5 ms·

The whole activism thing doesent do a lot anymore, since the social plaza belongs to cooperate and the state, and activism was shown to be easy exhaustable comp

The whole activism thing doesent do a lot anymore, since the social plaza belongs to cooperate and the state, and activism was shown to be easy exhaustable compared to the endurance of lobbyism aka cooperate activism. Future frustrated voices will turn straight to violence and skip this unproducitve state of affairs.

donkeyd 3y ago
> the social plaza belongs to cooperate and the state I think it's too easy to just blame corporations and governments for this. They are definitely part in this, but a large part of lack of activism around climate change is also the people themselves who don't want to change. The Netherlands is a great example where, in recent elections, nearly half of votes went to political parties that want to reduce response to climate change and other environmental issues. For many people its easy to be activist when the problem is clear and present and the solution has little to no impact on daily life. With climate change neither are true. Except for the occasional headline of extreme weather, daily life continues, so the problem isn't obvious to everyone. Also, actually doing something about it takes effort/investment from everyone, not just government and corporations. It requires us to travel less, consume less, be more aware of what we consume and so on. It requires us to drive smaller cars, live in smaller and better insulated homes and become less individually oriented and pay more for our clothing. Most people don't want this, they want to continue buying cheap clothing from Primark and fly to NYC for the weekend. I'm personally in the 'given up hope' boat. Even the most environmentally aware people around me pretty much just eat less meat, but they haven't actually changed their ways. So I don't expect the average F150 driving steak eater to suddenly start changing their ways. Maybe generational change is possible, but even that would have to be a coordinated effort and I don't see that happening either.
- qikInNdOutReply 3y ago
  I label the rightwing anti-migration parties as actually "anti"-climatechange-sideffects. They are just more willing to invest ton of money in fighting symptoms, as the anti-neighbour tribal mindset is so hardwired. Shame its never enough to really get to the roots of the problem. Would be fascinating to see the tea party turn on Big Oil because they caused this mess.
- pydry 3y ago
  >Also, actually doing something about it takes effort/investment from everyone, not just government and corporations. This is pretty much the standard line corporations throw out to try and shirk responsibility. This is why they've always been so keen on recycling relative to other, more effective methods, for instance. The implicit message is that rather than the company being forced to change by fiat, "people" just need to take more personal responsibility. The latter is a pipe dream and the former (e.g. carbon taxes) is the only way of dealing with climate change but they don't care, of course - their profits are at stake. Hence they always prescribe more personal responsibility.
  - donkeyd 3y ago
    > This is pretty much the standard line corporations throw out to try and shirk responsibility. This is why they've always been so keen on recycling relative to other, more effective methods, for instance. Yes, but this is only part of it and once again is an easy way to blame corporations. It's not just easy for them to tell people to recycle. It's also really easy for people to recycle and feel good about themselves while not doing much. To really impact climate change, we need societal change and that has to come from everyone. People, companies, government all need to change, we can't keep pointing fingers at each other, but that's what we're all doing.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >is an easy way to blame corporations It really isn't. The 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions have a massively outsized impact on the climate. They have got exceptional PR and have done a spectacular job of diffusing their responsibilities and protecting their bottom lines at the expense of the planet. It's easy to buy into their propaganda though.