3 ms·

I believe you are genuinely trying to help solve the problem. However I think your plan of action is misguided, and is making things worse. Your ideas only appe

I believe you are genuinely trying to help solve the problem. However I think your plan of action is misguided, and is making things worse. Your ideas only appeal to certain personality types in rich countries. They make an enemy out of everybody else. Your framing of the solution as "Humans need to change from growth to enjoying what we have" is wrong. This is diametrically opposed to human nature--you're literally swimming upstream on this one. It's not going to happen. If we look at the solution in a way that harnesses the natural tendencies of humans to compete with each other and seek better lives for their children--you could describe it as the following: We need to find newer, more environmentally friendly technologies, faster. This is the Elon Musk approach, and he's proven it works. Instead of spending billions of dollars on public education programs to eliminate plastic straws, why not direct that money toward inventing bio-degradable straws that are cheaper than plastic? This is absolutely doable. Instead of telling people to stop flying to visit their family, why not work toward creating more fuel efficient forms of air travel? You're misguided if you think wrapping yourself in the self-satisfied flag of "do-gooder" and shouting loudly at people to join you is going to have any meaningful impact.

istjohn 7y ago
You're misguided if you think we can prevent the coming climate catastrophe without making any sacrifices. It's not technological solutions or make tough choices. It's both. Perhaps your path would work if we started down it in earnest 40 years ago, but it's too late now. We're not going to turn this ship around with half measures.
- afiori 7y ago
  You are naive if you think your sacrifice will be enough, you need to convince others to join in, this is why so much of the funding focuses on reaching market viability. If India and China will not join you every sacrifice you did was essentially worthless
- pembrook 7y ago
  I fully agree, ideally we would be doing both! But due to obvious realities of humans, any time or money spent trying to tell people to stop doing what they are instinctively motivated to do is a waste. Americans love to fool themselves into these naive, moralistic tirades that lead nowhere. Take the issue of teen pregnancy, for example. For decades, the American approach was to wag their fingers at teenagers and tell them to not have sex (similar to how we currently wag our fingers at the developing world and their use of oil). Meanwhile, in Northern Europe, they focused on making contraception widely available for teen girls via state run healthcare programs. Fast forward 50 years and the US has 6X as many teen pregnancies per capita as a country like the Netherlands. Ignoring human nature and focusing on moral appeals doesn't work for sex, and it won't work for consumption either: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/adolescent-pregnancy-and-its-outcomes-across-countries https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/adolescent-pregnancy-a...
MauranKilom 7y ago
> why not work toward creating more fuel efficient forms of air travel? There is no lack of incentive for this to be invented. The global airline industry is approaching 1 trillion USD in revenue. Climate concerns are not the thing that will provoke innovation here. Besides, "fly less" is infinitely more tangible. When you become aware that skipping one intercontinental plane (round)trip has the same positive CO2 impact as going from moderate meat consumption to veganism for one year (!) you might weigh your travel options differently. I know I do.
spodek 7y ago
Efficiency doesn't mean lowering total waste and often creates more. Reducing is strategic. Efficiency, such as bio-degradable straws and most newer technologies like you described, is tactical. I covered this in part in my podcast "episode 183: Reusing and recycling are tactical. Reducing is strategic": https://shows.pippa.io/leadership-and-the-environment/episodes/183-reusing-and-recycling-are-tactical-reducing-is-strategic https://shows.pippa.io/leadership-and-the-environment/episod.... I'm sorry you think reduction is misguided. Your appeal to human nature opposes hundreds of thousands of years of human history before the past few thousand.
- pembrook 7y ago
  I believe reduction would certainly solve the problem. I just don't think it's possible to make happen (I elaborated on this further in the comment below). Is it possible the reason humans in the past didn't consume as much, was simply because they lacked the technology to allow them to? If you gave a human from 10,000 B.C. a private jet, while also telling him that jet is bad for the environment, that human would still be flying all over the globe in an instant. I don't think humans were somehow more morally conscientious in the past. And I'm not sure we should be aiming to head back to those "glory days" of 20 year lifespans and terrible infant mortality rates.
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    How would reducing consumption affect infant mortality rates?
    - pembrook 7y ago
      It wouldn't. I didn't say that.

istjohn 7y ago

You're misguided if you think we can prevent the coming climate catastrophe without making any sacrifices. It's not technological solutions or make tough choices. It's both. Perhaps your path would work if we started down it in earnest 40 years ago, but it's too late now. We're not going to turn this ship around with half measures.

afiori 7y ago
You are naive if you think your sacrifice will be enough, you need to convince others to join in, this is why so much of the funding focuses on reaching market viability. If India and China will not join you every sacrifice you did was essentially worthless
pembrook 7y ago
I fully agree, ideally we would be doing both! But due to obvious realities of humans, any time or money spent trying to tell people to stop doing what they are instinctively motivated to do is a waste. Americans love to fool themselves into these naive, moralistic tirades that lead nowhere. Take the issue of teen pregnancy, for example. For decades, the American approach was to wag their fingers at teenagers and tell them to not have sex (similar to how we currently wag our fingers at the developing world and their use of oil). Meanwhile, in Northern Europe, they focused on making contraception widely available for teen girls via state run healthcare programs. Fast forward 50 years and the US has 6X as many teen pregnancies per capita as a country like the Netherlands. Ignoring human nature and focusing on moral appeals doesn't work for sex, and it won't work for consumption either: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/adolescent-pregnancy-and-its-outcomes-across-countries https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/adolescent-pregnancy-a...

MauranKilom 7y ago

> why not work toward creating more fuel efficient forms of air travel? There is no lack of incentive for this to be invented. The global airline industry is approaching 1 trillion USD in revenue. Climate concerns are not the thing that will provoke innovation here. Besides, "fly less" is infinitely more tangible. When you become aware that skipping one intercontinental plane (round)trip has the same positive CO2 impact as going from moderate meat consumption to veganism for one year (!) you might weigh your travel options differently. I know I do.

spodek 7y ago

Efficiency doesn't mean lowering total waste and often creates more. Reducing is strategic. Efficiency, such as bio-degradable straws and most newer technologies like you described, is tactical. I covered this in part in my podcast "episode 183: Reusing and recycling are tactical. Reducing is strategic": https://shows.pippa.io/leadership-and-the-environment/episodes/183-reusing-and-recycling-are-tactical-reducing-is-strategic https://shows.pippa.io/leadership-and-the-environment/episod.... I'm sorry you think reduction is misguided. Your appeal to human nature opposes hundreds of thousands of years of human history before the past few thousand.

pembrook 7y ago
I believe reduction would certainly solve the problem. I just don't think it's possible to make happen (I elaborated on this further in the comment below). Is it possible the reason humans in the past didn't consume as much, was simply because they lacked the technology to allow them to? If you gave a human from 10,000 B.C. a private jet, while also telling him that jet is bad for the environment, that human would still be flying all over the globe in an instant. I don't think humans were somehow more morally conscientious in the past. And I'm not sure we should be aiming to head back to those "glory days" of 20 year lifespans and terrible infant mortality rates.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  How would reducing consumption affect infant mortality rates?
  - pembrook 7y ago
    It wouldn't. I didn't say that.