4 ms·

There was a lot of talk about how the world will be "uninhabitable by 2050" or "civilization will crumble by 2050" and anecdotally, that really backfired for al

There was a lot of talk about how the world will be "uninhabitable by 2050" or "civilization will crumble by 2050" and anecdotally, that really backfired for all my elderly aunts and uncles. They happily admit that climate change is real but don't care because they will be dead by 2040. Hell, I'll be in my 80's.

knd775 7y ago
They sound like terrible, self-centered people.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  Yes, and so is most of the population apparently. But they are also focused on their own problems; declining health, fixed incomes, cuts to government programs, etc. Hard to get to worked up about a problem that won't occur for 30 years when you're going in for surgery next week. I keep trying to focus on the fact the process is already starting now and WILL affect them in their lifetimes ... hurricanes, fires, wierd storms, droughts ...
- sametmax 7y ago
  Like most humans. Hell, we comment here using devices made by slaves on the other side of the world. We could choose not to. We could make our life harder so that we didn't sponsor slavery. We don't. We are all very selfish.
- AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
  Sorry, we don't have a better breed of people to populate this planet.
bureaucrat 7y ago
Kek, in 1970 crude oil was predicted to run out in 2020. They also predicted the world will be inhabitable by now because of intense pollution. How are we? We breathe cleaner air and use more petroleum than 1970. I will be 55 in 2050, and I bet my entire fortune that the world will be better then.
- redleggedfrog 7y ago
  Not sure that works. That's like telling a child, "Watch out for that car. Oh! Lookout for that one, too." And the kid thinks, "Well, neither of those hit me, why should I care?" And the next one flattens him. Just because you can pick two things from the past that didn't turn out as expected doesn't mean the next potential danger isn't valid. Now, maybe we come up with some clever CO2 scrubbing technology and we start engineering the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean the danger doesn't need to be addressed. There was a lot of work that went into finding new ways to get oil and regulation to improve the air. Without acknowledging the problem we could have had those catastrophes.
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    > Not sure that works. That's like telling a child, "Watch out for that car. Oh! Lookout for that one, too." And the kid thinks, "Well, neither of those hit me, why should I care?" And the next one flattens him. Let natural selection do its job.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      We prove our fitness by surviving.
      - antisthenes 7y ago
        Individual survivorship != survival of advanced civilization.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        In this case, it applies to both. A civilization too demonstrates fitness by surviving.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > Just because you can pick two things from the past that didn't turn out as expected doesn't mean the next potential danger isn't valid. Correct, perhaps those issuing the warnings should accept the unfortunate reality that this is how average people behave and adjust their messaging. Rather than repetitive warning after warning, why not pool resources and focus on building and improving one single large educational resource that tells the whole story (including full disclosure of the uncertain and imperfect aspects, rather than having people learn of those in conspiracy forums, in order to build trust) from a variety of angles so it is approachable by people from all different intelligence and economic levels? More of the same isn't going to work.
RubenSandwich 7y ago
Not doing something because "you'll be dead before it happens" is pure selfishness. My personal observations from those close to me who don't want to act on climate change seem that their reasons have changed within the last 5 years. They no longer claim that it isn't real or happening, they now dismiss it on grounds of losing the personal liberty provided to them by our over consumption lifestyle. (If you live in the West, then you are likely over consuming.) So I actually don't think the "doom and gloom" is causing people not to act, if anything the younger generation are acting on that message. (Fridays for Future, etc.) Instead what is delaying action, in my mind, is that the West's middle class is disappearing and now with climate change demanding a further reduction of consumption it is casuing people to try to hold on tighter to their already disappearing lifestyle.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  If you want to figure out how to do something, you have to take pure selfishness as granted - that's how people and society works; huge parts of sociology, economics, political science, etc are about structures and processes that allow to get large scale coordination and results despite lots of pure selfishness involved. If any proposed solution (to climate change or anything else) relies on huge numbers of people not exhibiting pure selfishness, then it's not a solution but wishful thinking disconnected from reality. We have a good idea on how large groups of homo sapiens function. Selfishness is unavoidable. There will be lots of great unselfish, heroic, altruistic exceptions, but the mass behavior will still be overwhelmingly selfish in aggregate. People trying "to hold on tighter to their already disappearing lifestyle" is a very important factor that needs to be taken into account for any calls to action. This is what's happening already and this will be happening - and I'm not pointing out this as something that "needs" to change; it kind of does, but it doesn't matter if it "needs" to change because it will not change, I'm pointing it out as something that's inevitable, people will try to hold on tight to unsustainable lifestyles (and fight to gain unsustainable lifestyles that they never had but others did) and any proposed solution needs to work despite that trend in order to be plausible and feasible.
  - Ensorceled 7y ago

knd775 7y ago

They sound like terrible, self-centered people.

