5 ms·

> If they have to worry about what latest moral crusade will try to get you kicked off the cloud platform, they will be a lot more reticent about migrating to c

by n_time 7y ago

> If they have to worry about what latest moral crusade will try to get you kicked off the cloud platform, they will be a lot more reticent about migrating to cloud. Equating climate change activism with all other forms of social justice is a common trend I see. They seem so different to me–the difference between empirical reality and ideology. While the outcomes of climate change will be ideological–save climate refugees or preserve competitive advantage and wealth–the immediate concern of attempting to mitigate the impacts of climate change are relatively rational. > if you were a fossil fuel or car company that makes gas burning vehicles Have you tried putting on your role-playing hats and empathising with some of the points being made on the environmentalist side?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Consultant32452 7y ago
Climate change is a similar kind of moral crusade. I don't know if you are old enough to remember, but when AIDS came out we were all told it would be jumping to the general straight population at any moment. The scientists knew at the time this was largely a lie but they told us the story because they didn't believe we would invest in treatment for mostly gays and junkies. They might have been right. Climate change is similar. It will be really bad for the poorest humans. Relatively rich westerners will have some adaptive behaviors and technology, but it will come in slowly and the population mostly won't notice it happening. But the rich people, the people who surely have better information than you, are still doing things like buying beach front property. Barack Obama did this recently, he clearly doesn't expect it to be under water in the next few years. Climate change is a moral crusade to help poor people in other countries. We're given a polite fiction because they don't believe we would help in the same way they didn't believe we'd help the gays and the junkies. Maybe they're right.
- ianmobbs 7y ago
  Most folks pushing climate activism fully understand that for the most part, only the poor will be effected. That doesn't lessen the argument at all, and to imply "Well, since it won't affect rich people, it doesn't matter" is borderline maniacal.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    More than one major national politician has talked about the potential end of the human race within the last year. I don't think it's helpful to get into an argument about what exactly constitutes "most folks" but let's not pretend that the doomsayers aren't treated credibly.
    - abathur 7y ago
      I'm torn on this. I think it's good to police flagrant fear-mongering and all other forms of predation on our worst qualities. But we also got here by people and systems preying on other bad qualities like complacency, laziness, helplessness, and blindness to shifting baselines. Perhaps more to the point: our world is stuffed to the rafters with complex adaptive systems--both man-made and natural--themselves threaded together by positive and negative feedback loops, punctuated equilibria, and participants trained on making decisions under these conditions. We don't know which threads will snap, nor when, nor where. We don't know how the other systems and participants will react to the ripples. We don't know if, how long it will take, or where disrupted systems will settle into new equilibria. In the face of uncertainty on this scale, I think there is some value to catastrophizing. We do this with uncertainty all the time. We imagine threats (both banal and catastrophic) to our systems and game them out. We make plans and run exercises. I'm not sure it's a bad idea, per se, to be gaming out dead-end scenarios.
      - RhysU 7y ago
        > But we also got here by people and systems preying on other bad qualities like complacency, laziness, helplessness, and blindness to shifting baselines. This is not how I would characterize the last 300 years of our efforts as a species.
        abathur 7y ago
        I'm not exactly sure how you would characterize it, so I'll just project into the space you didn't see fit to fill. We are an endlessly-(infini|adjec)tive species. I have a Whitmanesque love of our species' best and worst qualities. Characterizations are not mutually exclusive. There's no catch clause in the universe's code to stop our most-impressive inventions from ultimately killing us, our most-creative disruptions from sundering our societies, or our most endearing traits from tucking us neatly into the geologic record.
