4 ms·

> On the other, mass personal enlightenment will not occur nearly fast enough to solve the problem if it's even possible at all ... > ... honestly if we want t

> On the other, mass personal enlightenment will not occur nearly fast enough to solve the problem if it's even possible at all ... > ... honestly if we want to fix the problem the only thing that can come up to scale with sufficient speed is decisions by people who control large segments of the economy, i.e. governments and corporations. But isn't the first step toward changing things at a governmental level getting the individuals -- who vote for said government officials -- to care about the issues? If people are so resistant to even the idea of individual change (e.g. the parent comment is downvoted), it makes me think they might not care that much after all.

CaptArmchair 5y ago
The crux of the matter is hidden in how the meaning of "caring" is defined. That's where opinions and perspectives diverge completely. Here's a big question: How much change on a personal level are you willing to make to help curb climate change? The trade offs and the compromises to be made are going to differ between groups and people. It all rides on social economic background, geographical location (where you live), mobility, opportunities, the life you've build for yourself. Concrete example. Biden shutting down Keystone XL and the ensuing social upheaval: https://www.vox.com/22306919/biden-keystone-xl-trudeau-oil-pipeline-climate-change https://www.vox.com/22306919/biden-keystone-xl-trudeau-oil-p... In reality, several thousands of workers lost out on a seasonal / temporary work: https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/22/keystone-pipeline-jobs-lost-joe-biden-executive-order-cancel-fact-check/6673822002/ https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021... Disregarding the details of this particular case, it's an example that exactly points at the glaring challenge ahead: how this affects people directly. Here you have a few thousand people directly having to figure out how to cover their living expenses, find an alternate livelihood to cover the loss of their job in the short run, adjusting their plans. This not a minor inconvenience, but quite an adjustment for many months to come. One can empathize on a personal level: losing out on a job - even if it's temp work - just sucks all round. And that's just one of many uncountable individual trade offs people are asked or forced to make by their leadership. All risking to create resentment and lose support down the line. In that regard, serious government officials and politicians do care, it's just that they can't make life-altering policy changes without consequences. The argument "If we don't change, climate change will end up costing us much, much more" is true to an extent, but hardly an argument you can readily use lest you want to lose support. People don't just look to you to enact policies regarding climate, they also look to you for leadership that ensures their lives remain relatively stable as well. That's the catch-22 which humanity faces.
- CaptArmchair 5y ago
  I perceive the downvotes as affirming the point I tried to make. My comment wasn't in opposition of action to curb climate change. Read it again and you will notice that I don't take such a position. On a personal note, I'm quite concerned about climate change and it's consequences. Being concerned about climate change, and being concerned about the social and economic impact of policies to curb climate change aren't mutually exclusive. On the contrary, both concerns are tied together. The questions I asked aren't just faced by the readership of HackerNews who tends to have a shared view on the world and reality. All humans face them. The world contains far more views on life, morality, equability and so on. If you want to have a debate on governance, it's best to not ignore this very fact.
RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
Maybe. Maybe not? Take recycling for example. Basically well understood to be greenwashing by anyone whose done even a bit of research or thinking through the matter. But people who want to believe they are doing the 'right' things still insist on it. This is their way of 'making a difference' and it stops right after that. They recycle and the act of self identifying as having made a difference relieves the psychological pressure to do more or actually engage in making a real difference. Its a lazy way of psychological positioning oneself such that one is 'no longer a part of the problem'. I'm not sure I put stock in the strategy of individual difference or 'being the change' if you will (although this might be a step beyond what you are making an argument for). I think we're in an era where our 'elected' leadership are so distant in regards of what their constituents are asking for relative to what needs to happen to make headway on an issue like climate change. Climate change is an issue several orders of magnitude more difficult than something like covid was. Effectively, we need to undo the impacts of ~150 years of industrialization. The kinds of half-way solutions and psychological anesthetics we've been able to implement thus far are the definition of nibbling at the edges. I think fundamentally, unless we see a massive political shift in how we address these issues, we're stuck nibbling at the edges.
- DFHippie 5y ago
  Recycling plastic is understood to be greenwashing for most types of plastic. And arguably recycling is a gateway behavior, for some, to more substantive changes, like eating less meat or just buying less crap.
  - RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
    I think just as arguably as recycling is a gateway behavior to more substantive changes, its just as likely to preclude engaging in more substantive changes. There's likely a masters thesis worth of work in our disagreement, but I see things like recycling and going vegetarian as an anesthetic that prevents engaging in additional action.
    - DFHippie 5y ago

