6 ms·

This is a Very Online taxonomy; I don't think it incorporates the vast majority of normal, not particularly Online people who are aware of these problems but ar

This is a Very Online taxonomy; I don't think it incorporates the vast majority of normal, not particularly Online people who are aware of these problems but aren't spending most of their energy on them. The vast majority of people are fundamentally outside of this taxonomy because even if they are thinking about ideas related to "collapse", it's as a problem someone else is going to solve for them. The biggest challenge in climate change (for example) is that it's simply happening on too long a timescale for the average person to pay much attention to it. That will change in the coming decades, but by the time it does, it'll probably be too late to avoid the biggest harms.

orhmeh09 5y ago
Do you have sources supporting your statements? They may sound common sense to you, but there is considerable ongoing scientific inquiry into people’s attitudes today, their sense of responsibility, and their sense of agency. Maybe you’re right, but I would go to the effort of reviewing the research and giving links before making assertions.
- exolymph 5y ago
  This is a casual discussion website, comments often relate personal opinions.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    True, but is the distinction between fact and opinion plausibly important, even if the conversation is casual?
- ivraatiems 5y ago
  Honestly, if the position of the original author is that this is representative of everybody, not just Internet People, I think it'd be on them to justify that view. They don't quite make that claim, though, and so I am not trying to formally refute it - I am just making what seems to be a logical note given the content as it stands.
lostandbored 5y ago
Yeaahhh, as interesting (and mildly funny) as it is, this a very online taxonomy. Don't really care much for it.
tharne 5y ago
> The biggest challenge in climate change (for example) is that it's simply happening on too long a timescale for the average person to pay much attention to it. I disagree. This may be a problem, but I think the bigger problem is one that was described in a post on HN a few weeks back. Namely, that most of the folks advocating for action and sacrifice on climate change are themselves unwilling to lead by example, e.g. stop using air travel, give up or very sharply reduce automobile usage, etc. This leads a lot of people to either 1) Write the whole thing off as some BS cooked up by elites or; 2) conclude that no one, including those who claim to care most about the issue is actually going to do anything about the problem. You can't have Congressmen and Senators calling climate change an "existential threat" while they're hopping on a commercial airliner every week to fly back home from DC. While these folks may be correct in their assessment of climate change, their own behavior completely destroys any credibility they may have had on the issue.
- mden 5y ago
  I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact. Not an exact parallel but just because people talk about wanting higher overall taxes and at the same time don't want to pay more than what is required doesn't mean they are hypocritical and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. Maybe it would convince folks, maybe it wouldn't, but you'd have a chance. By contrast, any effort that involves "Do as I say, not as I do", is pretty much guaranteed to fail, and rightfully so. Trying to force others to do something that you yourself are unwilling to do voluntarily is the exact opposite of leadership.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. "All of a sudden" was not claimed. > There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact. No evidence, or none that you are aware of? Also, evidence is not required for something to be true. > and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow. It could be achieved via legislation, which is to some degree influenced by public sentiment, which is to some degree influenced by the manner in which we discuss and conceptualize reality.
chobeat 5y ago
I don't know about you, but most of the things in the article shape my real world: XR blocks my street, Exxon pollutes my air, cyberpunk shapes the aesthetic of art around me, corporate advertisements determine what is consumed by people I meet with. How is it online? And even if it were online, why do you treat as less real? Now most of the societal interactions happen online
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
I've always found Collapse believers to be composed of mostly people from highly developed Western nations. From what I've read online, many of these folks cannot visualize a world where their society/nation may backslide in a couple aspects (e.g. government corruption or infrastructure standards), but still continue to function mostly normally. Most of these folks have never seen rampant political corruption, low hygiene standards, political instability, broken/lacking infrastructure, or general unsafety that often comes up in developing nations. The West _is_ going through a lot of change/political soul searching right now, so it's understandable, but I highly suggest visiting developing nations to see how everyday people live, succeed, and thrive despite many problems around them. Even the historic concept of "collapse" is ill-defined. It's widely accepted today that the Western Roman Empire (probably the most written-about "collapse" event) didn't really collapse at once as much as it slowly changed from within and without. Is this "linear collapse"? I mean maybe, but it may just be the process of change itself.
- chobeat 5y ago
  well, they are already living it, westeners have the privilege to believe it's not something that is happening but something that will happen in the future and take distance from it framing it as a collapse after peak prosperity. Third world never had peak prosperity or at least it didn't look particularly different from their past. But they are gonna starve and migrate too even if they don't call it collapse.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I think you’re discussing a very different thing to the parent and grandparent comments. Yes, by the standard that counts the end of the Roman Empire as a collapse, any given nation or union of nations may still collapse and those within may starve or migrate; this still won’t look like any of the post-apocalyptic narratives that represent the loudest and most obvious examples of this topic. I expect that, much like every other community, the loudest “collapsers” are merely an embarrassing minority, and certainly I hear that the people who stockpile food and maintain a strong relationship with their neighbours roll their eyes at those who stockpile ammunition and do nothing else.
AlexCoventry 5y ago
It's a taxonomy of political discourse regarding collapse. It's not surprising that it has little to say about people who have no political investment in ideas related to collapse.
scottrogowski 5y ago
Yes. This is a "Very Online taxonomy". While I think it's useful to think about mechanisms of collapse, the author seems to have a clear bias towards the belief that collapse will happen which feels very non-objective. In my experience, the vast majority of people I interact with (maybe 90%+) fall into the author's categorization of "radical denier" or "partial denier". I don't think there's anything "radical" about the belief that while things will change, society will go on. But calling the belief radical and suggesting that this is a belief only shared by Very Evil People (e.g. Koch Brothers) is a disingenuous straw man. For the record, if I had to put myself into this unscientific taxonomy, I might be somewhere between a technological and economic optimist.
- elihu 5y ago
  I suppose it's largely a problem of naming. "Denier" has negative connotations, but it's also the most obvious name to use. What would be a better, non-pejorative name? Life-will-go-on-ists? The article later refers to an ideology of "eco-fascism" which is even more problematic. That seems like a name that detractors would apply to a group, not a label that someone would self-apply. I don't know what a neutral name would be, though.

