4 ms·

It sounds like you're saying creating fear is a bad thing. Is it? Sure, people don't need or want to live their lives in fear. But, can you think of a time you

It sounds like you're saying creating fear is a bad thing. Is it? Sure, people don't need or want to live their lives in fear. But, can you think of a time you changed your behaviour on account of something you were afraid of? I bet you can. I bet politicians really can.

adamrezich 5y ago
it's mind-blowing that people like you accept the idea that it's perfectly normal and fine for unelected members of international pseudo-government bodies to spread fear porn propaganda specifically in order to get citizens to enact change in their lives, And That's A Good Thing™. how the fuck did we get to the point where top-down emotional terrorism of the working class is lauded as some kind of grand achievement for furthering human civilization? insane
- tony_cannistra 5y ago
  I hear your attempt at divisiveness here ("people like you"), but I suspect we're not so different. Nobody in this conversation is enacting "top-down emotional terrorism" –– not me, nor the IPCC –– nor is anyone claiming that's a good idea. In fact, that would be a very bad idea. (If there's one way to get folks to do literally nothing it's to paralyse them in fear.) If you read the report, you'll see concrete recommendations that are to be enacted at the governmental level, rooted in the reality of a changing environment. The consequences of failure are intentionally stark -- we made them ourselves. You're falling for the individualism trap. Climate change isn't your problem, nor is it my problem. It's everyone's problem. Everyone's problems are solved by high-functioning institutions. Motivating action to avoid consequences at society-scale is a great way to get institutional gears moving.
- ericd 5y ago
  What you say might be true if this was politically motivated. But scientists generally aren’t, and they’re generally scared of what their data is saying.
  - adamrezich 5y ago
    ah right—scientists. I forgot that one cannot question the motives of the contemporary clerical class, as they are always pure of heart and mind and uniquely the sole exception to the "everything is political" nature of modern times. apologies for the heresy!
    - ericd 5y ago
      Come on. I'm really not a dogmatic "church of science" kind of person out there trying to burn the antivaxxer heretics or whatever, extremely far from it. Scientists are obviously fallible, it's the whole reason we have the scientific method. But I know a good number of scientists, and generally they're really the type of person that's interested in just figuring things out. And with those people in mind, I'm pretty sure this is not angling for anything except that we need to get on the fucking ball and decarbonize asap, because humans + resource shortage = conflict, and this is that taken to an extreme.
      - adamrezich 5y ago
        are any of the scientists you know doomsaying on behalf of the UN?

adamrezich 5y ago

it's mind-blowing that people like you accept the idea that it's perfectly normal and fine for unelected members of international pseudo-government bodies to spread fear porn propaganda specifically in order to get citizens to enact change in their lives, And That's A Good Thing™. how the fuck did we get to the point where top-down emotional terrorism of the working class is lauded as some kind of grand achievement for furthering human civilization? insane

tony_cannistra 5y ago
I hear your attempt at divisiveness here ("people like you"), but I suspect we're not so different. Nobody in this conversation is enacting "top-down emotional terrorism" –– not me, nor the IPCC –– nor is anyone claiming that's a good idea. In fact, that would be a very bad idea. (If there's one way to get folks to do literally nothing it's to paralyse them in fear.) If you read the report, you'll see concrete recommendations that are to be enacted at the governmental level, rooted in the reality of a changing environment. The consequences of failure are intentionally stark -- we made them ourselves. You're falling for the individualism trap. Climate change isn't your problem, nor is it my problem. It's everyone's problem. Everyone's problems are solved by high-functioning institutions. Motivating action to avoid consequences at society-scale is a great way to get institutional gears moving.
ericd 5y ago
What you say might be true if this was politically motivated. But scientists generally aren’t, and they’re generally scared of what their data is saying.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  ah right—scientists. I forgot that one cannot question the motives of the contemporary clerical class, as they are always pure of heart and mind and uniquely the sole exception to the "everything is political" nature of modern times. apologies for the heresy!
  - ericd 5y ago
    Come on. I'm really not a dogmatic "church of science" kind of person out there trying to burn the antivaxxer heretics or whatever, extremely far from it. Scientists are obviously fallible, it's the whole reason we have the scientific method. But I know a good number of scientists, and generally they're really the type of person that's interested in just figuring things out. And with those people in mind, I'm pretty sure this is not angling for anything except that we need to get on the fucking ball and decarbonize asap, because humans + resource shortage = conflict, and this is that taken to an extreme.
    - adamrezich 5y ago
      are any of the scientists you know doomsaying on behalf of the UN?