5 ms·

Too bad the author is not offering any alternative. It's not good enough to just say "stop doing X". It would be nice if it's followed by "Do Y instead". Maybe

Too bad the author is not offering any alternative. It's not good enough to just say "stop doing X". It would be nice if it's followed by "Do Y instead". Maybe I missed it, but the only thing I found in the whole article that resembles a counterproposal is a single sentence in the end - "... policy flows from conversation and debate instead of force." So we are supposed to have more conversation and debate? Sounds like exactly what we've been doing for the last 30,40,50 years.

JimtheCoder 3y ago
"So we are supposed to have more conversation and debate? Sounds like exactly what we've been doing for the last 30,40,50 years." It has sounded more like competing monologues than anything else to me...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mistermann 3y ago
  Good point....it's like, does anyone actually think something useful is going to come out of threads like this other than enjoyment?
Levitz 3y ago
The subtext under the headline seems direct enough: >When it comes to the climate crisis, new normals convey a single, grim message: instead of acting, get used to it The idea is to stop calling things "The new normal" since that implies acceptance. Fight instead. Don't go along with the idea that the world has to be like this.
- pif 3y ago
  Concerning climate change, the world is going to be like this. All models are clear that global warming cannot be reversed. No "turning green" will lower average temperatures enough in our lifetime. Thus, acceptance is capital, because only acceptance of reality can lead to sensible solutions. As a side note, screaming "It's too late: hurry up!" is really an idiot way to advocate your cause, whatever your cause may be.
  - letsawaytoday 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - andyjohnson0 3y ago
    > All models are clear that global warming cannot be reversed. No "turning green" will lower average temperatures enough in our lifetime. Thats factually correct, but also kind of a strawman. The objective at this point is not to reverse climate change, but to stop it getting much, much worse.
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      Without the cooperation of BRICS these efforts are moot. Not to further spiral this discussion into politics, but the current administration is pushing BRICS away rather than pulling closer. Ostensibly climate change continues to be used as a political bargaining chip on the world stage because of a fundamental refusal by Western elites to relinquish their hegemony.
  - ravenstine 3y ago
    That's metaphorically like stepping on the gas and the brakes at the same time. If we really believe we need the masses to reach a level of acceptance in order to reach sensible conclusions, perhaps that whole step could be bypassed by doing away with the frequent alarmism and "i fucking love science" attitude in the first place.
  - YawningAngel 3y ago
    > As a side note, screaming "It's too late: hurry up!" is really an idiot way to advocate your cause, whatever your cause may be. Is it? It can simultaneously be true that we have been too slow to avoid very concerning outcomes, and also that the best course of action open to us is to act quickly and decisively
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - 3y ago
- zokier 3y ago
  Problem is that afaik things are not going get better; climate change is going to hit us bad. The fight is now mostly just trying to manage how bad it is going to be, especially in 2100s and further.
- FormerBandmate 3y ago
  The way you fight is by buying a Tesla and switching your power to clean energy providers. Climate change activists never seem to talk about either of those things tho, it’s always amorphous nonsense like “dismantling capitalism”
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Climate change activists never seem to talk about either of those things tho They don't? You're listening to a different crowd than I am.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    Buying a Tesla isn't even close to enough. Climate change activists say amorphous nonsense like "dismantling capitalism" because the changes needed are much, much further reaching than simply buying a different thing. Transportation is only about 25% of CO2, and cars are only a fraction of that. Even if there were zero CO2 produced in a Tesla's lifecycle (and it's more than that), it wouldn't be anywhere near enough. You'd also need to turn off all the fossil fuel power plants -- which isn't going to happen without government intervention. That's not enough, either. Food and concrete are also massive producers of CO2. Again, corporations aren't going to voluntarily stop raising cows or making concrete. Laws are required -- the kinds of laws that make people scream "socialism". Nor can it end there. To reach net-zero, we're going to have to balance out the inevitable remaining human-produced CO2. Some of that will be carbon capture -- not something corporations do unless forced. Some will be reserving large swathes of fertile land for trees -- probably owned by the government, i.e. socialism. That's