4 ms·

They aren't the same. Climate change activism states that you - yes you - are a bad person for not radically changing your lifestyle. Those changes may not even

They aren't the same. Climate change activism states that you - yes you - are a bad person for not radically changing your lifestyle. Those changes may not even be achievable, but that doesn't change your moral culpability. Through your wanton lust for warm homes and nice red meat you destroy the world leaving nothing for the children. It's an incredibly moralized story. The other examples you name are different. IRA terrorism? Not caused by you, not influenceable by you, nobody claims it is. MAD? Likewise, it's all decisions by politicians you never met who live far away. Also, IRA terrorism probably wasn't going to affect you or your children and with MAD there was always a chance that it wouldn't happen. This was never in doubt. The climate change narrative is uniquely calibrated to destroy people's mental health, and especially the mental health of over-socialized teenage girls, because it directly blames them for the worst possible things (literally the end of the world) and demands they change, whilst simultaneously telling them they actually can't change and the world is inevitably doomed no matter what. It also rather uniquely expects you to reject the evidence of your own eyes. The world is clearly not burning or on fire, the Pacific islands are clearly not sinking and politicians clearly do not believe there's any actual crisis, yet nobody is allowed to point those things out without social exile of the type that's especially dramatic for teenage girls.

wizofaus 4y ago
Many religions make a far stronger moral argument about our failures as individuals, and yet arguably have far less influence over young minds than they have in the past. I can't say I've seen any evidence that teenagers (including my own) are especially burdened with any personal sense of guilt over their lifestyle and its contributions towards ecological damage. Whereas I'd certainly accept there is a sense of pessimism about the future health of our planet and what it might mean for what sort of existence they might have in 40 or 50 years time - and absolutely a sense of helplessness to do anything about it, given the fact very little positive change in behaviour has been seen by those in the best position to do so.
- revelio 4y ago
  They explicitly don't! Christianity is very clear that whilst everyone is born into sin, Jesus died to cleanse us of that sin and God is forgiving of sinners who repent. In the Christological religions at least, there is always a way back to the good path. You may have to pray for forgiveness, or do a confession. But you can do it. In climatological religion, there is no way to the good path no matter what you do.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    You can't ignore the reality that even many streams of Christianity regularly insisted on certain perfectly natural behaviours being "sinful" and worthy of eternal punishment in hell. That surely must have had some effect on the mental health of believers, but there's no real evidence our collective mental health has improved now that the majority of us no longer buy into any sort of doctrine of being born as sinful and needing to plead to supernatural beings for forgiveness etc. So I'm struggling to see how the possibility that a percentage of modern-day young adults may have occasional feelings of guilt about their lifestyle knowing it's making some small contribution toward long term ecological deterioration could be significantly impacting mental health. What's arguably more concerning is those (both individuals and businesses) who make token gestures towards behaviour changes that claim to be for the sake of the planet etc. as though it gives them some sort of moral superiority, especially given there's little genuine analysis done as to whether the changes really are of any net benefit. It may give some artificial boost in sense of self-worth and short term improvement in mental health to the gesture-makers but is at best a distraction from what's really needed.
    - revelio 4y ago
      I'm not a Christian anymore, so I might be misrepresenting the religion here, but I think they would say that you only go to hell if you don't repent your sins. And the whole Hell/Satan thing was never a major part of my own Christian upbringing from what I recall, that's a much bigger thing in medieval religion. As for having a bad effect on mental health, well, the inquisitions and holy wars were pretty mad in retrospect. Nobody is claiming that climate change is significantly impacting mental health, at least not yet. Even Haidt's data shows an increase over a very small baseline, whether that's significant or not boils down to whether you're talking in relative or absolute terms. But you seem to be talking from the perspective of a mentally healthy person. Obviously, a mentally healthy person doesn't get so upset about climate change they kill themselves, but we risk being circular. A small number of highly susceptible people will fall prey to the narrative of un-cleansable guilt and un-solvable doom, and lose their stability. It's already appearing in news and anecdotal reports. >> there's little genuine analysis done as to whether the changes really are of any net benefit. No, of course not. Anyone who tries to do such analysis rigorously has to dive into the data, and if you do that you immediately becomes a skeptic of both claimed solutions and claimed problems, so your views are now unspeakable in polite society. Given that it's inevitable that you're only going to "see" people who aren't doing genuine analysis as a result. >> It may give some artificial boost in sense of self-worth and short term improvement in mental health but is at best a distraction from what's really needed Which is what, exactly? Notice how you spend time attacking those who refuse to do what's "really needed" without spelling out what that is, thus engaging in the token gesture of cheap online activism. If you're about to give some absurd policy that boils down to most of the population dying off or living in absolute poverty, and which could only be implemented by a dystopian global dictatorship, then great, you're just proving why most people prefer to engage in what you call token gestures.

