5 ms·

Amazing, really. You are facing a massive - nearly unpredictable problem - changing the climate. Faced with a problem of such magnitude, you decide the best sol

Amazing, really. You are facing a massive - nearly unpredictable problem - changing the climate. Faced with a problem of such magnitude, you decide the best solution is... A second, massive and even more unpredictable problem. Achieving widespread, totalizing political and economic change that not only has to succeed, has to be better than the system we have now also has to solve the first problem. To say this is difficult is an understatement. I'd argue it's also impossible and the result would be widespread suffering and a failure to solve climate change due to the distraction. Luckily you're not going to succeed, because like I said, it's really difficult. I'm familiar with the line of reasoning. It's common among particularly left wing people and comes directly from their thinkers and philosophers. I think it was Gramsci who first said that the 'good' society 'cannot even be imagined' under the current system. This is a cop out for all those who believe they could make the utopia, they don't know how but they're sure the first step is total political change, and step 2 will make itself known then. It shouldn't have to be explained why this is a stupid idea, and how dangerous and harmful it would be.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
starkd 4y ago
Indeed. It takes a tremendous amount of hubris, doesn't it?
drekipus 4y ago
> they don't know how but they're sure the first step is total political change, and step 2 will make itself known then. This is entirely the issue with green types, (myself being married to one, and leaning green-er myself) The "ecomoderates" are actually the ones pushing for sensible change. We can not cause a giant upheaval of society and then figure out what works (unless you think other humans are the problem and should be eradicated - inwhich societal disruption is one stone for two birds). Figure it out now. Part of figuring it out is actually figuring out what is to be solved. Sri Lanka thinks that it was to do with fertilizer, and caused a catastrophe for themselves. Plastic waste pollution/landfill is often something that is said needs to be solved, - A few months ago scientists found/grew an algae that eats plastic. I was thinking that it's amazing because that can really help clean up the place and deal with landfill. The overwhelming response was "No we can't have that, that's carbon released in the air from bug farts, it's best to leave the plastic in the ground". The only way forward is progressively and piecemeal until viable solutions are found. If you want faster actions, then contribute more viable solutions that don't involve killing your neighbour. The fact is that things are getting better, and they are continuing to get better. You need to be patient in figuring out your ideas. I'm currently building a house or of hemp-crete which will absorb carbon out of the atmosphere as it dries, and I'm figuring out the problems with it (mainly labour intensive, a mushier organic concrete) and so trying to find solutions to make it more widely used.
groucho 4y ago
This response is more insulting than it needs to be. There's nothing amazing about thinking that in order to solve a hard problem, you need to do a hard thing. Whether or not implementing political change is a necessary first step to solving climate change has nothing to do with whether implementing political change is hard or even impossible. It's absolutely plausible that there's no way to solve climate change without systemic change. It's also plausible that we can't solve climate change without systemic change AND that systemic change is very hard or even impossible. These statements aren't contradictory. In addition, tying the suggestion to a political party and then calling it stupid is not a constructive form of discourse.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

starkd 4y ago

Indeed. It takes a tremendous amount of hubris, doesn't it?

drekipus 4y ago

> they don't know how but they're sure the first step is total political change, and step 2 will make itself known then. This is entirely the issue with green types, (myself being married to one, and leaning green-er myself) The "ecomoderates" are actually the ones pushing for sensible change. We can not cause a giant upheaval of society and then figure out what works (unless you think other humans are the problem and should be eradicated - inwhich societal disruption is one stone for two birds). Figure it out now. Part of figuring it out is actually figuring out what is to be solved. Sri Lanka thinks that it was to do with fertilizer, and caused a catastrophe for themselves. Plastic waste pollution/landfill is often something that is said needs to be solved, - A few months ago scientists found/grew an algae that eats plastic. I was thinking that it's amazing because that can really help clean up the place and deal with landfill. The overwhelming response was "No we can't have that, that's carbon released in the air from bug farts, it's best to leave the plastic in the ground". The only way forward is progressively and piecemeal until viable solutions are found. If you want faster actions, then contribute more viable solutions that don't involve killing your neighbour. The fact is that things are getting better, and they are continuing to get better. You need to be patient in figuring out your ideas. I'm currently building a house or of hemp-crete which will absorb carbon out of the atmosphere as it dries, and I'm figuring out the problems with it (mainly labour intensive, a mushier organic concrete) and so trying to find solutions to make it more widely used.

groucho 4y ago

This response is more insulting than it needs to be. There's nothing amazing about thinking that in order to solve a hard problem, you need to do a hard thing. Whether or not implementing political change is a necessary first step to solving climate change has nothing to do with whether implementing political change is hard or even impossible. It's absolutely plausible that there's no way to solve climate change without systemic change. It's also plausible that we can't solve climate change without systemic change AND that systemic change is very hard or even impossible. These statements aren't contradictory. In addition, tying the suggestion to a political party and then calling it stupid is not a constructive form of discourse.