orhmeh09 5y ago

Do you have sources supporting your statements? They may sound common sense to you, but there is considerable ongoing scientific inquiry into people’s attitudes today, their sense of responsibility, and their sense of agency. Maybe you’re right, but I would go to the effort of reviewing the research and giving links before making assertions.

exolymph 5y ago
This is a casual discussion website, comments often relate personal opinions.
- mistermann 5y ago
  True, but is the distinction between fact and opinion plausibly important, even if the conversation is casual?
ivraatiems 5y ago
Honestly, if the position of the original author is that this is representative of everybody, not just Internet People, I think it'd be on them to justify that view. They don't quite make that claim, though, and so I am not trying to formally refute it - I am just making what seems to be a logical note given the content as it stands.

lostandbored 5y ago

Yeaahhh, as interesting (and mildly funny) as it is, this a very online taxonomy. Don't really care much for it.

tharne 5y ago

> The biggest challenge in climate change (for example) is that it's simply happening on too long a timescale for the average person to pay much attention to it. I disagree. This may be a problem, but I think the bigger problem is one that was described in a post on HN a few weeks back. Namely, that most of the folks advocating for action and sacrifice on climate change are themselves unwilling to lead by example, e.g. stop using air travel, give up or very sharply reduce automobile usage, etc. This leads a lot of people to either 1) Write the whole thing off as some BS cooked up by elites or; 2) conclude that no one, including those who claim to care most about the issue is actually going to do anything about the problem. You can't have Congressmen and Senators calling climate change an "existential threat" while they're hopping on a commercial airliner every week to fly back home from DC. While these folks may be correct in their assessment of climate change, their own behavior completely destroys any credibility they may have had on the issue.

