3 ms·

None of those things will solve the real problem: We're destroying our own biosphere. Our kids are going to live in an objectively shittier world, to say nothin

None of those things will solve the real problem: We're destroying our own biosphere. Our kids are going to live in an objectively shittier world, to say nothing of their children. That's not solvable with random acts of kindness, because cruelty isn't what's killing the planet. It's indifference. It's not solvable by voting, because the generation you can vote into political power will never suffer the consequences of their own decisions. The timelines are too long. Couple that with the fact that political power is very temporal and political thinking is of necessity fairly short-term and you have to come to the conclusion that no politician will solve this for anyone. If you have a meaningful way to solve this issue, I'd love to hear it. But pretending there are things we can do to solve it is not going to change anything.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Voting is not sufficient but it is necessary. Vote for more democracy/transparency/science/education, vote against less. The general form of the issue (and therefore solutions) is outlined by Olsen's Collective Action Theory. We're doing this to ourselves, like the prisoner's dilemma and game theory tells us we can rewrite the rules of the game to get better outcomes.
watwut 5y ago
Your suggestion amounts to "do nothing" which will achieve even less then voting. Practically speaking, people who do think there is issue and are willing to look for solutions or at least talk about the issue have a chance to improve state of things in the long term. People who gave up, wont ever improve anything. People who insist that nothing should be done, because none if it is perfect enough are actively working against solution.
- krageon 5y ago
  What I said was that the provided solutions are both beaten to death and meaningless, and that I would like a solution that did have the potential for impact. What I did not say is to do nothing, so you are not responding to me but rather a fictional person that does not exist. I think we call that a strawman.
kortilla 5y ago
> Our kids are going to live in an objectively shittier world, to say nothing of their children. This is complete horseshit. They will have better medical technology, better housing technology, better food technology (people ate like shit 50 years ago let alone 100 years ago), etc. It’s only “objectively shittier” if your objective has nothing to do with human life and is mainly focused on biodiversity.
- andrepd 5y ago
  >better housing technology Almost everywhere throughout the developed world the ratio "house prices"/"wages" is skyrocketing. Young people are increasingly forming a precariat with fewer and fewer of them being able to own a home and constitute a family. "Better housing technology" what does this even mean? Solar panels on the roof? Well first you need to own a roof to put panels in. >better food technology Obesity is increasing. In most places junk food is cheaper per calorie than healthy food (to say nothing of aggressive marketing of the former). Again, what does this "better food technology" refer to?
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  >They will have better medical technology In the US how will many be able to afford to access said technology given how expensive medical insurance is?

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Voting is not sufficient but it is necessary. Vote for more democracy/transparency/science/education, vote against less. The general form of the issue (and therefore solutions) is outlined by Olsen's Collective Action Theory. We're doing this to ourselves, like the prisoner's dilemma and game theory tells us we can rewrite the rules of the game to get better outcomes.

watwut 5y ago

Your suggestion amounts to "do nothing" which will achieve even less then voting. Practically speaking, people who do think there is issue and are willing to look for solutions or at least talk about the issue have a chance to improve state of things in the long term. People who gave up, wont ever improve anything. People who insist that nothing should be done, because none if it is perfect enough are actively working against solution.

krageon 5y ago
What I said was that the provided solutions are both beaten to death and meaningless, and that I would like a solution that did have the potential for impact. What I did not say is to do nothing, so you are not responding to me but rather a fictional person that does not exist. I think we call that a strawman.

kortilla 5y ago

> Our kids are going to live in an objectively shittier world, to say nothing of their children. This is complete horseshit. They will have better medical technology, better housing technology, better food technology (people ate like shit 50 years ago let alone 100 years ago), etc. It’s only “objectively shittier” if your objective has nothing to do with human life and is mainly focused on biodiversity.

andrepd 5y ago
>better housing technology Almost everywhere throughout the developed world the ratio "house prices"/"wages" is skyrocketing. Young people are increasingly forming a precariat with fewer and fewer of them being able to own a home and constitute a family. "Better housing technology" what does this even mean? Solar panels on the roof? Well first you need to own a roof to put panels in. >better food technology Obesity is increasing. In most places junk food is cheaper per calorie than healthy food (to say nothing of aggressive marketing of the former). Again, what does this "better food technology" refer to?
JaimeThompson 5y ago
>They will have better medical technology In the US how will many be able to afford to access said technology given how expensive medical insurance is?