4 ms·

Am I to understand that you think we need to turn a blind eye to the bad things that China is doing to their own people so that we have a chance of convincing t

Am I to understand that you think we need to turn a blind eye to the bad things that China is doing to their own people so that we have a chance of convincing them to stop doing bad things to the rest of the world?

throwaway894345 5y ago
Not quite. The idea is that climate change poses an existential threat to human civilization as we know it. As bad as China's human rights abuses are, they pale in comparison to its climate abuses. If you have ideas for compelling China to reduce its emissions to meet targets while also holding them accountable for their various other violations, I'm all ears.
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  >> they pale in comparison to its climate abuses Ah yes, the old "murdering a few people now is less of a problem than potentially murdering more people down the road" argument.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Yeah, I guess in my mind it’s worth finding face-saving means to alleviate Uyghur suffering in order to save humanity as we know it. But again I ask: what is your solution?
    - weare138 5y ago
      It's not our responsibility you refute your claims. It's yours to prove them. How is turning a blind eye to China's human rights abuses going to force their hand when it comes to climate change? What exactly is your plan here? Clearly explain how we get from point A to point B. And when has this strategy ever worked? We did the same thing with Poland in WWII and look where that got us. You can't make deals with despots.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        > How is turning a blind eye to China's human rights abuses going to force their hand when it comes to climate change? That’s not my claim.
    - artificialLimbs 5y ago
      Plug the leaking holes in the boat and worry about getting the sail replaced when you get to shore. It's certainly easy to brush it off if you're not a murdered Uyghur.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        > Plug the leaking holes in the boat and worry about getting the sail replaced when you get to shore. This is meaninglessly abstract. Anyone can offer trite platitudes. Concretely, how do we meet climate targets by the end of the century without China's participation? What additional burden does that put on the rest of the world, and how are we going to meet that when no one is on track to meet their current obligations? > It's certainly easy to brush it off if you're not a murdered Uyghur. 1. No one is brushing anything off. 2. What's the Uyghur death toll, approximately? 3. I can similarly imply that you're being too cavalier about the people who will die of starvation, disease, and poverty, but I don't think these sorts of ad hominem are very productive.
        jjeaff 5y ago
        You seem awfully convinced that this is an either/or situation. I see no direct evidence that trying to help the Uyghurs necessarily inhibits our ability to pressure China to slow their climate destruction.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        I think we can try to help the Uyghurs, but I think we have to do so in a way that allows China to save face (in contrast to the sort of cathartic, show-China-who's-boss sentiment upthread). But yeah, Washington and Beijing don't get along well, and a very fragile peace is emerging on climate. I think an aggressive push on the Uyghur issue would set back Chinese climate policy by years, and scientists seem to be telling us that we need to make a certain amount of progress by the end of the decade. So yeah, it kind of feels like a dichotomy to me.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  I wanted to include this in my initial comment but it felt too flippant, but since you asked- I have always outright dismissed the idea of US military action against China for their local human rights abuses until you made me consider the possibility that their global human rights abuses were worse and that you couldn't simultaneously pressure them on both fronts. Congrats, you have made me at least 5% more nihilistic today. (No, I do not think the US should go to war with China. But if you think that China's climate abuse is an existential threat to humankind surely it has to be considered as a possible solution).
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Going to war with China would itself be an existential threat, and thus rightly politically impossible (we in the west can't even muster political support to decommission fossil fuels--how are we going to get ourselves to go to war with our largest trading partner and a fellow nuclear and economic superpower?). Personally I'm going to prioritize solutions that minimize deaths.

throwaway894345 5y ago

Not quite. The idea is that climate change poses an existential threat to human civilization as we know it. As bad as China's human rights abuses are, they pale in comparison to its climate abuses. If you have ideas for compelling China to reduce its emissions to meet targets while also holding them accountable for their various other violations, I'm all ears.

artificialLimbs 5y ago
>> they pale in comparison to its climate abuses Ah yes, the old "murdering a few people now is less of a problem than potentially murdering more people down the road" argument.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Yeah, I guess in my mind it’s worth finding face-saving means to alleviate Uyghur suffering in order to save humanity as we know it. But again I ask: what is your solution?
  - weare138 5y ago
    It's not our responsibility you refute your claims. It's yours to prove them. How is turning a blind eye to China's human rights abuses going to force their hand when it comes to climate change? What exactly is your plan here? Clearly explain how we get from point A to point B. And when has this strategy ever worked? We did the same thing with Poland in WWII and look where that got us. You can't make deals with despots.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > How is turning a blind eye to China's human rights abuses going to force their hand when it comes to climate change? That’s not my claim.
  - artificialLimbs 5y ago
    Plug the leaking holes in the boat and worry about getting the sail replaced when you get to shore. It's certainly easy to brush it off if you're not a murdered Uyghur.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > Plug the leaking holes in the boat and worry about getting the sail replaced when you get to shore. This is meaninglessly abstract. Anyone can offer trite platitudes. Concretely, how do we meet climate targets by the end of the century without China's participation? What additional burden does that put on the rest of the world, and how are we going to meet that when no one is on track to meet their current obligations? > It's certainly easy to brush it off if you're not a murdered Uyghur. 1. No one is brushing anything off. 2. What's the Uyghur death toll, approximately? 3. I can similarly imply that you're being too cavalier about the people who will die of starvation, disease, and poverty, but I don't think these sorts of ad hominem are very productive.
      - jjeaff 5y ago
        You seem awfully convinced that this is an either/or situation. I see no direct evidence that trying to help the Uyghurs necessarily inhibits our ability to pressure China to slow their climate destruction.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        I think we can try to help the Uyghurs, but I think we have to do so in a way that allows China to save face (in contrast to the sort of cathartic, show-China-who's-boss sentiment upthread). But yeah, Washington and Beijing don't get along well, and a very fragile peace is emerging on climate. I think an aggressive push on the Uyghur issue would set back Chinese climate policy by years, and scientists seem to be telling us that we need to make a certain amount of progress by the end of the decade. So yeah, it kind of feels like a dichotomy to me.
anoonmoose 5y ago
I wanted to include this in my initial comment but it felt too flippant, but since you asked- I have always outright dismissed the idea of US military action against China for their local human rights abuses until you made me consider the possibility that their global human rights abuses were worse and that you couldn't simultaneously pressure them on both fronts. Congrats, you have made me at least 5% more nihilistic today. (No, I do not think the US should go to war with China. But if you think that China's climate abuse is an existential threat to humankind surely it has to be considered as a possible solution).
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Going to war with China would itself be an existential threat, and thus rightly politically impossible (we in the west can't even muster political support to decommission fossil fuels--how are we going to get ourselves to go to war with our largest trading partner and a fellow nuclear and economic superpower?). Personally I'm going to prioritize solutions that minimize deaths.