8 ms·

It's not extremism not to want to change your habits. You could argue that it's wrong, etc. But trying to defend for example your right to have a car and move f

by baisq 4y ago

It's not extremism not to want to change your habits. You could argue that it's wrong, etc. But trying to defend for example your right to have a car and move freely is not "extremism". And it's normal to feel personally attacked when they tell you to give up your car. It's literally a personal attack on your freedom.

suture 4y ago
I suggest that your feeling of being attacked is more imagined than real. The questions are: 1. Is the climate being changed by human activity and rapidly so? 2. What should one do with this knowledge if the answer to 1 is yes? Perhaps you don’t want to do anything about it. That is fine for you to decide this. But one should not answer ‘no’ to question 1 because doing something about it feels personal to you. The answer to 1 should have nothing to do with 2.
- jtdev 4y ago
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> And it's normal to feel personally attacked when they tell you to give up your car. It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. It's a really interesting comment which I wish we could explore deeper. I get the same feelings but about different things. So I know you are sincere. But also, it's cultural and quite superficial. In psychology it's called "identification". An attack on a thing you identify with feels like an attack on you personally. So for example, for me, attacks on free software, or my "right" to program in a language I choose, or to run a server, feel like actual attacks on my fundamental "freedom" as you say. In reality though, if the world took those things away, within a couple of months or years I'd have forgotten and moved along with the flow. I know this from the experience of being half a century old :) Now, if I took away your car, I can promise you'd feel the same in no time at all. Why? I don't own a car, and haven't for about 30 years. I git rid of my car when I moved to London, because private cars are a liability there. One or twice it's been a minor inconvenience. But apart from that I feel as free as ever - I go where I like, when I like, with who I like.... just rarely by car. Even though I'm a fairly conservative person in some ways, I think we must recognise that many things we cling to as "essential freedoms" are actually just in our minds.
- Loughla 4y ago
  I don't understand what you're getting at. Freedom of movement is absolutely a freedom for humans. In places like London, or even New York for a US example, you may be able to achieve this without a car. Are you arguing that all it takes is the saturation of public transportation for the entire US? Or are you arguing that people should just all move to mega-cities? I'm genuinely confused about what you're trying to explain to OP.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > I'm genuinely confused about what you're trying to explain to OP That people adapt. That deeply held beliefs about the importance of some things turn out to be skin-deep.
  - shlant 4y ago
    yea the "well I can do it so you can to" approach is pretty weak. I'm not sure how good faith the original comment is being anyways, but I don't think this response is very effective regardless. It should at least be caveated with "if you are in a similar location to London" or "your car will be replaced by effective public transit". "You'll adapt just like I did" is not very convincing for the majority of people.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      > "You'll adapt just like I did" is not very convincing for the majority of people. That's not my assertion, nor the point of my comment. The point is that identification (and misplaced sense of ownership) makes us very reluctant to be convinced [1]. A point which you agreeing with. Nonetheless, people adapt when change comes. Another example, only just in my living memory was "decimalisation" (and for other Europeans when the currency switched to Euro). My grandmother swore blind the world would end if they brought in decimal currency. Within weeks she was the strongest supporter. In 1752 people in England rioted because the calendars changed from Julian to Gregorian. People thought they were being robbed of 11 days. When the day arrived everybody awoke, got on with their lives as usual and in no time completely forgot it ever happened. EDIT: [1] In fact people can be so challenged by identification they'll downvote the most polite and reasoned of comments to feel better rather than respond intelligently.
shlant 4y ago
is someone trying to take away your car or is this some sort of New Green Deal fearmongering? Or do you actually feel personally attacked just by people suggesting you give up your car?
- baisq 4y ago
  No one is going to literally take away anybody's car. They will increase the price of using one so much as to make it impossible for poor people to keep their cars.
  - TurningCanadian 4y ago
    The only fair price of using a car accounts for the price of removing its GHG emissions from the air. If operating a car costs less than that, then we are all indirectly subsidizing the use of cars, and we'd all be better off subsidizing the use of electric cars / public transport / etc. If using a car costs more than that, then we are unfairly targeting cars.
    - xorcist 4y ago
      We are not only indirectly subsidizing cars, we are directly subsidizing it in several ways. It can be in the form of direct support of various activities of the petroleum industry, such as drilling, refinement and pipelines in the name of creating new jobs, but also in giant infrastructure projects reserved for cars, and legal requirements of square meter prices for car parking many orders of magnitude below market cost. It was the way post-war society was built up and will take a very long time to change. It's so entrenched that once you start seeing it, it is really everywhere.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    Do you have so little faith in the free market? Do you really think no one is capable of coming up with a cheap enough car that is climate friendly, if they had to?
    - 4y ago
CyanBird 4y ago
> It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. Yes, it is, and it is important to grow up and realize that actions have got consequences, heating meats is also unsustainable, flying planes is also unsustainable, the general levels of developed countries consumption rates are also unsustainable As that rather famous "debater" says, "reality doesn't care about your feelings" Liberties go partnered with duties and responsibilities, it is widespread commonplace at least in US related discourse to behave in a wholly entitled manner and simply ignore the most important parts of these social system (responsible freedom)
