4 ms·

>and a push toward demanding we slam the brakes on industrial society and move in reverse. Where does the article suggest this?

aCoreyJ 3y ago
As a Reddit refugee my disappointment is immeasurable that people are actually worse (or less quickly buried) at reading the article here
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  The comment appears to be a sort of strawman intent on blaming the left without sourcing any thoughts from the article, so was just trying to make sure.
Ericson2314 3y ago
The article is entirely about reduction of consumption, and the strings like "electri" "invest" "density" do not appear anywhere within it. It is self-flagellating for self-flagellating's sake without understand there actual material basis of modern society. This is extremely common in the environmental movement and for decades has been a massive political failure except for empowering perl-clutching NIMBYs. I would be a lot more sympathetic if consumption reduction was the only way to go. But it is not. Abundant apartments without parking, abundant e-bikes, abundant transit are feasible, get the job done, and way more popular. (People love to romanticize low density, but rents reveal different preferences.)
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  >The article is entirely about reduction of consumption, and the strings like "electri" "invest" "density" do not appear anywhere within it. I mean a writer needs to actually say something in order for you to criticize it, failing to mention something or focusing the article on a particular topic of discussion isn't a position.
  - Ericson2314 3y ago
    Is the goal decarbonization or is the goal something else? If that is the goal and it's that important, I think errors of omission as as bad as errors of inclusion. For decade environmentalists have asked for political martyrdom (por political petard). It's never worked, unless you count Putin pissing off his natural gas customers (lol). Acting like that is the only strategy again and again is just irresponsible.
    - operatingthetan 3y ago
      >I think errors of omission as as bad as errors of inclusion. A stylistic choice like scope is not an error, so neither. >Acting like that is the only strategy again and again is just irresponsible. The article did not, you are attacking a strawman.

aCoreyJ 3y ago

As a Reddit refugee my disappointment is immeasurable that people are actually worse (or less quickly buried) at reading the article here

operatingthetan 3y ago
The comment appears to be a sort of strawman intent on blaming the left without sourcing any thoughts from the article, so was just trying to make sure.

Ericson2314 3y ago

The article is entirely about reduction of consumption, and the strings like "electri" "invest" "density" do not appear anywhere within it. It is self-flagellating for self-flagellating's sake without understand there actual material basis of modern society. This is extremely common in the environmental movement and for decades has been a massive political failure except for empowering perl-clutching NIMBYs. I would be a lot more sympathetic if consumption reduction was the only way to go. But it is not. Abundant apartments without parking, abundant e-bikes, abundant transit are feasible, get the job done, and way more popular. (People love to romanticize low density, but rents reveal different preferences.)

operatingthetan 3y ago
>The article is entirely about reduction of consumption, and the strings like "electri" "invest" "density" do not appear anywhere within it. I mean a writer needs to actually say something in order for you to criticize it, failing to mention something or focusing the article on a particular topic of discussion isn't a position.
- Ericson2314 3y ago
  Is the goal decarbonization or is the goal something else? If that is the goal and it's that important, I think errors of omission as as bad as errors of inclusion. For decade environmentalists have asked for political martyrdom (por political petard). It's never worked, unless you count Putin pissing off his natural gas customers (lol). Acting like that is the only strategy again and again is just irresponsible.
  - operatingthetan 3y ago
    >I think errors of omission as as bad as errors of inclusion. A stylistic choice like scope is not an error, so neither. >Acting like that is the only strategy again and again is just irresponsible. The article did not, you are attacking a strawman.