5 ms·

> what William James called the "Moral Equivalent of War", not as mere National Service, but as Global Service. Literally pay people salaries to fight climate c

> what William James called the "Moral Equivalent of War", not as mere National Service, but as Global Service. Literally pay people salaries to fight climate change. I see what you’re going for with this, and I imagine I could be persuaded to a more workable version of this. What’s hanging me up is - how do you avoid these salaried people being captured by incentives to sustain their salary rather than be incentivized to ultimately solve the problem? We’ve tried this with the war on drugs, war on terror, war on homelessness... haven’t we? Is your suggestion different somehow?

nonrandomstring 5y ago
> We've tried this with the war on drugs, war on terror, war on homelessness... haven’t we? Is your suggestion different somehow? No, it's ill formed and to be honest you're probably the first person to take it seriously enough to return a comment that isn't ridicule or outrage. Self-fulfilling capture, and indeed malevolent hijacking seem unavoidable pitfalls of such projects, you're right. But I notice the other wars on abstract nouns you mention are against human weaknesses (drugs/exploitation, terror/wrath, homelessness/inequity). And these always get twisted; wars on poverty become wars against the poor; wars on drugs become wars on addicts; wars on terror become wars of terror. Is climate maybe different if it's an "external" threat? The danger is that becomes a "war on nature" which is how we got into this fine mess. So no easy answers. However James is canny in reminding us that war is a (the) strong organising principle for humans and there may be a way to twist that into benevolence.
- mattcwilson 5y ago
  I like the “leverage/hack human psychodynamics to achieve positive group outcomes” angle. Guess I should check out some William James. Wondering if maybe it’s less paying tsars and bureaus to solve climate change, and more about paying individual people as a direct incentive to reduce their own carbon output. Dunno that that helps as far as businesses or foreign nations go, though.
  - ux-app 5y ago
    >paying individual people as a direct incentive to reduce their own carbon output Is there anything you can spend this money on that is not produced using fossil fuels?
    - mattcwilson 5y ago
      Music, art, books, comedy, pets, food, land, clothing, shelter... provided it’s all locally produced, I suppose. Are you going after something in particular? Seriously not trying to be facetious - I just don’t understand where you’re headed with this glib? rhetorical? question.
      - ux-app 5y ago
        Wasn't a glib comment, I think almost everything is either produced or consumed with the help of fossil fuels. >Music, art, books, comedy, pets, food, land, clothing, shelter. Every one of these requires fossil fuel input to some degree. Music: Every instrument, music player whatever is produced using plastics and fossil fules. books: Dead trees? Fossil fuels. Kindle? Plastics from fossil fuels food: produced and distributed using fossil fuels clothing: produced and distributed using fossil fuels You see where I'm going with this? It's impossible to live a fossil fuel neutral existence in a modern world
        mattcwilson 5y ago
        I don’t think it’s impossible? I think there’s a question of what fossil-fuel dependent comforts you’re willing to give up. But I assure you it’s entirely possible to live and have all of those goods, today, fossil-fuel free.
        ux-app 5y ago
        >But I assure you it’s entirely possible to live and have all of those goods, today, fossil-fuel free Well I'd be curious to hear how. Even the apple in your pantry requires significant fossil fuel input. Fertilizer: Fossil fuel based - the Haber-Bosch process is now directly responsible for sustaining 40% of the Earth’s population and is reliant on natural gas. That's to say nothing of the transport involved in, for example, buying Avocado year round from your grocer. That's just food though. Plastics are in literally everything. The amount of plastics, glues etc just in the pair of shoes you wear every day is unreal.

nonrandomstring 5y ago

> We've tried this with the war on drugs, war on terror, war on homelessness... haven’t we? Is your suggestion different somehow? No, it's ill formed and to be honest you're probably the first person to take it seriously enough to return a comment that isn't ridicule or outrage. Self-fulfilling capture, and indeed malevolent hijacking seem unavoidable pitfalls of such projects, you're right. But I notice the other wars on abstract nouns you mention are against human weaknesses (drugs/exploitation, terror/wrath, homelessness/inequity). And these always get twisted; wars on poverty become wars against the poor; wars on drugs become wars on addicts; wars on terror become wars of terror. Is climate maybe different if it's an "external" threat? The danger is that becomes a "war on nature" which is how we got into this fine mess. So no easy answers. However James is canny in reminding us that war is a (the) strong organising principle for humans and there may be a way to twist that into benevolence.

mattcwilson 5y ago
I like the “leverage/hack human psychodynamics to achieve positive group outcomes” angle. Guess I should check out some William James. Wondering if maybe it’s less paying tsars and bureaus to solve climate change, and more about paying individual people as a direct incentive to reduce their own carbon output. Dunno that that helps as far as businesses or foreign nations go, though.
- ux-app 5y ago
  >paying individual people as a direct incentive to reduce their own carbon output Is there anything you can spend this money on that is not produced using fossil fuels?
  - mattcwilson 5y ago
    Music, art, books, comedy, pets, food, land, clothing, shelter... provided it’s all locally produced, I suppose. Are you going after something in particular? Seriously not trying to be facetious - I just don’t understand where you’re headed with this glib? rhetorical? question.
    - ux-app 5y ago
      Wasn't a glib comment, I think almost everything is either produced or consumed with the help of fossil fuels. >Music, art, books, comedy, pets, food, land, clothing, shelter. Every one of these requires fossil fuel input to some degree. Music: Every instrument, music player whatever is produced using plastics and fossil fules. books: Dead trees? Fossil fuels. Kindle? Plastics from fossil fuels food: produced and distributed using fossil fuels clothing: produced and distributed using fossil fuels You see where I'm going with this? It's impossible to live a fossil fuel neutral existence in a modern world
      - mattcwilson 5y ago
        I don’t think it’s impossible? I think there’s a question of what fossil-fuel dependent comforts you’re willing to give up. But I assure you it’s entirely possible to live and have all of those goods, today, fossil-fuel free.
        ux-app 5y ago
        >But I assure you it’s entirely possible to live and have all of those goods, today, fossil-fuel free Well I'd be curious to hear how. Even the apple in your pantry requires significant fossil fuel input. Fertilizer: Fossil fuel based - the Haber-Bosch process is now directly responsible for sustaining 40% of the Earth’s population and is reliant on natural gas. That's to say nothing of the transport involved in, for example, buying Avocado year round from your grocer. That's just food though. Plastics are in literally everything. The amount of plastics, glues etc just in the pair of shoes you wear every day is unreal.