I hate articles like this. The thesis is basically that radical activists have a platform which would never work to achieve reasonable policy goals. Well no shi

I hate articles like this. The thesis is basically that radical activists have a platform which would never work to achieve reasonable policy goals. Well no shit. That's not the purpose of radical advocacy. The underlying assumption of the author, which is so naively incorrect as to almost surely be in bad faith, is that groups like XR have the ultimate goal or function of taking over the apparatus of government (or society or whatever) and implementing an agenda. Their ultimate goal is to exert pressure on the policy and societal paradigms by pushing against broad assumptions that nobody else in the space is willing to challenge. One thing that is mentioned here is degrowth. That's a great example: We have activists saying that if the precept of infinite economic growth is getting in the way of the climate goal, we should reconsider our assumptions about growth. This is a key element to honest intellectual/political discourse but it doesn't map onto a policy at all. An idea is that in some later political cycle, we will have a decision-maker who studied degrowth and found it more persuasive than yolo capitalism and fashions a responsive policy platform. Articles like this are akin to an argument that we should close universities because people can't eat books. Return to farming! It's the only thing guaranteed to put food on the table!