5 ms·

I hold an unpopular opinion that this kind of activism is fundamentally the same quest for transcendent meaning as one finds in radical Islam. This is about pe

I hold an unpopular opinion that this kind of activism is fundamentally the same quest for transcendent meaning as one finds in radical Islam. This is about people wanting to dedicate their lives to something greater than themselves, their material achievements, and hedonistic pleasures. The same can be said about the extreme fringes of most social activism. This is exactly what you'd expect from a society where a significant portion of people are alienated, experience their lives as meaningless or senseless, and where free-floating anxiety is rampant. To be sure, you would expect such people to seek meaning, to derive their sense of identity from the group that provides them with meaning, and to exhibit frustration and aggression towards the rest of society, from whom they are isolated anyway and therefore have a tendency to treat as an undifferentiated mass of "bad people". More concretely, you would predict these people chant the same slogans, and respond with extreme defensiveness when the thing that provides them with meaning is criticized. It should also be obvious that such people are inherently primed for action, and that a bit of money and encouragement is enough to set things in motion. EDIT: another thing that is hopefully obvious is that none of this precludes the existence of an actual environmental crisis.

mrwnmonm 4y ago
rsj_hn 4y ago
> I hold an unpopular opinion that this kind of activism is fundamentally the same quest for transcendent meaning as one finds in radical Islam. I would believe that more if it weren't constantly done in front of TV cameras. This is about drawing attention to yourself because you can't convince someone with rational arguments. It is, ultimately, a tantrum as most of the world doesn't find their message convincing. The world needs fossil fuels, as Europe is discovering right now. Rich kids vandalizing art doesn't change the fundamental reality that fertilizer is made from natural gas and higher fossil fuel prices cause mass starvation - millions or billions would die if we stopped producing synthetic fertilizer from natural gas. And the price of natural gas directly drives the price of the food that the global south needs to buy each day. It's one thing for a London Art Student to say "I'm willing to pay more for bread", but it's quite another thing to impose those higher prices on the global South, as commodities are sold in a global market. That trumps whatever performative display these children throw. If they wanted to do things in a serious manner, they would work on developing technologies that would allow the world to create fertilizers, heat homes, and power industry in a cost effective way with alternate mechanisms. And if they lacked the skills to do that, they could fund the work of others to find feasible replacements. Ultimately it's technology, rather than tantrums, that will determine how food is grown and factories are powered.
- nextaccountic 4y ago
  > millions or billions would die if we stopped producing synthetic fertilizer from natural gas Millions or billions will die if global temperatures continue to rise.
- 0x_rs 4y ago
  It's interesting to me how this post is greyed out but the vacuous "ugh" reply is not.
- omginternets 4y ago
  >I would believe that more if it weren't constantly done in front of TV cameras. This is about drawing attention to yourself because you can't convince someone with rational arguments. I don't disagree. I don't think the two are mutually-exclusive. The public performance is very much part of the quest for transcendence, and has its equivalents in the other forms of radical ideology. > Ultimately it's technology, rather than tantrums, that will determine how food is grown and factories are powered. Quite. And to your point, the interesting question now becomes: why are they throwing tantrums instead of useful work? Every theory I have seen falls into one of two buckets: 1. They're incapable of it, or being undermined 2. It's not actually a solution they're after I think it's overwhelmingly #2. Moreover, I think the thing they're actually looking for is exactly transcendent meaning. >fertilizer is made from natural gas P.S.: Is this true? I can see how it could be, but I was not aware of this. That's quite ironic, if indeed true.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  > fertilizer is made from natural gas I wasn't aware of this but does it really contribute to global warming? It's not burned and its alternatives aren't much better. After all, manure is probably even worse. The same way using fossil fuels for plastic isn't so bad if we recycle it because it doesn't end up in the atmosphere.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    The hydrogen is cracked off and the CO2 is vented. Plus every kg of extracted methane is accompanied a few hundred grams of fugitive methane which is equivalent to another 1-2 kg of CO2. Luckily electrolysis will soon be cheaper in parts of the world (or everywhere if we priced in externalities).
1letterunixname 4y ago
What did I just read? Insane, crazed, deluded, suicidal terrorists have nothing in common with climate change emergency messengers unless you wish to shoot them both. You need to reevaluate your values and priorities if you think people who take great, deliberate personal risks to ensure our long-term survival have anything to do with those who are willing to end our lives and our freedoms for the "glory" of a sky god.
- omginternets 4y ago
  I’m not sure what you read, either. I thought it rather obvious that murderous lunatics are far more despicable than aggressive eco-hooligans. I respectfully submit that you have completely missed the point, which is that the underlying motivations are remarkably similar between both groups.
adrianmonk 4y ago
There's some overlap between this and what Eric Hoffer theorizes in the book "The True Believer" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer). A lot of this is guesswork, though. It could just as easily be that these activists are simply very angry about climate change and feel compelled by their anger to take some kind of action but (like a lot of people) aren't good at channeling it into constructive action.
- omginternets 4y ago
  I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. My appeal to transcendent meaning is an attempt to explain why certain people feel compelled to act out their anger in these ways. There are many people who are angry and frustrated about climate change and don’t glue themselves to works of art — I’m one of them! My sense is that a second component is at play, and that it either adds an impulse to act, or increases frustration to the point of an outburst. It’s interesting to note that the behaviors are (a) highly ritualized and (b) carefully premeditated. They are certainly not consistent with an angry outburst. This is what I am trying to explain. I suspect the same is true of Eric Hoffer.