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  > Even the most environmentally aware people around me pretty much just eat less meat, but they haven't actually changed their ways. So I don't expect the average F150 driving steak eater to suddenly start changing their ways. What do you expect people in general to do? Granted, driving an F150 is not an environmentally friendly activity, but suppose they all cut their "carbon footprint" [0] by 50%. How much would that help? The answer is actually "not much." It turns out that 70% of greenhouse emissions have come from ~100 corporations. [1] Until we, collectively, do something about their practices, there's precious little that individuals can do to get us to net zero. Individuals have no power to influence corporations in this way, either. It needs to come from things like carbon taxes -- and not just from one country, but worldwide. There's far more that can be said here, but I think I've successfully conveyed the point: feeling hopeless in the face of all this is actually pretty logical. At this point, we really are basically doomed to suffer the effects of 1.5 degrees of warming, and possibly much more, no matter what we do right now. I don't want to oversell this to the point of saying we should all just roll over and die; by all means, we should all work on reducing our consumption, because at this point, the choices that are going to provide us a better future in the next couple of decades are essentially those that reduce consumption. The other alternatives are reducing the number of people on Earth, or drastically increasing energy efficiency across the board. A couple decades' worth of energy efficiency increases isn't going to do it, and if we choose not to reduce consumption, the effects of climate change will ensure that the number of people on Earth decreases, whether we like it or not. So, we're essentially left at reducing consumption. But, as you've mentioned, people don't seem to want to do that. I don't know how to deal with that at a personal level, myself. Do you? Is it any wonder teenagers don't? --- [0]: Make no mistake, this is just a propaganda term intended to blame you and not the actual (mostly corporate) actors responsible for making most of the emissions. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-people-are-blamed-for-climate-change https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-pe...
  - klooney 3y ago
    The 100 corporations thing is silly. They aren't out there polluting for the fun of it, they're making stuff for people and organizations. If people and governments and companies stop buying gas, the pollution on Chevron's ledger for oil extraction and refining will plummet as they get stuck with smaller markets like plastic manufacturing. Those dastardly 100 corporations are emitting to make stuff for you.
- dexterdog 3y ago
  > The Netherlands is a great example where, in recent elections, nearly half of votes went to political parties that want to reduce response to climate change and other environmental issues. But is that an anti-environment stance or an anti-big-green stance? I can understand people being sick of the mishandling of the crisis that is being funded with their money.
- sw104 3y ago
  I'm completely in the 'given up hope boat' with you. It's clear that almost nobody is willing to truly change their lifestyle to practice what they preach. I live in a UK city and despite having a pretty good bus network, so many people come to work along the same routes as the buses in their own personal 4x4 vehicle. We'd require a literal environmentally friendly autocracy to pry people's cars out of their garages or to even encourage the notion of walking / cycling / taking public transport. Not to speak about the amount of complete and utter garbage for sale everywhere, people flying around the world at a whim to see a few landmarks or to get a tan.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
    Regarding public transport a conductor enforcing code of conduct would be nice. Jobs!1!!
Aunche 3y ago
>The whole activism thing doesent do a lot anymore This is because activism today has completely become synonymous with raising awareness. While raising awareness is important, it's also the easiest part of activism, since the rise of the internet, so it's what people gravitate towards the most. That's how we end up with so much doomposting and doomscrolling on social media. Individual action served as the foundation of Civil Rights movement, such as the Montgomery bus boycotts. It may be difficult to reason why walking a hour to work every day in the hot, Alabama sun rather than taking this bus will expand their rights, but history taught us that it was important. Meanwhile, there isn't a similar coordinated effort to carpool and seek alternative means of commuting today. What was also important were donations that funded legal challenges to discriminating businesses and municipal governments. Again, you don't see grass-roots organization funding lawsuits against corporations that are illegally polluting. Most important of all is ironically lobbying. Without the lobbying efforts of the NAACP, the Civil Rights protection may not have made it through, and if they had, they would have been substantially weaker. Again, this isn't something that is ever suggested by climate activists, despite their awareness of its importance. As Haidt implies, unlike doomscrolling, these types of activism are actually empowering.

