4 ms·

Without comment on the merits, this is how you kill public consensus on climate issues before you even start. If I were a McKinsey consultant for Shell or Exxon

Without comment on the merits, this is how you kill public consensus on climate issues before you even start. If I were a McKinsey consultant for Shell or Exxon right now, I'd be advising them to bet everything on "climate concern is for vegans". The only way to solve major political problems is to build consensus; not create contentious divisions that kill your own "side".

NovaDudely 4y ago
This is a very fair point. While it should be messaged as a major change that can be made it also has to be in the context of not the ONLY change to be made.
- perihelions 4y ago
  - "should be messaged" Why? It's purely counterproductive. Framing a political issue as "this is a moral failing by you, personally; and you must suffer and live ascetically to improve yourself in order to" whatever is a surefire way to get utterly rejected.
  - karpierz 4y ago
    > you must suffer and live ascetically What do you think veganism is?
    - perihelions 4y ago
      As I said and meant: asceticism, in service of a religious or moral principle. I respect what it is, but that *is* fundamentally what it is: people rejecting pleasurable things.
  - NovaDudely 4y ago
    Sorry "should" was a very blunt word to use there. But if one is to project the message about reduced consumption, it shouldn't just be framed in a narrow aspect of a single action. Also, while this is political it is also about the actions of a individuals. The rain drop doesn't blame itself for the flood, but the flood is made of rain drops.
npc12345 4y ago
[dead]
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
If you solve a political problem by building consensus on the wrong thing(s), then you've made the world a worse place than had you done nothing at all. Bjorn Lomberg and others have done a good job rating strategies to improve human flourishing relative to cost. That's the kind of discussion we should be having. Instead many treat climate problems and solutions like a religion.

NovaDudely 4y ago

This is a very fair point. While it should be messaged as a major change that can be made it also has to be in the context of not the ONLY change to be made.

perihelions 4y ago
- "should be messaged" Why? It's purely counterproductive. Framing a political issue as "this is a moral failing by you, personally; and you must suffer and live ascetically to improve yourself in order to" whatever is a surefire way to get utterly rejected.
- karpierz 4y ago
  > you must suffer and live ascetically What do you think veganism is?
  - perihelions 4y ago
    As I said and meant: asceticism, in service of a religious or moral principle. I respect what it is, but that *is* fundamentally what it is: people rejecting pleasurable things.
- NovaDudely 4y ago
  Sorry "should" was a very blunt word to use there. But if one is to project the message about reduced consumption, it shouldn't just be framed in a narrow aspect of a single action. Also, while this is political it is also about the actions of a individuals. The rain drop doesn't blame itself for the flood, but the flood is made of rain drops.

npc12345 4y ago

[dead]

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

If you solve a political problem by building consensus on the wrong thing(s), then you've made the world a worse place than had you done nothing at all. Bjorn Lomberg and others have done a good job rating strategies to improve human flourishing relative to cost. That's the kind of discussion we should be having. Instead many treat climate problems and solutions like a religion.