6 ms·

this is why the world is ending...[1] because people like you have swallowed the propaganda line that it's about “mentality” and not the economic system itself.

this is why the world is ending...[1] because people like you have swallowed the propaganda line that it's about “mentality” and not the economic system itself. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-people-are-blamed-for-climate-change https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-pe... [1] No, not really. Powerful people are the ones to blame.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
I do think one of the major components is the economic system, I never said it wasn't. I believe a reform of the economic system will still be better than nothing, never said it wouldn't. I would like nothing more for the mechanisms to be eliminated that have made the powerful people, because they are certainly drivers in this disaster. I still believe in doing everything possible to mitigate it and changing everything we can...but let's not kid ourselves, our general mentality that makes us think short-term has also given us those powerful people...it's not like "little people" aren't to blame either. The sooner everyone acknowledges their responsibility, the better. Of course, I still think we will suffer due to what we have done but I believe in doing everyhing we can to change it. Of course, you were snarky because I was snarky at your other comment first. Tit for tat.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Blaming “powerful people” is just a shorthand for the system itself. One can do what anyone who is serious about things like politics does: research power. Who has it, how is it wielded. Who influences the discourses? Or who dictates it? Who plans societies? Who decides that America shall be dominated by four-line highways? That it shall have terrible mass transportation? That the megalopolis from Philadelphia to Boston shall have a terrible and slow railway? That its urban/suburban planning shall be such that people will have to commute to work by way of cars? Why are consumer products produced and imported from across the Pacific Ocean (in the case of the US)? One could research who planned the consumer capitalist economy. Who invented modern marketing. Why the economy needs “consumers”. ... one could research whether the “little people” actually have power. The Princeton study that concluded that 90% of the population have no influence on policy (no correlation between policy preference and actual policy) would say no. Alternatively one could stuff all that. Say that it's about an all-encompassing "mentality". That we're all equally to blame. That it's about Game Theory. I think your mentality is exactly what the system needs to perpetuate itself. You should feel good about that. -- Really I should know better than to vent my frustration by simply saying that I think about the world ending every day... How selfish of me.
kredd 3y ago
Other side of the problem is, we just haven’t been able to come up with a better economic system. Sure it might be sucky for us, but millions of people were lifted from extreme poverty over the last 10 years. Those people would probably support the system since the benefit they see is larger than what we see. Maybe it’s younger millennial talk, but most of my peers have given up on everyone else except their direct contacts.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Other side of the problem is, we just haven’t been able to come up with a better economic system We just haven't applied one. And we've dismantled (or witness the dismantling) of dozens of better attributes the current one used to have (from unions to Glass–Steagall). There's nothing special that needs some novel invention.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Oh okay I see.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  >we just haven’t been able to come up with a better economic system If we did, the levers in every country that runs on capitalism would feel threatened and undermine it. See plenty of socialist/communist regimes as examples. This is not to say that those are better systems, but they are demonstration by precedent of what the reaction to their presence will be.
Aunche 3y ago
No. There is absolutely no evidence that switching economic systems will magically solve global warming. Out of all economic systems capable of industrialization, capitalist mix economies are the only ones that expressed any interest in caring about the environment at all. Communist China was willing to destroy forests to make charcoal to make little bits of low-quality steel and decimate its bird population because they were eating a little bit of grain. The Soviet Union nearly drained the entire Aral Sea to grow cotton. The fact that Communism didn't pollute more was only because they were very bad at industrializing. And before you motte and bailey your way into saying you're not promoting communism, any proposed economic system is going to have the same problem. Even if you distribute Jeff Bezos wealth in a way that he has to give up his megayacht, then you're going to give 10,000 people a means to buy F-150 Raptors.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  What are you on about? Both of the Communist superpowers are/were state capitalists. I don't know what the fuck LessWrong lingo “motte and bailey” really means but it's not like I have stated my pro-ideology. For all you know I could be an anarcho-primitivist.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    > What are you on about? Both of the Communist superpowers are/were state capitalists. "Capitalist" has a definition that does not mean "something I don't like." Capitalism specifically refers to where trade is controlled by private owners for profit. This does not match either the Soviet Union or Communist China at all, where profits were distributed to the state, which was nominally for the benefit of the people. > I don't know what the fuck LessWrong lingo “motte and bailey” really means but it's not like I have stated my pro-ideology. For all you know I could be an anarcho-primitivist. But you aren't, are you? I don't expect people to completely detatch themselves from society, but you at least need to commit yourself to that lifestyle of a certain extent if you want me to consider you a real anarcho-primitivist as opposed to simply a contrarian. At the very least, you should be able to survive with minimal support for a year before you make the conclusion that this is the way you want all of humanity to live forever.
Zpalmtree 3y ago
the world is not ending.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Just a shorthand for the world becoming miserable. The world as we know it ending.