Ensorceled 7y ago
Yes, and so is most of the population apparently. But they are also focused on their own problems; declining health, fixed incomes, cuts to government programs, etc. Hard to get to worked up about a problem that won't occur for 30 years when you're going in for surgery next week. I keep trying to focus on the fact the process is already starting now and WILL affect them in their lifetimes ... hurricanes, fires, wierd storms, droughts ...
sametmax 7y ago
Like most humans. Hell, we comment here using devices made by slaves on the other side of the world. We could choose not to. We could make our life harder so that we didn't sponsor slavery. We don't. We are all very selfish.
AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
Sorry, we don't have a better breed of people to populate this planet.

bureaucrat 7y ago

Kek, in 1970 crude oil was predicted to run out in 2020. They also predicted the world will be inhabitable by now because of intense pollution. How are we? We breathe cleaner air and use more petroleum than 1970. I will be 55 in 2050, and I bet my entire fortune that the world will be better then.

redleggedfrog 7y ago
Not sure that works. That's like telling a child, "Watch out for that car. Oh! Lookout for that one, too." And the kid thinks, "Well, neither of those hit me, why should I care?" And the next one flattens him. Just because you can pick two things from the past that didn't turn out as expected doesn't mean the next potential danger isn't valid. Now, maybe we come up with some clever CO2 scrubbing technology and we start engineering the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean the danger doesn't need to be addressed. There was a lot of work that went into finding new ways to get oil and regulation to improve the air. Without acknowledging the problem we could have had those catastrophes.
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > Not sure that works. That's like telling a child, "Watch out for that car. Oh! Lookout for that one, too." And the kid thinks, "Well, neither of those hit me, why should I care?" And the next one flattens him. Let natural selection do its job.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    We prove our fitness by surviving.
    - antisthenes 7y ago
      Individual survivorship != survival of advanced civilization.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        In this case, it applies to both. A civilization too demonstrates fitness by surviving.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > Just because you can pick two things from the past that didn't turn out as expected doesn't mean the next potential danger isn't valid. Correct, perhaps those issuing the warnings should accept the unfortunate reality that this is how average people behave and adjust their messaging. Rather than repetitive warning after warning, why not pool resources and focus on building and improving one single large educational resource that tells the whole story (including full disclosure of the uncertain and imperfect aspects, rather than having people learn of those in conspiracy forums, in order to build trust) from a variety of angles so it is approachable by people from all different intelligence and economic levels? More of the same isn't going to work.

RubenSandwich 7y ago

Not doing something because "you'll be dead before it happens" is pure selfishness. My personal observations from those close to me who don't want to act on climate change seem that their reasons have changed within the last 5 years. They no longer claim that it isn't real or happening, they now dismiss it on grounds of losing the personal liberty provided to them by our over consumption lifestyle. (If you live in the West, then you are likely over consuming.) So I actually don't think the "doom and gloom" is causing people not to act, if anything the younger generation are acting on that message. (Fridays for Future, etc.) Instead what is delaying action, in my mind, is that the West's middle class is disappearing and now with climate change demanding a further reduction of consumption it is casuing people to try to hold on tighter to their already disappearing lifestyle.

PeterisP 7y ago
If you want to figure out how to do something, you have to take pure selfishness as granted - that's how people and society works; huge parts of sociology, economics, political science, etc are about structures and processes that allow to get large scale coordination and results despite lots of pure selfishness involved. If any proposed solution (to climate change or anything else) relies on huge numbers of people not exhibiting pure selfishness, then it's not a solution but wishful thinking disconnected from reality. We have a good idea on how large groups of homo sapiens function. Selfishness is unavoidable. There will be lots of great unselfish, heroic, altruistic exceptions, but the mass behavior will still be overwhelmingly selfish in aggregate. People trying "to hold on tighter to their already disappearing lifestyle" is a very important factor that needs to be taken into account for any calls to action. This is what's happening already and this will be happening - and I'm not pointing out this as something that "needs" to change; it kind of does, but it doesn't matter if it "needs" to change because it will not change, I'm pointing it out as something that's inevitable, people will try to hold on tight to unsustainable lifestyles (and fight to gain unsustainable lifestyles that they never had but others did) and any proposed solution needs to work despite that trend in order to be plausible and feasible.
- Ensorceled 7y ago