- helloworld11 4y ago
  Sustainability is almost always subject to circumstances and context in a practical sense. Many people who decry "unsustainable" practices seem to forge this despite all the lessons of history. 250 years ago, it would have been completely unfathomable to imagine feeding 8 billion people with the technologies of the time. I'm not just talking about it being unsustainable but temporarily doable, it would have simply not happened without maybe two thirds of the world rapidly dying of hunger. Yet, here we are today, with the lowest relative proportion of the world in recorded history in danger of famine. This of course slowly isn't sustainable WITH present technologies being widely used. If those technologies change however, it could indeed become sustainable, just like what we have now is far beyond the capacities of previous centuries. Instead of default leaps to new prohibitions in environmental and climate change discussions, more focus should be made on promoting new developments that let us both live well and in large numbers while harming the world less.
lisper 4y ago
> trying to defend for example your right to have a car and move freely is not "extremism". It is if the justification you provide for having this right is that it is "God-given" or a consequence of "natural law" or something like that. Because what that boils down to is that you are claiming the right to ignore the economic externalities of your actions because you are somehow special, despite being unable to provide any evidence for your specialness beyond your own personal beliefs. That is the defining characteristic of extremism. Extremism does not have to be extreme, it just has to be unassailable.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Please link to the definition. The dictionaries I consulted do not support you.
  - lisper 4y ago
    https://www.wordnik.com/words/extremism https://www.wordnik.com/words/extremism Definition 3 is: "any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies" I think that "I have this right because I say so" qualifies even if the right you claim doesn't seem "extreme" at first glance. (And I qualify it in this way because "the right to drive" doesn't seem extreme at first glance, but could in fact result in the destruction of technological civilization if enough people claim it, so whether or not driving is "extreme" depends on your perspective.)
    - giantg2 4y ago
      That definition is different than what you are saying. Having the privilege to drive is a moderate position, not an immoderate one. We also place restrictions on it, so it's not uncompromising either. 'I think that "I have this right because I say so" qualifies even if the right you claim doesn't seem "extreme" at first glance.' Just because someone claims an improper reason, doesn't mean their conclusion is wrong (you could have false premises and a true conclusion - that makes a bad argument but the conclusion can still correct). Often times the people claiming natural rights (or really any of their rights) just don't know the proper reasoning and instead resort to claiming something gave them that right - nature, God, government, etc. It would be hard to fully explore any argument without getting to the point of someone's subjective reasoning that something is good or bad as perspective can come into play (good for me vs bad for you, why is society more important than individuals, etc).
PheonixPharts 4y ago
> It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. This is clearly false. It may feel like a personal attack on your freedom but: 1. It's not personal, this is a systemic problem and no one is trying to punish or harm you. The aim is ultimately to prevent harm, not just to you but to your whole community. 2. It's not an attack. The goal is not to cause you harm, again it's to prevent harm. 3. I'm not even sure what "freedom" means in this context. Do you feel that your freedom has been infringed upon when you have to stop at a cross walk for a pedestrian? Does not taking a shit in a public pool infringe upon this "freedom"? Freedom, for social organism, cannot mean complete and unrestricted action. The only people who have this view are actual toddlers, and part of them growing up to be elementary school kids is to learn about their role in society and the limits of their own rights in the face of others.
- 14 4y ago
  Well since it will be the poor who suffer the most one could argue it is a personal attack. If the law was that each individual gets X amount of carbon credits then you are stuck walking it would actually mean something. Instead it will be you get X amount of carbon credit then you buy more. So the rich will continue to pollute without worry and the poor will suffer. We need a system that everyone follows the same. But that will never happen.
  - lkbm 4y ago
    > Well since it will be the poor who suffer the most one could argue it is a personal attack. Is there only one poor person? Harming a class of people is not a personal attack.
  - zajio1am 4y ago
    > If the law was that each individual gets X amount of carbon credits then you are stuck walking it would actually mean something. Instead it will be you get X amount of carbon credit then you buy more. Revenue-neutral carbon tax is pretty much equivalent to giving everyone carbon credits and allowing trading them (just with less overhead). If some rich people pay more tax to pollute more, then more money would be distributed back to everybody.
0xcde4c3db 4y ago
> But trying to defend for example your right to have a car and move freely is not "extremism". And it's normal to feel personally attacked when they tell you to give up your car. It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. What most "anti-car" people are advocating for amounts to the option to not drive. As it is now, driving is practically a requirement for full participation in society.
- Ozzie_osman 4y ago
  ... In certain societies, like the US. There are many places where public transport makes it not a requirement.
  - wing-_-nuts 4y ago
    Have you used public transit outside of NYC in the US? It's a laughable token service. It takes me ~ 15m to drive to work. Taking public transit would extend that to 93m. It would legitimately be faster to bike there. I do not live in a small town. This is in one of the top 10 cities in the US.
richiebful1 4y ago
Very few people in our political discourse are asking people to give up their privilege of owning a car. However, some are asking for car owners to pay for the externalities of owning a car. That might lead to some lifestyle changes, like a two-parent household owning one car instead of two like they're used to. And yes, maybe that restricts a car owner's "freedom", but should those car-based externalities be free?

