5 ms·

Doing stuff like this today is going to be 100x better than what people 3 generations from now will have to live through thanks to climate change. The question

Doing stuff like this today is going to be 100x better than what people 3 generations from now will have to live through thanks to climate change. The question is whether we’re willing to inconvenience ourselves today to protect future generations - and the answer is looking like no.

jen20 4y ago
Given that since 2020 we observed that (at least in the US) many were not even prepared to accept minor inconvenience to protect the _current_ generations, I’d say the answer is emphatically “hell no” rather than just looking like it.
- fullshark 4y ago
  I have the opposite take. The lesson from COVID is like the lesson from the war on terror imo, the majority of people largely DID accept massive curtailing of individual freedom due to fear, and will do it again the next crisis that comes along. The climate change crisis is slow moving and 100% of the people don't accept it as happening but if it produces an actual short term crisis like a famine then the statists will be ready to use it to propose (or possibly just enforce without passing laws) massive intrusions on individual rights again and continue to search for similar crises to keep doing it.
basisword 4y ago
The answer is no for stupid solutions like tracking everybody’s meat consumption and a government limiting it. You will be swiftly told to fuck off (and rightly so). You need to get people on your side and contributing without massively changing their lifestyles, instead of alienating them. We need massive reductions in business contributions to climate change and we need investment in current clean energy solutions and investment in further research. The current younger generations already are less well off economically than the last. They shouldn’t have to make further sacrifices for future generations.
- jacooper 4y ago
  Exactly, I don't know why we are focusing on meat while we all know that energy and business emissions are more important, it looks like its an intentional distraction from big oil, and to give Norway's government more spying powers.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree in principle, but I think what you're saying will be very hard or impossible. Those "business contributions to climate change" exist because they're producing goods that consumers want; you can't significantly reduce that without also affecting consumer lifestyles, by reducing the options for the number of goods, or making them more expensive. Further research in clean energy is all very nice, but that's what I've been hearing for 25 years, and if we look at what has actually been accomplished then I think it's a pretty big gamble to bet that "further research" will all make things work out. The last 100 years or so have been quite exceptional in many ways; I think the expectation that younger generations will have it at least as good as the previous one is just not realistic.
  - basisword 4y ago
    >> The last 100 years or so have been quite exceptional in many ways; I think the expectation that younger generations will have it at least as good as the previous one is just not realistic. Whether or not this is true (it very well could be although we won’t know for a while) I think the idea that younger generations will just accept that is unrealistic.
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      You're probably right there! But the alternative ("keep doing our thing like 10 years from now doesn't exist") will be worse, so ... yeah. It's a bad situation :-(
  - jacooper 4y ago
    Once we exsuahst all options to reduce climate change with limited impact on the customer, things like renewable energy(people don't care where their energy comes from), replacing unnecessary plastics with paper, etc, we can then talk about things like limiting meat consumption. But affecting peoples lifes without actually tackling industries and corporation that do way more harm is just stupid and basically serves Oil companies targets, they created the "carbon footprint" just to distract people from focusing on them.
junofan 4y ago
It’s not a question of us inconveniencing ourselves today. It’s a question of us and all of our descendants inconveniencing themselves in perpetuity. Which seems unlikely. The future is long.
concordDance 4y ago
This kind of comment is one I only see from people who haven't actually read the IPCC's reports and don't actually have a feel for how bad it's going to be by 2100. Am I wrong?
ActorNightly 4y ago
You would be correct if the governments consisted of smart, very technical people, who weren't brainwashed by colleges into implicitly believing the current "feel good" narrative. But in reality, the people in charge are a complete opposite of that.

jen20 4y ago

Given that since 2020 we observed that (at least in the US) many were not even prepared to accept minor inconvenience to protect the _current_ generations, I’d say the answer is emphatically “hell no” rather than just looking like it.

fullshark 4y ago
I have the opposite take. The lesson from COVID is like the lesson from the war on terror imo, the majority of people largely DID accept massive curtailing of individual freedom due to fear, and will do it again the next crisis that comes along. The climate change crisis is slow moving and 100% of the people don't accept it as happening but if it produces an actual short term crisis like a famine then the statists will be ready to use it to propose (or possibly just enforce without passing laws) massive intrusions on individual rights again and continue to search for similar crises to keep doing it.

basisword 4y ago

The answer is no for stupid solutions like tracking everybody’s meat consumption and a government limiting it. You will be swiftly told to fuck off (and rightly so). You need to get people on your side and contributing without massively changing their lifestyles, instead of alienating them. We need massive reductions in business contributions to climate change and we need investment in current clean energy solutions and investment in further research. The current younger generations already are less well off economically than the last. They shouldn’t have to make further sacrifices for future generations.

jacooper 4y ago
Exactly, I don't know why we are focusing on meat while we all know that energy and business emissions are more important, it looks like its an intentional distraction from big oil, and to give Norway's government more spying powers.
Beltalowda 4y ago
I don't necessarily disagree in principle, but I think what you're saying will be very hard or impossible. Those "business contributions to climate change" exist because they're producing goods that consumers want; you can't significantly reduce that without also affecting consumer lifestyles, by reducing the options for the number of goods, or making them more expensive. Further research in clean energy is all very nice, but that's what I've been hearing for 25 years, and if we look at what has actually been accomplished then I think it's a pretty big gamble to bet that "further research" will all make things work out. The last 100 years or so have been quite exceptional in many ways; I think the expectation that younger generations will have it at least as good as the previous one is just not realistic.
- basisword 4y ago
  >> The last 100 years or so have been quite exceptional in many ways; I think the expectation that younger generations will have it at least as good as the previous one is just not realistic. Whether or not this is true (it very well could be although we won’t know for a while) I think the idea that younger generations will just accept that is unrealistic.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    You're probably right there! But the alternative ("keep doing our thing like 10 years from now doesn't exist") will be worse, so ... yeah. It's a bad situation :-(
- jacooper 4y ago
  Once we exsuahst all options to reduce climate change with limited impact on the customer, things like renewable energy(people don't care where their energy comes from), replacing unnecessary plastics with paper, etc, we can then talk about things like limiting meat consumption. But affecting peoples lifes without actually tackling industries and corporation that do way more harm is just stupid and basically serves Oil companies targets, they created the "carbon footprint" just to distract people from focusing on them.

junofan 4y ago

It’s not a question of us inconveniencing ourselves today. It’s a question of us and all of our descendants inconveniencing themselves in perpetuity. Which seems unlikely. The future is long.

concordDance 4y ago

This kind of comment is one I only see from people who haven't actually read the IPCC's reports and don't actually have a feel for how bad it's going to be by 2100. Am I wrong?

ActorNightly 4y ago

You would be correct if the governments consisted of smart, very technical people, who weren't brainwashed by colleges into implicitly believing the current "feel good" narrative. But in reality, the people in charge are a complete opposite of that.