probably still not enough. Try this on for size: we eliminate a lot of bullshit jobs that require commuting, energy, and other sources of carbon. Maybe a universal basic income that drives up the cost of workers, and a lot of workers just drop the hell out. Maybe then we reorganize the economy to stop maximizing "employment" as a fundamental goal, and we stop optimizing for total Gross Domestic Product. That is what "dismantling capitalism" means. Maybe it's not necessary to go that far. It sure as hell would have been less likely if we'd done something about it 40 years ago. Instead, we dicked around for decades, while believing that capitalism would solve it. Capitalism mostly responded by denying that the problem existed. The activists may not really understand what they say when they toss around the catch phrases. But I assure you that the people who coined those catch phrases do know what they mean, and you can engage with that if you don't like engaging with the rank-and-file who are rightfully enraged that nothing is being done, even if they themselves don't fully understand the magnitude or direction of what's required.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
The point is that the 'new normal' is lulling people into 'doing nothing'. The 'do Y' is, simply take action to be better. Whatever it is. Each X needs a different Y. So go do Y for that particular problem, instead of nothing. How can this one author tell you what to do for every problem outlined. The point is to stop doing nothing.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  The problem is that any good I, as an individual, can produce is far outweighed by the damage a multi-trillion dollar businesses can cause. This isn’t to say that individuals should do nothing, this is to say we need to deconstruct and limit those who actively harm the environment, starting from the largest and working down.
  - letsawaytoday 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - zokier 3y ago
    Vast majority of those businesses ultimately serve consumers in one way or another. Some are deeper in the supply chain networks than others, but still you shouldn't pretend that industy somehow exists as completely isolated sector.
    - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
      I don’t believe that Microsoft was serving customers when they made Windows 10 or 11. I also don’t believe Apple is serving customers when it makes its devices nearly impossible to sustain. Companies are certainly not serving customers when they package products in unsustainable packaging that is meant to be discarded. While businesses may produce products/services for individuals to buy, you shouldn’t pretend that industry doesn’t make their own decisions. It’s not my fault bottling companies moved from glass to plastic, that was decided against my will. All I can do is recycle and pray they don’t chuck that plastic in the ocean on “accident”. As I’ve said at the start, this is not to minimize the individual’s role in this, but to highlight the fact that for every piece of plastic I recycle thousands of pounds of it are produced, and that was not my decision. That was decided by billionaires with little care for anything but optics and their bottom line.
andyjohnson0 3y ago
> Too bad the author is not offering any alternative. It's not good enough to just say "stop doing X". It would be nice if it's followed by "Do Y instead". It's entirely reasonable to just say "stop doing X" when X is (a) causing significant harm and (b) helping people to deny its harmful reality. There is no requirement to come up with an alternative. But in fact, of course, the author does suggest an alternative. As the article says "When it comes to the climate crisis, new normals convey a single, grim message: instead of acting, get used to it". So they're saying don't do that. Don't get used to it. Don't acquiesce. Face the problem, don't normalise it. Its a plea for action at a personal level, not a policy level.
Etrnl_President 3y ago
Conversation and debate have served us for easily 30,000 years.
- jfengel 3y ago
  During which time civilizations have risen and fallen, often because of their own short-sightedness. It hasn't wiped out the human race, but there are outcomes far short of extinction that are nonetheless best avoided because they are extremely unpleasant.
ravenstine 3y ago
Why must there be an alternative? There's no utility in communicating "this is the new normal" other than to persuade others in a prescriptive manner. It's completely unnecessary unless one has some ulterior motive. It's the new normal, bro. Get with it. What are you, stuck in the past? /s
- btbuildem 3y ago
  When you're criticizing something, you must present an alternative for your criticisms to hold any weight. If you're unable to say "let's build that" after shouting "let's tear this down" it tells me you don't understand the situation well enough to speak about it to others.
  - ravenstine 3y ago
    No, one mustn't necessarily. A thing can be criticized in isolation while an alternative is pending. Inaction is also an alternative in and of itself. In this case, alternative messaging or any persuasive messaging is not a requirement.