- jjulius 7y ago
  >... he clearly doesn't expect it to be under water in the next few years. Most people who actually understand climate change also don't expect beachfront homes to be under water in the next few years. It's a slow death/dramatic change of our planet, something that will take place over the next few generations, not the next decade. And if you - or anyone else - thinks it will only impact the poor, you're grossly mistaken.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    There's less death today than there was 100 years ago due to improved healthcare, food availability, clean water, etc. As things change in the world there will surely be some adaptation, some migration, some new technology solutions, etc. But I predict two things. First, the developing world will continue to pollute more and release more greenhouse gases as they industrialize. And second, that there will be less death in 100 years than there is today.
    - jjulius 7y ago
      Mother nature doesn't give a shit about "some adaptation, some migration, some new technology solutions" that you seem to imply will be used as band-aids.
- darpa_escapee 7y ago
  Rich people can afford to insure and rebuild on disaster-prone, but otherwise highly desirable, property. I lived near a barrier island that would get hit with hurricanes each season, and every 5-10 years a storm would devastate it. Despite that, property owners would rebuild their several million dollar vacation homes exactly where they last stood, but raised just a little higher than the last time. I don't blame them, it's an amazing spot in the summer.
kd5bjo 7y ago
The problem with most climate change activism is that it’s hyper-targeted against the offender du jour and all of the others are largely ignored. It’s a global-scale problem that demands global-scale solutions; the vigilantism isn’t doing anything other than providing a straw man for the opposition to knock down.
- freehunter 7y ago
  The problem with most activism of any kind is it is done in a response to the actual authorities on the subject doing nothing to help. Activism almost by definition is done by people who can't directly make a change and just want to bring attention to a problem. That means focusing attention on one thing. If the people who could solve the problem were trying to solve the product, activists wouldn't be necessary. As long as activists are involved, there's going to have to be a narrow focus excluding most of the problem.
- aaronbrethorst 7y ago
  Then by all means you should show Sierra, 350, Sunrise, ER, and all of the other folks out there how to do it better. I mean this sincerely: I’ve been deeply involved in political and civic activism for the past couple years, and have learned a ton, especially from other people—but I also find it deeply frustrating when seemingly well intentioned folks offer unspecific feedback on how the significant investments of time, money, and energy I and others around me could be spent activisting better.
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    The goal is policy change, and that requires convincing people to vote for things. The path that makes that happen is education, policy advocacy, and ultimately gaining political office. Direct action, however, tends to put more emphasis on the activists themselves as the problem instead of whatever their platform is. This is only useful when it demonstrates a sufficient commitment by a large number of people, which can demonstrate wide popular support— rallies, peaceful protests, etc. that involve enough people to potentially change the outcome of an election. My problem is really with the publicity stunts done by a small number of people. From outside, it looks like an egotistical act and, if not dismissed entirely, hurts the reputation of everyone doing useful work in the same field. Antagonizing people is a poor way to convince them of anything. As for why I don’t go into politics myself, it isn’t my calling and I don’t have the temperament to be successful at it. I believe I’ll do more concrete good in the world by being kind and helpful to those I meet in this journey we call life than by trying to force my concerns to the forefront of attention.
ben_jones 7y ago
It seems more and more of a trend for movements to cling onto each other for validation. Unfortunately it seems to deeply undermine individual struggles and ultimately water down the (very important) messages. select * from users where supports_climate_change = true becomes select * from users where supports_climate_change = true AND supports_cause_b = true AND supports_cause_c = true Ultimately you get way fewer users...

