3 ms·

I would counter that by staying that Homo sapiens is at the top of the evolutionary success ladder because of collaboration with one another. Which means being

by dv_dt 3y ago

I would counter that by staying that Homo sapiens is at the top of the evolutionary success ladder because of collaboration with one another. Which means being nice to one another is the actual winning strategy.

Kye 3y ago
We're in this situation because a handful of people have decided they have to own everything, and the necessary collective action to deal with it has been in short supply for all the decades we've known there was a problem. It's only now when it's almost too late that people are waking up from all the propaganda deployed to confuse the issue. I'm still doing my part by advocating for good policies and collective action, but like ActorNightly, I think it's prudent to build a boat just in case things continue to not change.
- selestify 3y ago
  > just in case things continue to not change. Given the world’s track record in not changing for as long as the alarm has been raised, I think this is a pretty sensible approach to take. At this point, it may well be more prudent for the individual to assume that the climatepocalypse is going to happen anyways, and prepare accordingly rather than continuing to hope for futile efforts to stem the tide
- dv_dt 3y ago
  It is certainly prudent to consider that an overall "win" over time may be decoupled from individual circumstances. If we are to overcome climate change as a earth-wide society, it will have to be through collective action of enough people forcing those in power to be "nice" - whether that will happen in a fast and large enough scale - I have my doubts about too. If we aren't systematically nice to a wider swath of people (even if in a self-interested Machevellian, The Prince kind of way), I share concerns about needing to plan for a general decline of civilization.
boondoggle16 3y ago
No, no, no. Being nice to our family and kin is what made us strong. Being nice to the whole world? Not so much.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Does that calculus change in a world where the actions of people in Shanghai alter weather patterns in London?
- dv_dt 3y ago
  When we were at war with each other in large groups a lot of productive elements went negative for a long time, and it took world cooperation to rebuild it. Even when you study war victors and losers, the winners being nice to losers was more value for everyone vs when not-nice severe loss conditions were imposed after.

by dv_dt 3y ago

Kye 3y ago

We're in this situation because a handful of people have decided they have to own everything, and the necessary collective action to deal with it has been in short supply for all the decades we've known there was a problem. It's only now when it's almost too late that people are waking up from all the propaganda deployed to confuse the issue. I'm still doing my part by advocating for good policies and collective action, but like ActorNightly, I think it's prudent to build a boat just in case things continue to not change.

selestify 3y ago
> just in case things continue to not change. Given the world’s track record in not changing for as long as the alarm has been raised, I think this is a pretty sensible approach to take. At this point, it may well be more prudent for the individual to assume that the climatepocalypse is going to happen anyways, and prepare accordingly rather than continuing to hope for futile efforts to stem the tide
dv_dt 3y ago
It is certainly prudent to consider that an overall "win" over time may be decoupled from individual circumstances. If we are to overcome climate change as a earth-wide society, it will have to be through collective action of enough people forcing those in power to be "nice" - whether that will happen in a fast and large enough scale - I have my doubts about too. If we aren't systematically nice to a wider swath of people (even if in a self-interested Machevellian, The Prince kind of way), I share concerns about needing to plan for a general decline of civilization.

boondoggle16 3y ago

No, no, no. Being nice to our family and kin is what made us strong. Being nice to the whole world? Not so much.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Does that calculus change in a world where the actions of people in Shanghai alter weather patterns in London?
dv_dt 3y ago
When we were at war with each other in large groups a lot of productive elements went negative for a long time, and it took world cooperation to rebuild it. Even when you study war victors and losers, the winners being nice to losers was more value for everyone vs when not-nice severe loss conditions were imposed after.