mrwnmonm 4y ago

rsj_hn 4y ago

> I hold an unpopular opinion that this kind of activism is fundamentally the same quest for transcendent meaning as one finds in radical Islam. I would believe that more if it weren't constantly done in front of TV cameras. This is about drawing attention to yourself because you can't convince someone with rational arguments. It is, ultimately, a tantrum as most of the world doesn't find their message convincing. The world needs fossil fuels, as Europe is discovering right now. Rich kids vandalizing art doesn't change the fundamental reality that fertilizer is made from natural gas and higher fossil fuel prices cause mass starvation - millions or billions would die if we stopped producing synthetic fertilizer from natural gas. And the price of natural gas directly drives the price of the food that the global south needs to buy each day. It's one thing for a London Art Student to say "I'm willing to pay more for bread", but it's quite another thing to impose those higher prices on the global South, as commodities are sold in a global market. That trumps whatever performative display these children throw. If they wanted to do things in a serious manner, they would work on developing technologies that would allow the world to create fertilizers, heat homes, and power industry in a cost effective way with alternate mechanisms. And if they lacked the skills to do that, they could fund the work of others to find feasible replacements. Ultimately it's technology, rather than tantrums, that will determine how food is grown and factories are powered.

nextaccountic 4y ago
> millions or billions would die if we stopped producing synthetic fertilizer from natural gas Millions or billions will die if global temperatures continue to rise.
0x_rs 4y ago
It's interesting to me how this post is greyed out but the vacuous "ugh" reply is not.
omginternets 4y ago
>I would believe that more if it weren't constantly done in front of TV cameras. This is about drawing attention to yourself because you can't convince someone with rational arguments. I don't disagree. I don't think the two are mutually-exclusive. The public performance is very much part of the quest for transcendence, and has its equivalents in the other forms of radical ideology. > Ultimately it's technology, rather than tantrums, that will determine how food is grown and factories are powered. Quite. And to your point, the interesting question now becomes: why are they throwing tantrums instead of useful work? Every theory I have seen falls into one of two buckets: 1. They're incapable of it, or being undermined 2. It's not actually a solution they're after I think it's overwhelmingly #2. Moreover, I think the thing they're actually looking for is exactly transcendent meaning. >fertilizer is made from natural gas P.S.: Is this true? I can see how it could be, but I was not aware of this. That's quite ironic, if indeed true.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
> fertilizer is made from natural gas I wasn't aware of this but does it really contribute to global warming? It's not burned and its alternatives aren't much better. After all, manure is probably even worse. The same way using fossil fuels for plastic isn't so bad if we recycle it because it doesn't end up in the atmosphere.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The hydrogen is cracked off and the CO2 is vented. Plus every kg of extracted methane is accompanied a few hundred grams of fugitive methane which is equivalent to another 1-2 kg of CO2. Luckily electrolysis will soon be cheaper in parts of the world (or everywhere if we priced in externalities).

1letterunixname 4y ago

What did I just read? Insane, crazed, deluded, suicidal terrorists have nothing in common with climate change emergency messengers unless you wish to shoot them both. You need to reevaluate your values and priorities if you think people who take great, deliberate personal risks to ensure our long-term survival have anything to do with those who are willing to end our lives and our freedoms for the "glory" of a sky god.

omginternets 4y ago
I’m not sure what you read, either. I thought it rather obvious that murderous lunatics are far more despicable than aggressive eco-hooligans. I respectfully submit that you have completely missed the point, which is that the underlying motivations are remarkably similar between both groups.

adrianmonk 4y ago

There's some overlap between this and what Eric Hoffer theorizes in the book "The True Believer" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer). A lot of this is guesswork, though. It could just as easily be that these activists are simply very angry about climate change and feel compelled by their anger to take some kind of action but (like a lot of people) aren't good at channeling it into constructive action.

omginternets 4y ago
I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. My appeal to transcendent meaning is an attempt to explain why certain people feel compelled to act out their anger in these ways. There are many people who are angry and frustrated about climate change and don’t glue themselves to works of art — I’m one of them! My sense is that a second component is at play, and that it either adds an impulse to act, or increases frustration to the point of an outburst. It’s interesting to note that the behaviors are (a) highly ritualized and (b) carefully premeditated. They are certainly not consistent with an angry outburst. This is what I am trying to explain. I suspect the same is true of Eric Hoffer.