5 ms·

> It's most likely true that hippies aren't the largest group of believers in magical potions from animal parts — I certainly don't have the numbers and I'm goi

> It's most likely true that hippies aren't the largest group of believers in magical potions from animal parts — I certainly don't have the numbers and I'm going by intuition, but there's likely also a difference between the number of people and the size of the market created by those people. Not all people have equal purchasing power. Despite the difference in purchasing power, there’s no indication that rhino horns get sold in substantial quantities in the western sphere. There’s certainly people that will purchase it, but the primary market is in Asia and Africa itself. Additionally, as with most endangered species, hunting them is only part of what endangers the population. Destruction of habitat for crops or meat, often sold to Europe and the US is a major contribution. The hippies are truly not at fault here. > I think it's important to recognise however that the holier than thou attitudes of PETA, XR, Greta Thunberg and others do not actually help alleviate any of the problems facing society, despite their best intentions. Why would you lump Greta Thunberg in there? By age alone, she’s not to blame for climate change. And what she does explicitly advocate for is in her own words: “Listen to the scientists” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/sep/18/listen-to-the-scientists-greta-thunberg-tells-congress-video https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/sep/18/li... Blaming the hippies for climate change is absurd. When all relevant decisions were made, they were not in power. Nuclear power would not have saved us. There’s more blame to be put on the decision makers at shell than the hippies. Blaming them is a convenient scapegoat for the hard choices we need to make in the future.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
> Why would you lunp Greta Thunberg in there? By age alone, she’s not to blame for climate change. And what she does explicitly advocate for is in her own words: “Listen to the scientists” You're right, she isn't to blame for climate change, but she is one of the most prominent characters in the world and when she says "personally, I am against nuclear power"[0], people listen. It causes real damage. She does indeed say "listen to the scientists", but the scientists say we need nuclear power[1]. Which she is against. Confusingly. > Blaming the hippies for climate change is absurd. I really don't think it is. I think it is climate alarmists (purely with good intentions, as I mentioned earlier) like Thunberg going back several decades that have pressured governments into abandoning investment in nuclear power. [0]: https://m.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/photos/a.733630957004727/793436521024170/?theater&hc_location=ufi https://m.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/photos/a.73363095... [1]: https://environmentalprogress.org/complete-case-for-nuclear https://environmentalprogress.org/complete-case-for-nuclear
- shakna 5y ago
  > She does indeed say "listen to the scientists", but the scientists say we need nuclear power[1]. Which she is against. Confusingly. She's a kid. Expecting a kid to be holistically consistent, when most adults still can't, isn't something that is reasonable. People do listen to her, but... She's a kid. Expecting her to be responsible for all of her actions isn't something that even the law expects.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    You're right, but the damage is still done. As you say, people do listen to her. I'm not sure how that problem can be fixed.
    - Xylakant 5y ago
      Fundamentally, if you can’t listen to people that are wrong on one thing, then there’s nobody you can listen to. Everyone is wrong on one thing at least, everyone is inconsistent. A lot of people advocating for nuclear power still eat meat, while cutting back on meat usage is a substantial factor in combating destruction of wildlife habitat and reducing emissions. Not owning a car, not flying, all things that can effectively be done on a personal level now, instead of or even in parallel to advocating for nuclear power. The belief that technology will save us all and that we don’t have to change our personal lifestyles has in my opinion a strong resemblance to religious beliefs.
      - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
        Again, I agree with you, so your comment feels like a bit of a strawman. I'm not arguing in favour of ideological purity. I am merely concerned with pragmatic solutions to the problems that we face. I don't think pressing the power save button on your television makes a meaningful difference. I also don't think banning cars or planes — an idea many environmental activists are enthusiastic about — is realistic. I think the scale of the problem we face, and the extent of impact necessary to mitigate it, requires investment in nuclear power. Other forms of clean energy are useful, but supplementary. If Thunberg were wrong about other things, it would be inconsequential. For her to push the wrong message about her core argument though is far less forgivable.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

> Why would you lunp Greta Thunberg in there? By age alone, she’s not to blame for climate change. And what she does explicitly advocate for is in her own words: “Listen to the scientists” You're right, she isn't to blame for climate change, but she is one of the most prominent characters in the world and when she says "personally, I am against nuclear power"[0], people listen. It causes real damage. She does indeed say "listen to the scientists", but the scientists say we need nuclear power[1]. Which she is against. Confusingly. > Blaming the hippies for climate change is absurd. I really don't think it is. I think it is climate alarmists (purely with good intentions, as I mentioned earlier) like Thunberg going back several decades that have pressured governments into abandoning investment in nuclear power. [0]: https://m.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/photos/a.733630957004727/793436521024170/?theater&hc_location=ufi https://m.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/photos/a.73363095... [1]: https://environmentalprogress.org/complete-case-for-nuclear https://environmentalprogress.org/complete-case-for-nuclear

shakna 5y ago
> She does indeed say "listen to the scientists", but the scientists say we need nuclear power[1]. Which she is against. Confusingly. She's a kid. Expecting a kid to be holistically consistent, when most adults still can't, isn't something that is reasonable. People do listen to her, but... She's a kid. Expecting her to be responsible for all of her actions isn't something that even the law expects.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  You're right, but the damage is still done. As you say, people do listen to her. I'm not sure how that problem can be fixed.
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    Fundamentally, if you can’t listen to people that are wrong on one thing, then there’s nobody you can listen to. Everyone is wrong on one thing at least, everyone is inconsistent. A lot of people advocating for nuclear power still eat meat, while cutting back on meat usage is a substantial factor in combating destruction of wildlife habitat and reducing emissions. Not owning a car, not flying, all things that can effectively be done on a personal level now, instead of or even in parallel to advocating for nuclear power. The belief that technology will save us all and that we don’t have to change our personal lifestyles has in my opinion a strong resemblance to religious beliefs.
    - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
      Again, I agree with you, so your comment feels like a bit of a strawman. I'm not arguing in favour of ideological purity. I am merely concerned with pragmatic solutions to the problems that we face. I don't think pressing the power save button on your television makes a meaningful difference. I also don't think banning cars or planes — an idea many environmental activists are enthusiastic about — is realistic. I think the scale of the problem we face, and the extent of impact necessary to mitigate it, requires investment in nuclear power. Other forms of clean energy are useful, but supplementary. If Thunberg were wrong about other things, it would be inconsequential. For her to push the wrong message about her core argument though is far less forgivable.