by n_time 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Consultant32452 7y ago

Climate change is a similar kind of moral crusade. I don't know if you are old enough to remember, but when AIDS came out we were all told it would be jumping to the general straight population at any moment. The scientists knew at the time this was largely a lie but they told us the story because they didn't believe we would invest in treatment for mostly gays and junkies. They might have been right. Climate change is similar. It will be really bad for the poorest humans. Relatively rich westerners will have some adaptive behaviors and technology, but it will come in slowly and the population mostly won't notice it happening. But the rich people, the people who surely have better information than you, are still doing things like buying beach front property. Barack Obama did this recently, he clearly doesn't expect it to be under water in the next few years. Climate change is a moral crusade to help poor people in other countries. We're given a polite fiction because they don't believe we would help in the same way they didn't believe we'd help the gays and the junkies. Maybe they're right.

ianmobbs 7y ago
Most folks pushing climate activism fully understand that for the most part, only the poor will be effected. That doesn't lessen the argument at all, and to imply "Well, since it won't affect rich people, it doesn't matter" is borderline maniacal.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  More than one major national politician has talked about the potential end of the human race within the last year. I don't think it's helpful to get into an argument about what exactly constitutes "most folks" but let's not pretend that the doomsayers aren't treated credibly.
  - abathur 7y ago
    I'm torn on this. I think it's good to police flagrant fear-mongering and all other forms of predation on our worst qualities. But we also got here by people and systems preying on other bad qualities like complacency, laziness, helplessness, and blindness to shifting baselines. Perhaps more to the point: our world is stuffed to the rafters with complex adaptive systems--both man-made and natural--themselves threaded together by positive and negative feedback loops, punctuated equilibria, and participants trained on making decisions under these conditions. We don't know which threads will snap, nor when, nor where. We don't know how the other systems and participants will react to the ripples. We don't know if, how long it will take, or where disrupted systems will settle into new equilibria. In the face of uncertainty on this scale, I think there is some value to catastrophizing. We do this with uncertainty all the time. We imagine threats (both banal and catastrophic) to our systems and game them out. We make plans and run exercises. I'm not sure it's a bad idea, per se, to be gaming out dead-end scenarios.
    - RhysU 7y ago
      > But we also got here by people and systems preying on other bad qualities like complacency, laziness, helplessness, and blindness to shifting baselines. This is not how I would characterize the last 300 years of our efforts as a species.
      - abathur 7y ago
        I'm not exactly sure how you would characterize it, so I'll just project into the space you didn't see fit to fill. We are an endlessly-(infini|adjec)tive species. I have a Whitmanesque love of our species' best and worst qualities. Characterizations are not mutually exclusive. There's no catch clause in the universe's code to stop our most-impressive inventions from ultimately killing us, our most-creative disruptions from sundering our societies, or our most endearing traits from tucking us neatly into the geologic record.
jjulius 7y ago
>... he clearly doesn't expect it to be under water in the next few years. Most people who actually understand climate change also don't expect beachfront homes to be under water in the next few years. It's a slow death/dramatic change of our planet, something that will take place over the next few generations, not the next decade. And if you - or anyone else - thinks it will only impact the poor, you're grossly mistaken.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  There's less death today than there was 100 years ago due to improved healthcare, food availability, clean water, etc. As things change in the world there will surely be some adaptation, some migration, some new technology solutions, etc. But I predict two things. First, the developing world will continue to pollute more and release more greenhouse gases as they industrialize. And second, that there will be less death in 100 years than there is today.
  - jjulius 7y ago
    Mother nature doesn't give a shit about "some adaptation, some migration, some new technology solutions" that you seem to imply will be used as band-aids.
darpa_escapee 7y ago
Rich people can afford to insure and rebuild on disaster-prone, but otherwise highly desirable, property. I lived near a barrier island that would get hit with hurricanes each season, and every 5-10 years a storm would devastate it. Despite that, property owners would rebuild their several million dollar vacation homes exactly where they last stood, but raised just a little higher than the last time. I don't blame them, it's an amazing spot in the summer.

kd5bjo 7y ago

The problem with most climate change activism is that it’s hyper-targeted against the offender du jour and all of the others are largely ignored. It’s a global-scale problem that demands global-scale solutions; the vigilantism isn’t doing anything other than providing a straw man for the opposition to knock down.

freehunter 7y ago
The problem with most activism of any kind is it is done in a response to the actual authorities on the subject doing nothing to help. Activism almost by definition is done by people who can't directly make a change and just want to bring attention to a problem. That means focusing attention on one thing. If the people who could solve the problem were trying to solve the product, activists wouldn't be necessary. As long as activists are involved, there's going to have to be a narrow focus excluding most of the problem.
aaronbrethorst 7y ago
Then by all means you should show Sierra, 350, Sunrise, ER, and all of the other folks out there how to do it better. I mean this sincerely: I’ve been deeply involved in political and civic activism for the past couple years, and have learned a ton, especially from other people—but I also find it deeply frustrating when seemingly well intentioned folks offer unspecific feedback on how the significant investments of time, money, and energy I and others around me could be spent activisting better.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  The goal is policy change, and that requires convincing people to vote for things. The path that makes that happen is education, policy advocacy, and ultimately gaining political office. Direct action, however, tends to put more emphasis on the activists themselves as the problem instead of whatever their platform is. This is only useful when it demonstrates a sufficient commitment by a large number of people, which can demonstrate wide popular support— rallies, peaceful protests, etc. that involve enough people to potentially change the outcome of an election. My problem is really with the publicity stunts done by a small number of people. From outside, it looks like an egotistical act and, if not dismissed entirely, hurts the reputation of everyone doing useful work in the same field. Antagonizing people is a poor way to convince them of anything. As for why I don’t go into politics myself, it isn’t my calling and I don’t have the temperament to be successful at it. I believe I’ll do more concrete good in the world by being kind and helpful to those I meet in this journey we call life than by trying to force my concerns to the forefront of attention.

ben_jones 7y ago

It seems more and more of a trend for movements to cling onto each other for validation. Unfortunately it seems to deeply undermine individual struggles and ultimately water down the (very important) messages. select * from users where supports_climate_change = true becomes select * from users where supports_climate_change = true AND supports_cause_b = true AND supports_cause_c = true Ultimately you get way fewer users...