4 ms·
Are there any environmentalist schools of thought which accept human nature for what it is, make pessimistic (realistic?) assumptions about the (un)likelihood o
by gred 3y ago
Are there any environmentalist schools of thought which accept human nature for what it is, make pessimistic (realistic?) assumptions about the (un)likelihood of global coordination on this topic, and use that as a starting point for research, modeling and recommendations? So much of what makes its way into politics and mainstream media on this topic seems to be naive pipe dreams, mindless posturing, or political opportunism. The scientists seem to often make the same mistake.
- jules-jules 3y agoThis might be interesting for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVe8-eKSK8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVe8-eKSK8
- karmakurtisaani 3y agoI suppose many of the institutions responsible for national security are making worst-case analyses all over the world. Of course that research wouldn't be public. As for the "naive pipe dreams" as you put it, I suppose being more pessimistic will soon lead you being labelled as a doomer and ignored. There is some material though, like Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells. It's a depressing read.
- gred 3y agoThanks for the reference. I watched some of his Joe Rogan episode to get a sense of his thesis, and it sounds like he's hoping for either litigation or a popular opinion shift to open the door to government intervention (taxes or policy) which significantly alters the incentives around emissions. He seems to mix realism (acknowledging that there are probably deeper desires at play, not just societal or governmental conventions) and wishful thinking (government policy as climate deus ex machina, countries imposing their climate agendas on other countries via war within 30 years). I suppose I belong to what he calls the "invent our way out of it" school of thought... also possibly very naive!
- revelio 3y agoThe people who are attracted to geo-engineering are probably the closest fit for what you want. You can argue that geo-engineering still requires global coordination. The types you ask for are quite rare. If you accept human nature for what it is, you have to admit the possibility that claims are being exaggerated for political opportunism, fame, grant money, clicks ... and due to the huge cost of all proposed solutions, you'd want to double check. But if you ever double check any of this stuff you're doomed because environmental research is so riven with fraud. You end up a skeptic and be immediately excluded from politics, media, and academia. That's why you can't find many of that school of thought.
- gred 3y agoThanks! As mentioned in a sibling response, I think I'm in the "invent our way out of it" camp, but even here there are the both top-down approaches (e.g. geo-engineering) and the bottom-up approaches (residential solar, commercial solutions which do not rely on government subsidy), and I hope that we can find successful bottom-up approaches... mainly because bottom-up approaches conserve individual agency while top-down approaches are more likely to be used as political and civil cudgels against the majority of the population.