by baisq 4y ago

suture 4y ago

I suggest that your feeling of being attacked is more imagined than real. The questions are: 1. Is the climate being changed by human activity and rapidly so? 2. What should one do with this knowledge if the answer to 1 is yes? Perhaps you don’t want to do anything about it. That is fine for you to decide this. But one should not answer ‘no’ to question 1 because doing something about it feels personal to you. The answer to 1 should have nothing to do with 2.

jtdev 4y ago

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> And it's normal to feel personally attacked when they tell you to give up your car. It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. It's a really interesting comment which I wish we could explore deeper. I get the same feelings but about different things. So I know you are sincere. But also, it's cultural and quite superficial. In psychology it's called "identification". An attack on a thing you identify with feels like an attack on you personally. So for example, for me, attacks on free software, or my "right" to program in a language I choose, or to run a server, feel like actual attacks on my fundamental "freedom" as you say. In reality though, if the world took those things away, within a couple of months or years I'd have forgotten and moved along with the flow. I know this from the experience of being half a century old :) Now, if I took away your car, I can promise you'd feel the same in no time at all. Why? I don't own a car, and haven't for about 30 years. I git rid of my car when I moved to London, because private cars are a liability there. One or twice it's been a minor inconvenience. But apart from that I feel as free as ever - I go where I like, when I like, with who I like.... just rarely by car. Even though I'm a fairly conservative person in some ways, I think we must recognise that many things we cling to as "essential freedoms" are actually just in our minds.

