5 ms·
To echo this article's sentiment I have always really disliked the anthropomorphization of the natural world. I think a lot of people think that it's a politica
by hacknat 6y ago
To echo this article's sentiment I have always really disliked the anthropomorphization of the natural world. I think a lot of people think that it's a politically effective tactic, but I think the opposite is true. Getting human beings to even look at each other as being equally worthy of dignity and respect is already a tall order.
Human beings spend a lot more time perceiving the social structures they are in (even when they're not aware that they are doing so) than they do reacting to "objective" reality or nature. A lot of people in the world see themselves as being cast aside or outside the current dominant social structures. Convincing them to make sacrifices for the future when the present already seems irredeemably shitty is a losing political argument. Casting nature as yet another political constituency that they need to pay deference too is foolish.
Messages of hope are the only ones that will work to build consensus (even if hope seems irrational at this point).
Edit:
Personally, I think the only rational message of hope right now is that we should be ploughing as much money into science and technology as we can. We certainly shouldn't take our eye off the ball for dealing with climate change, but it seems obvious that we're going to need some pretty amazing technological breakthroughs if we're going to survive as a species.
- notabee 6y agoHope, yes. And yes, we basically need to invent wings before we go plummeting off of this particular cliff because the stopping option was probably lost over a decade ago. But too much forcing of positivity comes off as dishonest as well. We don't need to convince deniers at this point. They're dug in emotionally, and it's not likely they'll change their minds even if some natural disaster takes their home or loved ones. We do need people to know that this is it: it's now or never to start acting on the problem.
- anigbrowl 6y agoMessages of hope are the only ones that will work to build consensus (even if hope seems irrational at this point). Consensus is a bad goal, because it can be upset by a tiny number of people willing to act in bad faith. Strategically speaking, it's better to press ahead in pursuit of the large goal and buy off key potential objectors.
- forgotmypw17 6y agoI have always disliked specieist attitudes that humans are unique in X. Other beings can have desires, wants, likes, dislikes, personalities. If you look closely, every pigeon is unique in its gait, what it likes to eat. Even worker ants each have a different way of walking.
- nickbauman 6y agoHumans aren't generally logical; we're capable of logic, but it's not our general state of consciousness. Narrative is our one, overarching "innovation" we've achieved over our nearest relatives. Narrative is a kind of data compression algorithm, if you will. By connecting facts via story, we can keep track of enormous amounts of data over a long period of time. Tragic species enact tragic, destructive, eschatological narratives. Sustainable species enact positive, nurturing and generative narratives. If we can communicate a message that is the latter, we have a chance of survival.