4 ms·

This funded by oil or just misguided techie?

by readonthegoapp 5y ago

ottamlenghi 5y ago
why misguided?
- readonthegoapp 5y ago
  just goes with the whole "you know how to fix the currently-unfolding environmental collapse? just go electric, eat a little less meat, you know, reduce your carbon footprint". it looks like it came directly from madison ave - it's just the next phase of their campaign. they've been forced to admit collapse is real. they've been forced to admit some small part of it is due to humans. word is starting to get out that 'carbon footprint' is a scam, but most folks haven't gotten that message yet, so get some plausible deniability by saying, 'call your reps' first. limit the range of recommended thoughts and activities to what is on this page, thus guaranteeing our miserable futures and deaths.
  - seanwilson 5y ago
    > word is starting to get out that 'carbon footprint' is a scam, but most folks haven't gotten that message yet, so get some plausible deniability by saying, 'call your reps' first. Article from the site's FAQ: https://www.wired.com/story/does-climate-change-mean-you-should-fly-less-yeah-maybe/ https://www.wired.com/story/does-climate-change-mean-you-sho... "Voting is crucial, but this perspective misses a large point of individual actions. We don’t recommend taking personal actions like limiting plane rides, eating less meat, or investing in solar energy because all of these small tweaks will build up to enough carbon savings (though it could help). We do so because people taking action in their personal lives is actually one of the best ways to get to a society that implements the policy-level change that is truly needed. Research on social behavior suggests lifestyle change can build momentum for systemic change. Humans are social animals, and we use social cues to recognize emergencies. People don’t spring into action just because they see smoke; they spring into action because they see others rushing in with water. The same principle applies to personal actions on climate change." Government and companies are less likely to act when they know individuals aren't willing to change their lifestyles. Nobody is saying individuals have to do everything, but individuals, governments and companies all have a part to play instead of passing the blame around and doing nothing.
    - readonthegoapp 5y ago
      i think you've helped make clear why virtue signaling-as-activism is so dangerous. we've had these Madison Avenue-created ideas of 'recycling' and 'carbon footprint' around for decades (along with the all the other fine stuff they give us), and millions of people in America who have signaled on one or both for decades, and what have we achieved? an even-faster acceleration of global climate collapse. and that's exactly what they were designed to do -- stop any actual progress on preventing climate collapse. i skimmed that wired article a few times now, trying to find something that feels real, something scientific, some strong notion of evidence, something. but there's just nothing there -- wishful thinking at best. i'm sure i've argued, either here or somewhere on the internet, that changing from plastic straws to paper might have some infinitesimally small impact on people and/or the environment, either actual or perceived, but i never would have said "there's evidence!" or anything crazy like that. i probably would have gone as far as to say something like: It does either nothing or next to nothing, so we should be honest about that, _but_ it mainly gives us a change to talk to people about what is actually required to turn things around. Would I destroy some 5-year old kid's dream if s/he was on a campaign to replace plastic straws with paper straws in their town? No. But I would educate them further and point them towards activism that might save their lives in the future - without being so explicit. Fairytales are fine, more or less, for kids -- but we adults can't afford that luxury if we care about those kids' futures. All that said, most/all of what I've heard Greta say over the past few years has been spot on -- if she says paper straws and e-cars and all the other virtue signaling is a good/effective way to help build support for doing something meantingful, then i'm all for it and will support it, and do it, and fund it, and etc. ...adding, even the 'Voting is important' stuff is an overstatement, imo, at least in America. like, yes, vote for the party that is not trying to destroy the world, but that's a tiny part of what needs to be done when when we're talking about politics/electioneering/etc. You take 5 minutes and vote -- unless you're black, in which case -- get harassed, threatened, intimidated, try to get your name back on the voting rolls for days/months/years, wait in line for hours, cast a provisional ballot, have you ballot thrown out anyways -- and then start pressuring whichever pol got elected.
      - seanwilson 5y ago