JimtheCoder 3y ago

"So we are supposed to have more conversation and debate? Sounds like exactly what we've been doing for the last 30,40,50 years." It has sounded more like competing monologues than anything else to me...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mistermann 3y ago
Good point....it's like, does anyone actually think something useful is going to come out of threads like this other than enjoyment?

Levitz 3y ago

The subtext under the headline seems direct enough: >When it comes to the climate crisis, new normals convey a single, grim message: instead of acting, get used to it The idea is to stop calling things "The new normal" since that implies acceptance. Fight instead. Don't go along with the idea that the world has to be like this.

pif 3y ago
Concerning climate change, the world is going to be like this. All models are clear that global warming cannot be reversed. No "turning green" will lower average temperatures enough in our lifetime. Thus, acceptance is capital, because only acceptance of reality can lead to sensible solutions. As a side note, screaming "It's too late: hurry up!" is really an idiot way to advocate your cause, whatever your cause may be.
- letsawaytoday 3y ago
  [flagged]
- andyjohnson0 3y ago
  > All models are clear that global warming cannot be reversed. No "turning green" will lower average temperatures enough in our lifetime. Thats factually correct, but also kind of a strawman. The objective at this point is not to reverse climate change, but to stop it getting much, much worse.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    Without the cooperation of BRICS these efforts are moot. Not to further spiral this discussion into politics, but the current administration is pushing BRICS away rather than pulling closer. Ostensibly climate change continues to be used as a political bargaining chip on the world stage because of a fundamental refusal by Western elites to relinquish their hegemony.
- ravenstine 3y ago
  That's metaphorically like stepping on the gas and the brakes at the same time. If we really believe we need the masses to reach a level of acceptance in order to reach sensible conclusions, perhaps that whole step could be bypassed by doing away with the frequent alarmism and "i fucking love science" attitude in the first place.
- YawningAngel 3y ago
  > As a side note, screaming "It's too late: hurry up!" is really an idiot way to advocate your cause, whatever your cause may be. Is it? It can simultaneously be true that we have been too slow to avoid very concerning outcomes, and also that the best course of action open to us is to act quickly and decisively
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- 3y ago
zokier 3y ago
Problem is that afaik things are not going get better; climate change is going to hit us bad. The fight is now mostly just trying to manage how bad it is going to be, especially in 2100s and further.
FormerBandmate 3y ago
The way you fight is by buying a Tesla and switching your power to clean energy providers. Climate change activists never seem to talk about either of those things tho, it’s always amorphous nonsense like “dismantling capitalism”
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Climate change activists never seem to talk about either of those things tho They don't? You're listening to a different crowd than I am.
- jfengel 3y ago
  Buying a Tesla isn't even close to enough. Climate change activists say amorphous nonsense like "dismantling capitalism" because the changes needed are much, much further reaching than simply buying a different thing. Transportation is only about 25% of CO2, and cars are only a fraction of that. Even if there were zero CO2 produced in a Tesla's lifecycle (and it's more than that), it wouldn't be anywhere near enough. You'd also need to turn off all the fossil fuel power plants -- which isn't going to happen without government intervention. That's not enough, either. Food and concrete are also massive producers of CO2. Again, corporations aren't going to voluntarily stop raising cows or making concrete. Laws are required -- the kinds of laws that make people scream "socialism". Nor can it end there. To reach net-zero, we're going to have to balance out the inevitable remaining human-produced CO2. Some of that will be carbon capture -- not something corporations do unless forced. Some will be reserving large swathes of fertile land for trees -- probably owned by the government, i.e. socialism. That's probably still not enough. Try this on for size: we eliminate a lot of bullshit jobs that require commuting, energy, and other sources of carbon. Maybe a universal basic income that drives up the cost of workers, and a lot of workers just drop the hell out. Maybe then we reorganize the economy to stop maximizing "employment" as a fundamental goal, and we stop optimizing for total Gross Domestic Product. That is what "dismantling capitalism" means. Maybe it's not necessary to go that far. It sure as hell would have been less likely if we'd done something about it 40 years ago. Instead, we dicked around for decades, while believing that capitalism would solve it. Capitalism mostly responded by denying that the problem existed. The activists may not really understand what they say when they toss around the catch phrases. But I assure you that the people who coined those catch phrases do know what they mean, and you can engage with that if you don't like engaging with the rank-and-file who are rightfully enraged that nothing is being done, even if they themselves don't fully understand the magnitude or direction of what's required.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

