
I don't want to sound harsh, but you're wrong because you're missing the point, and badly. The author talks about cancer diagnoses. This is an apt analogy, and there is a huge body of science for helping individuals cope with personal tragedy. Global warming is a global and personal tragedy. People will have their livelihoods ruined, and people will die. People already have, but (since this is a anglophile community) this forum is mostly insulated from developments in North Africa, the Middle East, Central America... how it impacts us is in the nationalistic/xenophobic movements around the resulting human migrations. Acknowledging this will prevent conflict and harm those that cynically try to take advantage of groups of people in vulnerable states through demagoguing. The science should be cold an unemotional. The policy dictated by the science should be sensitive to the mental health of everyone as they absorb the magnitude of this disaster.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  Do you want to feel better about the climate? Or actually fix it? I'd rather have a cold hard doctor that fixes my cancer, than feel good about dying.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    Why are you presenting a false dichotomy?
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      A false dichotomy is when two opposing views are expressed as the only options. I am comparing a real solution (science) with a phony one (emotions). Can a warm fuzzy doctor cure cancer with science? Yes. Can a warm fuzzy doctor cure cancer with emotions and no science? No. So, this is not a false dichotomy. The climate can not be changed by feeling different about it. Is there a solution to climate change that does not involve science? I would argue no.
      - IanCal 7y ago
pfarrell 7y ago
The science of what is happening is fact. The method by which we engage our collective powers to act is a people problem. We can come together in action, but that requires connecting with as many of our personalities and psyches as possible.
- Rolivaw 7y ago
  There aren’t good solutions yet. That’s a cold hard fact. Reducing emission isn’t going to help and it’s not a start. It’s a losers battle. We need carbon sequestering tech, fusion, and new tech to solve this.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    There are perfectly good solutions. Wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and power-to-gas facilities. If you want to some nuclear reactors. Add insulation for homes, heat pumps, electric cars and public transport and you're there. We just need to build them. It's not hard, it's expensive. There is no new technology needed at this point.
    - Rolivaw 7y ago
      Most of what you mention are sustainability propositions, which are not useful long term, probably not even short term. We can’t create sustainability, it’s a fad we’ve all been fed, based on anthropometric views of the world which aren’t going to improve it. They will cause stagnation and that will cause collapse faster than climate change ever could. Electric cars still cost to produce what non electrics do, we have to take into account the backend (mining ect) as well. Gas is most likely as bad according to many reports. Countries which have made the switch like Brazil in cars haven’t produced the results expected, again the production is still not clean. Wind is unreliable in most cases and non scalable. Solar is ok, but expensive and we can’t deploy it for everything(think maritime transport). The way to solve our problem is with innovation that can really replace our main source of consumption. Think population bomb/explosion in the 50-60s. Whaling shift to electricity and vegetable oils late 1800s. All was replaced by new tech, which has decayed into bad tech, and the new tech we develop will probably also decay into bad tech again in 100years. That’s the way it works. Only realistic current solution is fusion. Fusion, carbon-sequestering tech, geo-engineering, betavoltaics(One can dream) and new innovations are always the way forward. The rest are bandaids on the dam + have cost us a lot of money/time at subpar results. Sorry for the quick type, but you can see more here: https://link.medium.com/4p3O0AuImZ https://link.medium.com/4p3O0AuImZ
melling 7y ago
“The climate is always changing” After you’ve had 100 people tell you that, you’ll probably change your mind. Social media has made the problem worse. For some reason, deniers flood the discussion with silly statements like that. I keep the xkcd cartoon handy for any discussions: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- kebman 7y ago
  There are people who stand ready to deny that cartoon too, though... :/ I mean, not even common sense insurance talk works on these guys. Here, kitty, kitty, insurance can save you (and me) from the cancer known as end of the world. No? You'd rather that we both die... Great...
  - melling 7y ago
    "You'd rather that we both die... Great..." Nothing I said can be interpreted as saying this.
    - kebman 7y ago
      No. I completely agree with you. I'm just lamenting about the people I meet, who deny all this, outside logic.
mikelyons 7y ago
If you believe that "cold hard facts" are what motivate human behavior, you are deeply ignorant of _critical_ aspects to understanding human behavior, working with humans, and solving human problems. You're not wrong or bad for this ignorance, we're all born into ignorance, it's the human condition.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  It's pure delusion to think you can get everyone to band together to change the climate. We can't people to stop murdering each other, stealing, lying, or many other harmful things. You are arguing that propaganda is the solution to climate change. That manipulating people by appealing to their emotions will lower the carbon in the air. But, you are missing that whoever controls the best manipulation tactic decides the outcome of that manipulation. Want to guess who that will be? The rich and powerful is my guess. I think we could fix the climate in one simple way, stop polluting. The problem with this is that then the US isn't the biggest polluter, so that is not a "feel good" message.
  - IanCal 7y ago
    We have absolutely done things which lower murder rates and theft though.
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      Have we done _nothing_ to improve the environment that effects the climate? Nothing at all?
  - mikelyons 7y ago
    I'm trying to show you that in your cynicism you're talking a lot without saying anything. The purpose of life is to become utterly selfless and infinitely loving, but this is the highest consciousness, failing to do this is living hell. If the collective level of consciousness in humanity rises, we will be much better equipped to choose correctly as a collective organism. Those people who are polluting, murdering, lying (deliberate or ignorant), stealing, raping etc., they are not separate from you.
yread 7y ago
I don't know. I read the article as, "yes, climate change is bad, there is not much you can do about it on individual level, this can cause depression, please don't be depressed". What's your problem with that?