4 ms·
Yes, part of it boils down to trust. Another part of it boils down to common sense. You could argue that common sense is: "Human behavior too insignificant to h
by WA 7y ago
Yes, part of it boils down to trust. Another part of it boils down to common sense. You could argue that common sense is: "Human behavior too insignificant to have any impact". Or you could argue that common sense is: "If you take too many shits in your environment, they'll come and bite you back sooner or later." I actually think the latter is more reasonable. It's quite tangible.
Do you even realize how exchangeable your last 4 paragraphs are? See:
What you and climate change deniers don't seem to understand is that a lot of people don't trust the institutions anymore. And rightfully so.
I suspect a lot of the rage is actually about this: people who can't stand the thought that the institutions they trust can't be trusted, so fighting any challenges to their world view [that they are actually responsible for pollution] with tooth and nails.
And people who feel betrayed by the institutions they used to trust [so they pick obscure papers, obscure individuals and claim that they are right and climate change is not a real thing, or at least not caused by humans].
> But it makes it harder to find the truth.
For sure, but as an individual, you don't need to find the absolute truth. There is a very simple idea in protecting the environment: If you try to be resourceful and protect your environment, it probably has more benefits than exploiting the environment and polluting it. It simply doesn't matter whether climate science is right or not. Reducing pollution is always something worth fighting for, no matter if it has any effects on the global climate.
- adventskalender 7y agoI'm actually on your side with the "actions have consequences" logic. That still doesn't imply the consequences are "extinction of the human race". I'm also all for handling in ecologically responsible and sustainable ways. However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. That is where the logic falls apart. Many times before, it has turned out that such forced technology changes were actually damaging to the environment. If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure. The extremism is the problem.
- WA 7y agoWho claims "extinction of the human race"? I don’t think this is what is claimed by serious scientists. > However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. Which one are you talking about? The simulator website that this HN thread links to actually names taxes/subsidies and renewable energies that are already around as the most effective levers to keep temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. > If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure. Doesn’t explain why existing technology is still subsidized and renewable energy is not. Doesn’t explain why meat production and livestock factories are subsidized, or at least not taxed more. Eating less meat is one lever. Achievable by taxes. No side effects, no unproven technologies. For example, in Germany, meat is taxed at 7%. Why? Why not 19%? This has nothing to do with being extreme. It’s a reasonable thing to implement. So, please name the extreme things that you are afraid of.