5 ms·

I am personally more of an optimist, but I originally saw this post on r/collapse and then on r/bestof and now its made it to my FB feed via this Medium post. I

I am personally more of an optimist, but I originally saw this post on r/collapse and then on r/bestof and now its made it to my FB feed via this Medium post. I care more about people understanding what a dire situation we are in so that we can take action ASAP. there are also a number of good links in here, whether or not you agree that we are locked into this future. It will definitely take a concerted effort from society to make sure the future is not grim.

agumonkey 7y ago
We need to invent middle layer political onset. Everybody is wondering what to do, nothing happen yet it should have been so yesterday. ubiquitous computing, ubiquitous networking yet no spirit no coordination.. strange isn't it ?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Not strange at all. Why would ubiquitous tooling confer resolve and fortitude? You can’t hammer people problems with tech and expect a fix. They’re people problems!
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    It's partly relevant still because all tech is sold as a 'tool to aid humans'. Otherwise I agree. And the original question still remains. Anybody who solves the intermediate organization problem (doesn't matter how) will wins a special spot in human history (what remains of it)
    - dpflan 7y ago
      Could you elaborate upon what you mean by middle layer politics and intermediate organization problem?
      - agumonkey 7y ago
        I lack proper terminology. I mean: - individual initiative is not enough - nation wide (or larger) is not happening (there are big efforts but there are also contradicting accounts of actual progress and even opposing forces like countries investing in coal even more) the usual levers (parties) are not effective, how to combine individual efforts into groups (the middle layer) so that people can 1) have access to useful information 2) find solutions to problems (buying local food, consuming less, producing some stuff locally if it makes sense). I have this view where small groups spread in enough numbers would divert all the yet passive people into followers so that quickly economics will be redirected into a sustainable low pollution model.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Run for local government, enact low carbon policies (electric buses, prohibition of new natural gas service and petrol fueling stations, establish municipal electric service that buys 100% renewables in bulk for citizens, etc). If you need funding, go to the muni bond market and skip the federal gov green bank if they can’t get their act together.
- remir 7y ago
  Nothing happens because politicians needs to sell dreams in order to get elected. The public doesn't want the truth, that's the problem. There's people out there in very poor shape, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and eating junk every day and it would take a massive health problem to get them to change their habits, even tho they feel like crap all the time. This is essentially the same thing with our society. What needs to be done is drastic, yet how do you convince people that this is desirable? You can't. Most people need suffering in order to change.
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    Fair point. I'm calling for a different group of people to sit and think. People with a bit of abstract math, systemic and various fields (food, geology, ecology, logistics) to assemble, and reflect on how to migrate people lifestyle gradually. Spreading small degrowth groups around, creating nature cattering associations, educators to turn people from consumers to actors of their neighborhoods with pleasure and care. I'm highly convinced it doesn't require much to tip off a whole population in our case. Because the system is already sick to me. People just need a smooth path out and the benefits are not far (better diet, more physical exercises, less loneliness, less stress, less toxic competition, more control over their life).
perfunctory 7y ago
What exactly makes you optimistic? Genuinely curious. I don't see any concerted effort from society so far.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  The thing that makes me most optimistic is the IPCC is highly confident that if we switch from fossil fuels, within 10-20 years the man made part of global warming will end. In just 20 years my state has moved from 70% coal - 30% natgas power to 25% coal, 50% natgas, 25% wind. In maybe a decade the only CO2 my state will be producing of any significance will be from automobiles, which look to be on the verge of being replaced by electric in at most 2 decades. Granted my state in the US has likely moved the fastest on this. It is hard to believe that given just our current level of progress, that the world won't have drastically cut CO2 by 2050.
  - perfunctory 7y ago
    There are some local success stories here and there for sure. But global co2 emissions are still rising. Not declining, not even flattening, rising! According to the latest UN emissions gap report we need to reduce global emissions by 7.6% every year starting now to meet Paris agreement. Last year global emissions increased, again. Reduction trend is nowhere in sight yet. I have no idea where hope and optimism come from.
  - pojzon 7y ago
    In a contrast my country went from 15% wind 30% nuclear 10% water 45% coal to 70% coal 10% nuclear/wind/water. There are ZERO indicators showing that we will meet any climate saving goals.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    If. COP25, the 25th year, was a farce of self-interest from fossil producers. Australia found a way to fiddle their historic figures to claim they need take no action! No one's listening to the IPCC, except those not running countries (except maybe some of the smaller, poorer ones).

agumonkey 7y ago

We need to invent middle layer political onset. Everybody is wondering what to do, nothing happen yet it should have been so yesterday. ubiquitous computing, ubiquitous networking yet no spirit no coordination.. strange isn't it ?