This funded by oil or just misguided techie?

ottamlenghi 5y ago

why misguided?

readonthegoapp 5y ago
just goes with the whole "you know how to fix the currently-unfolding environmental collapse? just go electric, eat a little less meat, you know, reduce your carbon footprint". it looks like it came directly from madison ave - it's just the next phase of their campaign. they've been forced to admit collapse is real. they've been forced to admit some small part of it is due to humans. word is starting to get out that 'carbon footprint' is a scam, but most folks haven't gotten that message yet, so get some plausible deniability by saying, 'call your reps' first. limit the range of recommended thoughts and activities to what is on this page, thus guaranteeing our miserable futures and deaths.
- seanwilson 5y ago
  > word is starting to get out that 'carbon footprint' is a scam, but most folks haven't gotten that message yet, so get some plausible deniability by saying, 'call your reps' first. Article from the site's FAQ: https://www.wired.com/story/does-climate-change-mean-you-should-fly-less-yeah-maybe/ https://www.wired.com/story/does-climate-change-mean-you-sho... "Voting is crucial, but this perspective misses a large point of individual actions. We don’t recommend taking personal actions like limiting plane rides, eating less meat, or investing in solar energy because all of these small tweaks will build up to enough carbon savings (though it could help). We do so because people taking action in their personal lives is actually one of the best ways to get to a society that implements the policy-level change that is truly needed. Research on social behavior suggests lifestyle change can build momentum for systemic change. Humans are social animals, and we use social cues to recognize emergencies. People don’t spring into action just because they see smoke; they spring into action because they see others rushing in with water. The same principle applies to personal actions on climate change." Government and companies are less likely to act when they know individuals aren't willing to change their lifestyles. Nobody is saying individuals have to do everything, but individuals, governments and companies all have a part to play instead of passing the blame around and doing nothing.
  - readonthegoapp 5y ago
    i think you've helped make clear why virtue signaling-as-activism is so dangerous. we've had these Madison Avenue-created ideas of 'recycling' and 'carbon footprint' around for decades (along with the all the other fine stuff they give us), and millions of people in America who have signaled on one or both for decades, and what have we achieved? an even-faster acceleration of global climate collapse. and that's exactly what they were designed to do -- stop any actual progress on preventing climate collapse. i skimmed that wired article a few times now, trying to find something that feels real, something scientific, some strong notion of evidence, something. but there's just nothing there -- wishful thinking at best. i'm sure i've argued, either here or somewhere on the internet, that changing from plastic straws to paper might have some infinitesimally small impact on people and/or the environment, either actual or perceived, but i never would have said "there's evidence!" or anything crazy like that. i probably would have gone as far as to say something like: It does either nothing or next to nothing, so we should be honest about that, _but_ it mainly gives us a change to talk to people about what is actually required to turn things around. Would I destroy some 5-year old kid's dream if s/he was on a campaign to replace plastic straws with paper straws in their town? No. But I would educate them further and point them towards activism that might save their lives in the future - without being so explicit. Fairytales are fine, more or less, for kids -- but we adults can't afford that luxury if we care about those kids' futures. All that said, most/all of what I've heard Greta say over the past few years has been spot on -- if she says paper straws and e-cars and all the other virtue signaling is a good/effective way to help build support for doing something meantingful, then i'm all for it and will support it, and do it, and fund it, and etc. ...adding, even the 'Voting is important' stuff is an overstatement, imo, at least in America. like, yes, vote for the party that is not trying to destroy the world, but that's a tiny part of what needs to be done when when we're talking about politics/electioneering/etc. You take 5 minutes and vote -- unless you're black, in which case -- get harassed, threatened, intimidated, try to get your name back on the voting rolls for days/months/years, wait in line for hours, cast a provisional ballot, have you ballot thrown out anyways -- and then start pressuring whichever pol got elected.
    - seanwilson 5y ago