Loughla 4y ago
I don't understand what you're getting at. Freedom of movement is absolutely a freedom for humans. In places like London, or even New York for a US example, you may be able to achieve this without a car. Are you arguing that all it takes is the saturation of public transportation for the entire US? Or are you arguing that people should just all move to mega-cities? I'm genuinely confused about what you're trying to explain to OP.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > I'm genuinely confused about what you're trying to explain to OP That people adapt. That deeply held beliefs about the importance of some things turn out to be skin-deep.
- shlant 4y ago
  yea the "well I can do it so you can to" approach is pretty weak. I'm not sure how good faith the original comment is being anyways, but I don't think this response is very effective regardless. It should at least be caveated with "if you are in a similar location to London" or "your car will be replaced by effective public transit". "You'll adapt just like I did" is not very convincing for the majority of people.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > "You'll adapt just like I did" is not very convincing for the majority of people. That's not my assertion, nor the point of my comment. The point is that identification (and misplaced sense of ownership) makes us very reluctant to be convinced [1]. A point which you agreeing with. Nonetheless, people adapt when change comes. Another example, only just in my living memory was "decimalisation" (and for other Europeans when the currency switched to Euro). My grandmother swore blind the world would end if they brought in decimal currency. Within weeks she was the strongest supporter. In 1752 people in England rioted because the calendars changed from Julian to Gregorian. People thought they were being robbed of 11 days. When the day arrived everybody awoke, got on with their lives as usual and in no time completely forgot it ever happened. EDIT: [1] In fact people can be so challenged by identification they'll downvote the most polite and reasoned of comments to feel better rather than respond intelligently.

shlant 4y ago

is someone trying to take away your car or is this some sort of New Green Deal fearmongering? Or do you actually feel personally attacked just by people suggesting you give up your car?

baisq 4y ago
No one is going to literally take away anybody's car. They will increase the price of using one so much as to make it impossible for poor people to keep their cars.
- TurningCanadian 4y ago
  The only fair price of using a car accounts for the price of removing its GHG emissions from the air. If operating a car costs less than that, then we are all indirectly subsidizing the use of cars, and we'd all be better off subsidizing the use of electric cars / public transport / etc. If using a car costs more than that, then we are unfairly targeting cars.
  - xorcist 4y ago
    We are not only indirectly subsidizing cars, we are directly subsidizing it in several ways. It can be in the form of direct support of various activities of the petroleum industry, such as drilling, refinement and pipelines in the name of creating new jobs, but also in giant infrastructure projects reserved for cars, and legal requirements of square meter prices for car parking many orders of magnitude below market cost. It was the way post-war society was built up and will take a very long time to change. It's so entrenched that once you start seeing it, it is really everywhere.
- triceratops 4y ago
  Do you have so little faith in the free market? Do you really think no one is capable of coming up with a cheap enough car that is climate friendly, if they had to?
  - 4y ago

CyanBird 4y ago

> It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. Yes, it is, and it is important to grow up and realize that actions have got consequences, heating meats is also unsustainable, flying planes is also unsustainable, the general levels of developed countries consumption rates are also unsustainable As that rather famous "debater" says, "reality doesn't care about your feelings" Liberties go partnered with duties and responsibilities, it is widespread commonplace at least in US related discourse to behave in a wholly entitled manner and simply ignore the most important parts of these social system (responsible freedom)

helloworld11 4y ago
Sustainability is almost always subject to circumstances and context in a practical sense. Many people who decry "unsustainable" practices seem to forge this despite all the lessons of history. 250 years ago, it would have been completely unfathomable to imagine feeding 8 billion people with the technologies of the time. I'm not just talking about it being unsustainable but temporarily doable, it would have simply not happened without maybe two thirds of the world rapidly dying of hunger. Yet, here we are today, with the lowest relative proportion of the world in recorded history in danger of famine. This of course slowly isn't sustainable WITH present technologies being widely used. If those technologies change however, it could indeed become sustainable, just like what we have now is far beyond the capacities of previous centuries. Instead of default leaps to new prohibitions in environmental and climate change discussions, more focus should be made on promoting new developments that let us both live well and in large numbers while harming the world less.

lisper 4y ago

> trying to defend for example your right to have a car and move freely is not "extremism". It is if the justification you provide for having this right is that it is "God-given" or a consequence of "natural law" or something like that. Because what that boils down to is that you are claiming the right to ignore the economic externalities of your actions because you are somehow special, despite being unable to provide any evidence for your specialness beyond your own personal beliefs. That is the defining characteristic of extremism. Extremism does not have to be extreme, it just has to be unassailable.