CaptArmchair 5y ago

The crux of the matter is hidden in how the meaning of "caring" is defined. That's where opinions and perspectives diverge completely. Here's a big question: How much change on a personal level are you willing to make to help curb climate change? The trade offs and the compromises to be made are going to differ between groups and people. It all rides on social economic background, geographical location (where you live), mobility, opportunities, the life you've build for yourself. Concrete example. Biden shutting down Keystone XL and the ensuing social upheaval: https://www.vox.com/22306919/biden-keystone-xl-trudeau-oil-pipeline-climate-change https://www.vox.com/22306919/biden-keystone-xl-trudeau-oil-p... In reality, several thousands of workers lost out on a seasonal / temporary work: https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/22/keystone-pipeline-jobs-lost-joe-biden-executive-order-cancel-fact-check/6673822002/ https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021... Disregarding the details of this particular case, it's an example that exactly points at the glaring challenge ahead: how this affects people directly. Here you have a few thousand people directly having to figure out how to cover their living expenses, find an alternate livelihood to cover the loss of their job in the short run, adjusting their plans. This not a minor inconvenience, but quite an adjustment for many months to come. One can empathize on a personal level: losing out on a job - even if it's temp work - just sucks all round. And that's just one of many uncountable individual trade offs people are asked or forced to make by their leadership. All risking to create resentment and lose support down the line. In that regard, serious government officials and politicians do care, it's just that they can't make life-altering policy changes without consequences. The argument "If we don't change, climate change will end up costing us much, much more" is true to an extent, but hardly an argument you can readily use lest you want to lose support. People don't just look to you to enact policies regarding climate, they also look to you for leadership that ensures their lives remain relatively stable as well. That's the catch-22 which humanity faces.

CaptArmchair 5y ago
I perceive the downvotes as affirming the point I tried to make. My comment wasn't in opposition of action to curb climate change. Read it again and you will notice that I don't take such a position. On a personal note, I'm quite concerned about climate change and it's consequences. Being concerned about climate change, and being concerned about the social and economic impact of policies to curb climate change aren't mutually exclusive. On the contrary, both concerns are tied together. The questions I asked aren't just faced by the readership of HackerNews who tends to have a shared view on the world and reality. All humans face them. The world contains far more views on life, morality, equability and so on. If you want to have a debate on governance, it's best to not ignore this very fact.

RosanaAnaDana 5y ago

Maybe. Maybe not? Take recycling for example. Basically well understood to be greenwashing by anyone whose done even a bit of research or thinking through the matter. But people who want to believe they are doing the 'right' things still insist on it. This is their way of 'making a difference' and it stops right after that. They recycle and the act of self identifying as having made a difference relieves the psychological pressure to do more or actually engage in making a real difference. Its a lazy way of psychological positioning oneself such that one is 'no longer a part of the problem'. I'm not sure I put stock in the strategy of individual difference or 'being the change' if you will (although this might be a step beyond what you are making an argument for). I think we're in an era where our 'elected' leadership are so distant in regards of what their constituents are asking for relative to what needs to happen to make headway on an issue like climate change. Climate change is an issue several orders of magnitude more difficult than something like covid was. Effectively, we need to undo the impacts of ~150 years of industrialization. The kinds of half-way solutions and psychological anesthetics we've been able to implement thus far are the definition of nibbling at the edges. I think fundamentally, unless we see a massive political shift in how we address these issues, we're stuck nibbling at the edges.

DFHippie 5y ago
Recycling plastic is understood to be greenwashing for most types of plastic. And arguably recycling is a gateway behavior, for some, to more substantive changes, like eating less meat or just buying less crap.
- RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
  I think just as arguably as recycling is a gateway behavior to more substantive changes, its just as likely to preclude engaging in more substantive changes. There's likely a masters thesis worth of work in our disagreement, but I see things like recycling and going vegetarian as an anesthetic that prevents engaging in additional action.
  - DFHippie 5y ago