vouaobrasil 3y ago

I do think one of the major components is the economic system, I never said it wasn't. I believe a reform of the economic system will still be better than nothing, never said it wouldn't. I would like nothing more for the mechanisms to be eliminated that have made the powerful people, because they are certainly drivers in this disaster. I still believe in doing everything possible to mitigate it and changing everything we can...but let's not kid ourselves, our general mentality that makes us think short-term has also given us those powerful people...it's not like "little people" aren't to blame either. The sooner everyone acknowledges their responsibility, the better. Of course, I still think we will suffer due to what we have done but I believe in doing everyhing we can to change it. Of course, you were snarky because I was snarky at your other comment first. Tit for tat.

avgcorrection 3y ago
Blaming “powerful people” is just a shorthand for the system itself. One can do what anyone who is serious about things like politics does: research power. Who has it, how is it wielded. Who influences the discourses? Or who dictates it? Who plans societies? Who decides that America shall be dominated by four-line highways? That it shall have terrible mass transportation? That the megalopolis from Philadelphia to Boston shall have a terrible and slow railway? That its urban/suburban planning shall be such that people will have to commute to work by way of cars? Why are consumer products produced and imported from across the Pacific Ocean (in the case of the US)? One could research who planned the consumer capitalist economy. Who invented modern marketing. Why the economy needs “consumers”. ... one could research whether the “little people” actually have power. The Princeton study that concluded that 90% of the population have no influence on policy (no correlation between policy preference and actual policy) would say no. Alternatively one could stuff all that. Say that it's about an all-encompassing "mentality". That we're all equally to blame. That it's about Game Theory. I think your mentality is exactly what the system needs to perpetuate itself. You should feel good about that. -- Really I should know better than to vent my frustration by simply saying that I think about the world ending every day... How selfish of me.

kredd 3y ago

Other side of the problem is, we just haven’t been able to come up with a better economic system. Sure it might be sucky for us, but millions of people were lifted from extreme poverty over the last 10 years. Those people would probably support the system since the benefit they see is larger than what we see. Maybe it’s younger millennial talk, but most of my peers have given up on everyone else except their direct contacts.

coldtea 3y ago
>Other side of the problem is, we just haven’t been able to come up with a better economic system We just haven't applied one. And we've dismantled (or witness the dismantling) of dozens of better attributes the current one used to have (from unions to Glass–Steagall). There's nothing special that needs some novel invention.
avgcorrection 3y ago
Oh okay I see.
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
>we just haven’t been able to come up with a better economic system If we did, the levers in every country that runs on capitalism would feel threatened and undermine it. See plenty of socialist/communist regimes as examples. This is not to say that those are better systems, but they are demonstration by precedent of what the reaction to their presence will be.

Aunche 3y ago

No. There is absolutely no evidence that switching economic systems will magically solve global warming. Out of all economic systems capable of industrialization, capitalist mix economies are the only ones that expressed any interest in caring about the environment at all. Communist China was willing to destroy forests to make charcoal to make little bits of low-quality steel and decimate its bird population because they were eating a little bit of grain. The Soviet Union nearly drained the entire Aral Sea to grow cotton. The fact that Communism didn't pollute more was only because they were very bad at industrializing. And before you motte and bailey your way into saying you're not promoting communism, any proposed economic system is going to have the same problem. Even if you distribute Jeff Bezos wealth in a way that he has to give up his megayacht, then you're going to give 10,000 people a means to buy F-150 Raptors.

avgcorrection 3y ago
What are you on about? Both of the Communist superpowers are/were state capitalists. I don't know what the fuck LessWrong lingo “motte and bailey” really means but it's not like I have stated my pro-ideology. For all you know I could be an anarcho-primitivist.
- Aunche 3y ago
  > What are you on about? Both of the Communist superpowers are/were state capitalists. "Capitalist" has a definition that does not mean "something I don't like." Capitalism specifically refers to where trade is controlled by private owners for profit. This does not match either the Soviet Union or Communist China at all, where profits were distributed to the state, which was nominally for the benefit of the people. > I don't know what the fuck LessWrong lingo “motte and bailey” really means but it's not like I have stated my pro-ideology. For all you know I could be an anarcho-primitivist. But you aren't, are you? I don't expect people to completely detatch themselves from society, but you at least need to commit yourself to that lifestyle of a certain extent if you want me to consider you a real anarcho-primitivist as opposed to simply a contrarian. At the very least, you should be able to survive with minimal support for a year before you make the conclusion that this is the way you want all of humanity to live forever.

Zpalmtree 3y ago

the world is not ending.

avgcorrection 3y ago
Just a shorthand for the world becoming miserable. The world as we know it ending.