donkeyd 3y ago

> the social plaza belongs to cooperate and the state I think it's too easy to just blame corporations and governments for this. They are definitely part in this, but a large part of lack of activism around climate change is also the people themselves who don't want to change. The Netherlands is a great example where, in recent elections, nearly half of votes went to political parties that want to reduce response to climate change and other environmental issues. For many people its easy to be activist when the problem is clear and present and the solution has little to no impact on daily life. With climate change neither are true. Except for the occasional headline of extreme weather, daily life continues, so the problem isn't obvious to everyone. Also, actually doing something about it takes effort/investment from everyone, not just government and corporations. It requires us to travel less, consume less, be more aware of what we consume and so on. It requires us to drive smaller cars, live in smaller and better insulated homes and become less individually oriented and pay more for our clothing. Most people don't want this, they want to continue buying cheap clothing from Primark and fly to NYC for the weekend. I'm personally in the 'given up hope' boat. Even the most environmentally aware people around me pretty much just eat less meat, but they haven't actually changed their ways. So I don't expect the average F150 driving steak eater to suddenly start changing their ways. Maybe generational change is possible, but even that would have to be a coordinated effort and I don't see that happening either.

qikInNdOutReply 3y ago
I label the rightwing anti-migration parties as actually "anti"-climatechange-sideffects. They are just more willing to invest ton of money in fighting symptoms, as the anti-neighbour tribal mindset is so hardwired. Shame its never enough to really get to the roots of the problem. Would be fascinating to see the tea party turn on Big Oil because they caused this mess.
pydry 3y ago
>Also, actually doing something about it takes effort/investment from everyone, not just government and corporations. This is pretty much the standard line corporations throw out to try and shirk responsibility. This is why they've always been so keen on recycling relative to other, more effective methods, for instance. The implicit message is that rather than the company being forced to change by fiat, "people" just need to take more personal responsibility. The latter is a pipe dream and the former (e.g. carbon taxes) is the only way of dealing with climate change but they don't care, of course - their profits are at stake. Hence they always prescribe more personal responsibility.
- donkeyd 3y ago
  > This is pretty much the standard line corporations throw out to try and shirk responsibility. This is why they've always been so keen on recycling relative to other, more effective methods, for instance. Yes, but this is only part of it and once again is an easy way to blame corporations. It's not just easy for them to tell people to recycle. It's also really easy for people to recycle and feel good about themselves while not doing much. To really impact climate change, we need societal change and that has to come from everyone. People, companies, government all need to change, we can't keep pointing fingers at each other, but that's what we're all doing.
  - pydry 3y ago
    >is an easy way to blame corporations It really isn't. The 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions have a massively outsized impact on the climate. They have got exceptional PR and have done a spectacular job of diffusing their responsibilities and protecting their bottom lines at the expense of the planet. It's easy to buy into their propaganda though.
Paul-Craft 3y ago
> Even the most environmentally aware people around me pretty much just eat less meat, but they haven't actually changed their ways. So I don't expect the average F150 driving steak eater to suddenly start changing their ways. What do you expect people in general to do? Granted, driving an F150 is not an environmentally friendly activity, but suppose they all cut their "carbon footprint" [0] by 50%. How much would that help? The answer is actually "not much." It turns out that 70% of greenhouse emissions have come from ~100 corporations. [1] Until we, collectively, do something about their practices, there's precious little that individuals can do to get us to net zero. Individuals have no power to influence corporations in this way, either. It needs to come from things like carbon taxes -- and not just from one country, but worldwide. There's far more that can be said here, but I think I've successfully conveyed the point: feeling hopeless in the face of all this is actually pretty logical. At this point, we really are basically doomed to suffer the effects of 1.5 degrees of warming, and possibly much more, no matter what we do right now. I don't want to oversell this to the point of saying we should all just roll over and die; by all means, we should all work on reducing our consumption, because at this point, the choices that are going to provide us a better future in the next couple of decades are essentially those that reduce consumption. The other alternatives are reducing the number of people on Earth, or drastically increasing energy efficiency across the board. A couple decades' worth of energy efficiency increases isn't going to do it, and if we choose not to reduce consumption, the effects of climate change will ensure that the number of people on Earth decreases, whether we like it or not. So, we're essentially left at reducing consumption. But, as you've mentioned, people don't seem to want to do that. I don't know how to deal with that at a personal level, myself. Do you? Is it any wonder teenagers don't? --- [0]: Make no mistake, this is just a propaganda term intended to blame you and not the actual (mostly corporate) actors responsible for making most of the emissions. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-people-are-blamed-for-climate-change https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-pe...
- klooney 3y ago
  The 100 corporations thing is silly. They aren't out there polluting for the fun of it, they're making stuff for people and organizations. If people and governments and companies stop buying gas, the pollution on Chevron's ledger for oil extraction and refining will plummet as they get stuck with smaller markets like plastic manufacturing. Those dastardly 100 corporations are emitting to make stuff for you.
dexterdog 3y ago
> The Netherlands is a great example where, in recent elections, nearly half of votes went to political parties that want to reduce response to climate change and other environmental issues. But is that an anti-environment stance or an anti-big-green stance? I can understand people being sick of the mishandling of the crisis that is being funded with their money.
sw104 3y ago
I'm completely in the 'given up hope boat' with you. It's clear that almost nobody is willing to truly change their lifestyle to practice what they preach. I live in a UK city and despite having a pretty good bus network, so many people come to work along the same routes as the buses in their own personal 4x4 vehicle. We'd require a literal environmentally friendly autocracy to pry people's cars out of their garages or to even encourage the notion of walking / cycling / taking public transport. Not to speak about the amount of complete and utter garbage for sale everywhere, people flying around the world at a whim to see a few landmarks or to get a tan.
- LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
  Regarding public transport a conductor enforcing code of conduct would be nice. Jobs!1!!

Aunche 3y ago

>The whole activism thing doesent do a lot anymore This is because activism today has completely become synonymous with raising awareness. While raising awareness is important, it's also the easiest part of activism, since the rise of the internet, so it's what people gravitate towards the most. That's how we end up with so much doomposting and doomscrolling on social media. Individual action served as the foundation of Civil Rights movement, such as the Montgomery bus boycotts. It may be difficult to reason why walking a hour to work every day in the hot, Alabama sun rather than taking this bus will expand their rights, but history taught us that it was important. Meanwhile, there isn't a similar coordinated effort to carpool and seek alternative means of commuting today. What was also important were donations that funded legal challenges to discriminating businesses and municipal governments. Again, you don't see grass-roots organization funding lawsuits against corporations that are illegally polluting. Most important of all is ironically lobbying. Without the lobbying efforts of the NAACP, the Civil Rights protection may not have made it through, and if they had, they would have been substantially weaker. Again, this isn't something that is ever suggested by climate activists, despite their awareness of its importance. As Haidt implies, unlike doomscrolling, these types of activism are actually empowering.