giantg2 4y ago
Please link to the definition. The dictionaries I consulted do not support you.
- lisper 4y ago
  https://www.wordnik.com/words/extremism https://www.wordnik.com/words/extremism Definition 3 is: "any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies" I think that "I have this right because I say so" qualifies even if the right you claim doesn't seem "extreme" at first glance. (And I qualify it in this way because "the right to drive" doesn't seem extreme at first glance, but could in fact result in the destruction of technological civilization if enough people claim it, so whether or not driving is "extreme" depends on your perspective.)
  - giantg2 4y ago
    That definition is different than what you are saying. Having the privilege to drive is a moderate position, not an immoderate one. We also place restrictions on it, so it's not uncompromising either. 'I think that "I have this right because I say so" qualifies even if the right you claim doesn't seem "extreme" at first glance.' Just because someone claims an improper reason, doesn't mean their conclusion is wrong (you could have false premises and a true conclusion - that makes a bad argument but the conclusion can still correct). Often times the people claiming natural rights (or really any of their rights) just don't know the proper reasoning and instead resort to claiming something gave them that right - nature, God, government, etc. It would be hard to fully explore any argument without getting to the point of someone's subjective reasoning that something is good or bad as perspective can come into play (good for me vs bad for you, why is society more important than individuals, etc).

PheonixPharts 4y ago

> It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. This is clearly false. It may feel like a personal attack on your freedom but: 1. It's not personal, this is a systemic problem and no one is trying to punish or harm you. The aim is ultimately to prevent harm, not just to you but to your whole community. 2. It's not an attack. The goal is not to cause you harm, again it's to prevent harm. 3. I'm not even sure what "freedom" means in this context. Do you feel that your freedom has been infringed upon when you have to stop at a cross walk for a pedestrian? Does not taking a shit in a public pool infringe upon this "freedom"? Freedom, for social organism, cannot mean complete and unrestricted action. The only people who have this view are actual toddlers, and part of them growing up to be elementary school kids is to learn about their role in society and the limits of their own rights in the face of others.

14 4y ago
Well since it will be the poor who suffer the most one could argue it is a personal attack. If the law was that each individual gets X amount of carbon credits then you are stuck walking it would actually mean something. Instead it will be you get X amount of carbon credit then you buy more. So the rich will continue to pollute without worry and the poor will suffer. We need a system that everyone follows the same. But that will never happen.
- lkbm 4y ago
  > Well since it will be the poor who suffer the most one could argue it is a personal attack. Is there only one poor person? Harming a class of people is not a personal attack.
- zajio1am 4y ago
  > If the law was that each individual gets X amount of carbon credits then you are stuck walking it would actually mean something. Instead it will be you get X amount of carbon credit then you buy more. Revenue-neutral carbon tax is pretty much equivalent to giving everyone carbon credits and allowing trading them (just with less overhead). If some rich people pay more tax to pollute more, then more money would be distributed back to everybody.

0xcde4c3db 4y ago

> But trying to defend for example your right to have a car and move freely is not "extremism". And it's normal to feel personally attacked when they tell you to give up your car. It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. What most "anti-car" people are advocating for amounts to the option to not drive. As it is now, driving is practically a requirement for full participation in society.

Ozzie_osman 4y ago
... In certain societies, like the US. There are many places where public transport makes it not a requirement.
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  Have you used public transit outside of NYC in the US? It's a laughable token service. It takes me ~ 15m to drive to work. Taking public transit would extend that to 93m. It would legitimately be faster to bike there. I do not live in a small town. This is in one of the top 10 cities in the US.

richiebful1 4y ago

Very few people in our political discourse are asking people to give up their privilege of owning a car. However, some are asking for car owners to pay for the externalities of owning a car. That might lead to some lifestyle changes, like a two-parent household owning one car instead of two like they're used to. And yes, maybe that restricts a car owner's "freedom", but should those car-based externalities be free?