wizofaus 4y ago

Many religions make a far stronger moral argument about our failures as individuals, and yet arguably have far less influence over young minds than they have in the past. I can't say I've seen any evidence that teenagers (including my own) are especially burdened with any personal sense of guilt over their lifestyle and its contributions towards ecological damage. Whereas I'd certainly accept there is a sense of pessimism about the future health of our planet and what it might mean for what sort of existence they might have in 40 or 50 years time - and absolutely a sense of helplessness to do anything about it, given the fact very little positive change in behaviour has been seen by those in the best position to do so.

revelio 4y ago
They explicitly don't! Christianity is very clear that whilst everyone is born into sin, Jesus died to cleanse us of that sin and God is forgiving of sinners who repent. In the Christological religions at least, there is always a way back to the good path. You may have to pray for forgiveness, or do a confession. But you can do it. In climatological religion, there is no way to the good path no matter what you do.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  You can't ignore the reality that even many streams of Christianity regularly insisted on certain perfectly natural behaviours being "sinful" and worthy of eternal punishment in hell. That surely must have had some effect on the mental health of believers, but there's no real evidence our collective mental health has improved now that the majority of us no longer buy into any sort of doctrine of being born as sinful and needing to plead to supernatural beings for forgiveness etc. So I'm struggling to see how the possibility that a percentage of modern-day young adults may have occasional feelings of guilt about their lifestyle knowing it's making some small contribution toward long term ecological deterioration could be significantly impacting mental health. What's arguably more concerning is those (both individuals and businesses) who make token gestures towards behaviour changes that claim to be for the sake of the planet etc. as though it gives them some sort of moral superiority, especially given there's little genuine analysis done as to whether the changes really are of any net benefit. It may give some artificial boost in sense of self-worth and short term improvement in mental health to the gesture-makers but is at best a distraction from what's really needed.
  - revelio 4y ago
    I'm not a Christian anymore, so I might be misrepresenting the religion here, but I think they would say that you only go to hell if you don't repent your sins. And the whole Hell/Satan thing was never a major part of my own Christian upbringing from what I recall, that's a much bigger thing in medieval religion. As for having a bad effect on mental health, well, the inquisitions and holy wars were pretty mad in retrospect. Nobody is claiming that climate change is significantly impacting mental health, at least not yet. Even Haidt's data shows an increase over a very small baseline, whether that's significant or not boils down to whether you're talking in relative or absolute terms. But you seem to be talking from the perspective of a mentally healthy person. Obviously, a mentally healthy person doesn't get so upset about climate change they kill themselves, but we risk being circular. A small number of highly susceptible people will fall prey to the narrative of un-cleansable guilt and un-solvable doom, and lose their stability. It's already appearing in news and anecdotal reports. >> there's little genuine analysis done as to whether the changes really are of any net benefit. No, of course not. Anyone who tries to do such analysis rigorously has to dive into the data, and if you do that you immediately becomes a skeptic of both claimed solutions and claimed problems, so your views are now unspeakable in polite society. Given that it's inevitable that you're only going to "see" people who aren't doing genuine analysis as a result. >> It may give some artificial boost in sense of self-worth and short term improvement in mental health but is at best a distraction from what's really needed Which is what, exactly? Notice how you spend time attacking those who refuse to do what's "really needed" without spelling out what that is, thus engaging in the token gesture of cheap online activism. If you're about to give some absurd policy that boils down to most of the population dying off or living in absolute poverty, and which could only be implemented by a dystopian global dictatorship, then great, you're just proving why most people prefer to engage in what you call token gestures.