The point is that the 'new normal' is lulling people into 'doing nothing'. The 'do Y' is, simply take action to be better. Whatever it is. Each X needs a different Y. So go do Y for that particular problem, instead of nothing. How can this one author tell you what to do for every problem outlined. The point is to stop doing nothing.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
The problem is that any good I, as an individual, can produce is far outweighed by the damage a multi-trillion dollar businesses can cause. This isn’t to say that individuals should do nothing, this is to say we need to deconstruct and limit those who actively harm the environment, starting from the largest and working down.
- letsawaytoday 3y ago
  [flagged]
- zokier 3y ago
  Vast majority of those businesses ultimately serve consumers in one way or another. Some are deeper in the supply chain networks than others, but still you shouldn't pretend that industy somehow exists as completely isolated sector.
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    I don’t believe that Microsoft was serving customers when they made Windows 10 or 11. I also don’t believe Apple is serving customers when it makes its devices nearly impossible to sustain. Companies are certainly not serving customers when they package products in unsustainable packaging that is meant to be discarded. While businesses may produce products/services for individuals to buy, you shouldn’t pretend that industry doesn’t make their own decisions. It’s not my fault bottling companies moved from glass to plastic, that was decided against my will. All I can do is recycle and pray they don’t chuck that plastic in the ocean on “accident”. As I’ve said at the start, this is not to minimize the individual’s role in this, but to highlight the fact that for every piece of plastic I recycle thousands of pounds of it are produced, and that was not my decision. That was decided by billionaires with little care for anything but optics and their bottom line.

andyjohnson0 3y ago

> Too bad the author is not offering any alternative. It's not good enough to just say "stop doing X". It would be nice if it's followed by "Do Y instead". It's entirely reasonable to just say "stop doing X" when X is (a) causing significant harm and (b) helping people to deny its harmful reality. There is no requirement to come up with an alternative. But in fact, of course, the author does suggest an alternative. As the article says "When it comes to the climate crisis, new normals convey a single, grim message: instead of acting, get used to it". So they're saying don't do that. Don't get used to it. Don't acquiesce. Face the problem, don't normalise it. Its a plea for action at a personal level, not a policy level.

Etrnl_President 3y ago

Conversation and debate have served us for easily 30,000 years.

jfengel 3y ago
During which time civilizations have risen and fallen, often because of their own short-sightedness. It hasn't wiped out the human race, but there are outcomes far short of extinction that are nonetheless best avoided because they are extremely unpleasant.

ravenstine 3y ago

Why must there be an alternative? There's no utility in communicating "this is the new normal" other than to persuade others in a prescriptive manner. It's completely unnecessary unless one has some ulterior motive. It's the new normal, bro. Get with it. What are you, stuck in the past? /s

btbuildem 3y ago
When you're criticizing something, you must present an alternative for your criticisms to hold any weight. If you're unable to say "let's build that" after shouting "let's tear this down" it tells me you don't understand the situation well enough to speak about it to others.
- ravenstine 3y ago
  No, one mustn't necessarily. A thing can be criticized in isolation while an alternative is pending. Inaction is also an alternative in and of itself. In this case, alternative messaging or any persuasive messaging is not a requirement.