mden 5y ago
I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact. Not an exact parallel but just because people talk about wanting higher overall taxes and at the same time don't want to pay more than what is required doesn't mean they are hypocritical and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow.
- tharne 5y ago
  > I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. Maybe it would convince folks, maybe it wouldn't, but you'd have a chance. By contrast, any effort that involves "Do as I say, not as I do", is pretty much guaranteed to fail, and rightfully so. Trying to force others to do something that you yourself are unwilling to do voluntarily is the exact opposite of leadership.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. "All of a sudden" was not claimed. > There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact. No evidence, or none that you are aware of? Also, evidence is not required for something to be true. > and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow. It could be achieved via legislation, which is to some degree influenced by public sentiment, which is to some degree influenced by the manner in which we discuss and conceptualize reality.

chobeat 5y ago

I don't know about you, but most of the things in the article shape my real world: XR blocks my street, Exxon pollutes my air, cyberpunk shapes the aesthetic of art around me, corporate advertisements determine what is consumed by people I meet with. How is it online? And even if it were online, why do you treat as less real? Now most of the societal interactions happen online

Karrot_Kream 5y ago

I've always found Collapse believers to be composed of mostly people from highly developed Western nations. From what I've read online, many of these folks cannot visualize a world where their society/nation may backslide in a couple aspects (e.g. government corruption or infrastructure standards), but still continue to function mostly normally. Most of these folks have never seen rampant political corruption, low hygiene standards, political instability, broken/lacking infrastructure, or general unsafety that often comes up in developing nations. The West _is_ going through a lot of change/political soul searching right now, so it's understandable, but I highly suggest visiting developing nations to see how everyday people live, succeed, and thrive despite many problems around them. Even the historic concept of "collapse" is ill-defined. It's widely accepted today that the Western Roman Empire (probably the most written-about "collapse" event) didn't really collapse at once as much as it slowly changed from within and without. Is this "linear collapse"? I mean maybe, but it may just be the process of change itself.

chobeat 5y ago
well, they are already living it, westeners have the privilege to believe it's not something that is happening but something that will happen in the future and take distance from it framing it as a collapse after peak prosperity. Third world never had peak prosperity or at least it didn't look particularly different from their past. But they are gonna starve and migrate too even if they don't call it collapse.
- ben_w 5y ago
  I think you’re discussing a very different thing to the parent and grandparent comments. Yes, by the standard that counts the end of the Roman Empire as a collapse, any given nation or union of nations may still collapse and those within may starve or migrate; this still won’t look like any of the post-apocalyptic narratives that represent the loudest and most obvious examples of this topic. I expect that, much like every other community, the loudest “collapsers” are merely an embarrassing minority, and certainly I hear that the people who stockpile food and maintain a strong relationship with their neighbours roll their eyes at those who stockpile ammunition and do nothing else.

AlexCoventry 5y ago

It's a taxonomy of political discourse regarding collapse. It's not surprising that it has little to say about people who have no political investment in ideas related to collapse.

scottrogowski 5y ago

Yes. This is a "Very Online taxonomy". While I think it's useful to think about mechanisms of collapse, the author seems to have a clear bias towards the belief that collapse will happen which feels very non-objective. In my experience, the vast majority of people I interact with (maybe 90%+) fall into the author's categorization of "radical denier" or "partial denier". I don't think there's anything "radical" about the belief that while things will change, society will go on. But calling the belief radical and suggesting that this is a belief only shared by Very Evil People (e.g. Koch Brothers) is a disingenuous straw man. For the record, if I had to put myself into this unscientific taxonomy, I might be somewhere between a technological and economic optimist.

elihu 5y ago
I suppose it's largely a problem of naming. "Denier" has negative connotations, but it's also the most obvious name to use. What would be a better, non-pejorative name? Life-will-go-on-ists? The article later refers to an ideology of "eco-fascism" which is even more problematic. That seems like a name that detractors would apply to a group, not a label that someone would self-apply. I don't know what a neutral name would be, though.