6 ms·

How about not calling something a crisis if it isn't? A crisis is usually short-lived, not a permanent state.

hospitalJail 3y ago
I got one better. Use actual math to decide how bad it is. COVID 1% death rates among the elderly, sick, and obese? Not a crisis, that is essentially a bad flu year prior to 2020. (And 2018 and 2019 had a relatively low excess winter mortality, keeping the people on the brink of death, alive). There is a particular issue the news loves to report on in America, its basically a rounding error, but when children are involved, its especially emotional. Climate crisis that could kill 100% of humans, all hands on deck. Obesity related issues, nearly all hands on deck. Cancer, just past fixing obesity. Car accidents are something worth extra investment too. Not even sure how to take this problem on, you mention the irrationality of an issue, and people get even more emotional.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Covid was a sad reminder that we can rally the troops and make huge society-wide changes to protect old people, but won't lift a finger to protect kids from climate breakdown.
  - hospitalJail 3y ago
    I'm not even sure it was to protect old people. It felt more like a political game.
- starbugs 3y ago
  > Climate crisis that could kill 100% of humans This wording is just a bait for clicks and taps and does nothing to improve anything. That's why people get tired and call it the new normal. Let them get emotional. It's part of the process of finding real solutions. Real solutions must work in the real world, globally in this case. It's not an easy problem to fix.
hnbad 3y ago
That's why a lot of activists seem to have taken to calling it the "climate catastrophe" or the "climate disaster" I guess. "Climate change" is just another way to say "new normal".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- starbugs 3y ago
  Initially, it wasn't. Every new term is new only for a certain time. The way these terms are being used in the media can lead to semantic bleaching, which is why from time to time new terms are made up. In the end, this doesn't change anything about what it is. It's a somewhat slow process with a big lag between action and outcome. Using terms to describe this that typically are reserved for events that are fundamentally different in nature (much shorter time scales, short lag between actions and outcome, etc.) is counter productive. We have to grow up and learn to look at it from a calm, non-panicky view point and take action where action makes sense in the context of our lives (not only from a reductionist view point that only looks at the climate and nothing else). Maybe even more importantly, we have to learn how to be fine with not taking action where it doesn't make sense and would come with a high probability of making things worse.

I got one better. Use actual math to decide how bad it is. COVID 1% death rates among the elderly, sick, and obese? Not a crisis, that is essentially a bad flu year prior to 2020. (And 2018 and 2019 had a relatively low excess winter mortality, keeping the people on the brink of death, alive). There is a particular issue the news loves to report on in America, its basically a rounding error, but when children are involved, its especially emotional. Climate crisis that could kill 100% of humans, all hands on deck. Obesity related issues, nearly all hands on deck. Cancer, just past fixing obesity. Car accidents are something worth extra investment too. Not even sure how to take this problem on, you mention the irrationality of an issue, and people get even more emotional.

CalRobert 3y ago
Covid was a sad reminder that we can rally the troops and make huge society-wide changes to protect old people, but won't lift a finger to protect kids from climate breakdown.
- hospitalJail 3y ago
  I'm not even sure it was to protect old people. It felt more like a political game.
starbugs 3y ago
> Climate crisis that could kill 100% of humans This wording is just a bait for clicks and taps and does nothing to improve anything. That's why people get tired and call it the new normal. Let them get emotional. It's part of the process of finding real solutions. Real solutions must work in the real world, globally in this case. It's not an easy problem to fix.

hnbad 3y ago

That's why a lot of activists seem to have taken to calling it the "climate catastrophe" or the "climate disaster" I guess. "Climate change" is just another way to say "new normal".

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
starbugs 3y ago
Initially, it wasn't. Every new term is new only for a certain time. The way these terms are being used in the media can lead to semantic bleaching, which is why from time to time new terms are made up. In the end, this doesn't change anything about what it is. It's a somewhat slow process with a big lag between action and outcome. Using terms to describe this that typically are reserved for events that are fundamentally different in nature (much shorter time scales, short lag between actions and outcome, etc.) is counter productive. We have to grow up and learn to look at it from a calm, non-panicky view point and take action where action makes sense in the context of our lives (not only from a reductionist view point that only looks at the climate and nothing else). Maybe even more importantly, we have to learn how to be fine with not taking action where it doesn't make sense and would come with a high probability of making things worse.