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Not strange at all. Why would ubiquitous tooling confer resolve and fortitude? You can’t hammer people problems with tech and expect a fix. They’re people problems!
- agumonkey 7y ago
  It's partly relevant still because all tech is sold as a 'tool to aid humans'. Otherwise I agree. And the original question still remains. Anybody who solves the intermediate organization problem (doesn't matter how) will wins a special spot in human history (what remains of it)
  - dpflan 7y ago
    Could you elaborate upon what you mean by middle layer politics and intermediate organization problem?
    - agumonkey 7y ago
      I lack proper terminology. I mean: - individual initiative is not enough - nation wide (or larger) is not happening (there are big efforts but there are also contradicting accounts of actual progress and even opposing forces like countries investing in coal even more) the usual levers (parties) are not effective, how to combine individual efforts into groups (the middle layer) so that people can 1) have access to useful information 2) find solutions to problems (buying local food, consuming less, producing some stuff locally if it makes sense). I have this view where small groups spread in enough numbers would divert all the yet passive people into followers so that quickly economics will be redirected into a sustainable low pollution model.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Run for local government, enact low carbon policies (electric buses, prohibition of new natural gas service and petrol fueling stations, establish municipal electric service that buys 100% renewables in bulk for citizens, etc). If you need funding, go to the muni bond market and skip the federal gov green bank if they can’t get their act together.
remir 7y ago
Nothing happens because politicians needs to sell dreams in order to get elected. The public doesn't want the truth, that's the problem. There's people out there in very poor shape, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and eating junk every day and it would take a massive health problem to get them to change their habits, even tho they feel like crap all the time. This is essentially the same thing with our society. What needs to be done is drastic, yet how do you convince people that this is desirable? You can't. Most people need suffering in order to change.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  Fair point. I'm calling for a different group of people to sit and think. People with a bit of abstract math, systemic and various fields (food, geology, ecology, logistics) to assemble, and reflect on how to migrate people lifestyle gradually. Spreading small degrowth groups around, creating nature cattering associations, educators to turn people from consumers to actors of their neighborhoods with pleasure and care. I'm highly convinced it doesn't require much to tip off a whole population in our case. Because the system is already sick to me. People just need a smooth path out and the benefits are not far (better diet, more physical exercises, less loneliness, less stress, less toxic competition, more control over their life).

perfunctory 7y ago

What exactly makes you optimistic? Genuinely curious. I don't see any concerted effort from society so far.

merpnderp 7y ago
The thing that makes me most optimistic is the IPCC is highly confident that if we switch from fossil fuels, within 10-20 years the man made part of global warming will end. In just 20 years my state has moved from 70% coal - 30% natgas power to 25% coal, 50% natgas, 25% wind. In maybe a decade the only CO2 my state will be producing of any significance will be from automobiles, which look to be on the verge of being replaced by electric in at most 2 decades. Granted my state in the US has likely moved the fastest on this. It is hard to believe that given just our current level of progress, that the world won't have drastically cut CO2 by 2050.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  There are some local success stories here and there for sure. But global co2 emissions are still rising. Not declining, not even flattening, rising! According to the latest UN emissions gap report we need to reduce global emissions by 7.6% every year starting now to meet Paris agreement. Last year global emissions increased, again. Reduction trend is nowhere in sight yet. I have no idea where hope and optimism come from.
- pojzon 7y ago
  In a contrast my country went from 15% wind 30% nuclear 10% water 45% coal to 70% coal 10% nuclear/wind/water. There are ZERO indicators showing that we will meet any climate saving goals.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  If. COP25, the 25th year, was a farce of self-interest from fossil producers. Australia found a way to fiddle their historic figures to claim they need take no action! No one's listening to the IPCC, except those not running countries (except maybe some of the smaller, poorer ones).