8 ms·

You’re looking at this the wrong way. Violence is inevitable, in some form or another, if the climate effects are ignored to such a degree. At some point, som

by dgb23 3y ago

You’re looking at this the wrong way. Violence is inevitable, in some form or another, if the climate effects are ignored to such a degree. At some point, some people are going to draw a line and say: “We tried to explain it calmly, we tried to be loud, we tried to vote, we did all the things we could but greed has won”. You’re arguing in terms of what people should do, and many people are doing those things, but if we look at it realistically it’s not enough. It’s incredibly naive to think that this won’t cause violence down the line.

veidelis 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
robertlagrant 3y ago
People who have no hope of actually helping the situation getting involved is the problem. Their only response might be violence, but that doesn't mean it'll do anything. Complaining works for children, because they're normally complaining about things their parents can do something about. It doesn't work for reducing pollution while avoiding plunging the world into the 1800s. That takes adults with brains.
- flangola7 3y ago
  The whole point is complaining hasn't done anything. Direct action is ugly but historically gets things done.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Direct action is the same as complaining in this case. This isn't a social issue; it's a technological one, and reality doesn't respond to complaining or violence. Only people-created things do. Ironically, less Greenpeace complaining in the 1980s would've meant more countries went the France route for power generation, which would've reduced a lot of CO2 over the last 40 years.
    - rickdeckard 3y ago
      The richest 10% account for 52% of the emissions added to the atmosphere. It is not a technological issue, it is a societal one. Governments need to take action and regulate, but they don't because it is against the (financial) interest of a political party.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Can you link to the source?
        blooalien 3y ago
        Here is a source of a similar statistic. [0] Ten seconds on your favorite search engine will turn up many more saying pretty much the same thing. The "ultra-rich" tend to contribute to the issue far more than everyone else combined. Them and their corporations really are the "lion's share" of the problem. Obviously they're not the entire problem, but taking care of that (somehow; "eat the rich" perhaps?) would take a massive "bite" out of it. [0]: https://www.statista.com/chart/26904/estimated-global-co2-emission-share-by-income-groups/ https://www.statista.com/chart/26904/estimated-global-co2-em...
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        That statista pages cites this paper in 'nature sustainability': https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00842-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00842-z Which does not seem credible, it has way too many guesstimates.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > The "ultra-rich" tend to contribute to the issue far more than everyone else combined The link does not appear to show this at all.
        rickdeckard 3y ago
        Sorry, didn't read the replies until now. There are several studies coming to similar conclusions. Here's the study from Stockholm Environment Institute: https://www.sei.org/publications/the-carbon-inequality-era/ https://www.sei.org/publications/the-carbon-inequality-era/ Here's one about the impact of private jets vs. average carbon emissions of other travellers: https://ips-dc.org/report-high-flyers-2023/ https://ips-dc.org/report-high-flyers-2023/ Carbon inequality report from Oxfam: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/confronting-carbon-inequality https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/confronting-carbon-inequal...
refurb 3y ago
Commuting violence now because you think it’ll happen in the future is a horrible argument and can be used to justify anything. I mean Hitler argued exterminating the Jews was necessary to save the German people from extermination. Logic don’t work that way.
- eesmith 3y ago
  Logic does work that way. Just war theory is completely based in the moral logic that committing violence now can be acceptable to prevent violence in the future. The police are authorized, within limits, to use violence to prevent future violence. An officer, for example, may get end up getting into a fight with someone being arrested for conspiring to commit murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Violent_vs._nonviolent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Violent_vs.... is a section on violence in the context of civil disobedience. "Zinn states that while the goals of civil disobedience are generally nonviolent, 'in the inevitable tension accompanying the transition from a violent world to a non-violent one, the choice of means will almost never be pure, and will involve such complexities that the simple distinction between violence and non-violence does not suffice as a guide ... the very acts with which we seek to do good cannot escape the imperfections of the world we are trying to change.'" Lastly, "[T]here is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
  - refurb 3y ago
    No it doesn't work that way. Your arguments don't support your claim in the least. Just war theory isn't blanket justification to go to war based on whatever "threat" you think exists. I mean, was Japan justified in going to war with the US because it felt a conflict was inevitable? Of course not, because such a conflict was not inevitable. The police are empowered with special rights to use violence, not sure how that's at all applicable to an average person. Nobody cares about Godwin's law. If Nazi Germany is a good analogy, it's a good analogy.

by dgb23 3y ago

veidelis 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

robertlagrant 3y ago

People who have no hope of actually helping the situation getting involved is the problem. Their only response might be violence, but that doesn't mean it'll do anything. Complaining works for children, because they're normally complaining about things their parents can do something about. It doesn't work for reducing pollution while avoiding plunging the world into the 1800s. That takes adults with brains.

flangola7 3y ago
The whole point is complaining hasn't done anything. Direct action is ugly but historically gets things done.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Direct action is the same as complaining in this case. This isn't a social issue; it's a technological one, and reality doesn't respond to complaining or violence. Only people-created things do. Ironically, less Greenpeace complaining in the 1980s would've meant more countries went the France route for power generation, which would've reduced a lot of CO2 over the last 40 years.
  - rickdeckard 3y ago
    The richest 10% account for 52% of the emissions added to the atmosphere. It is not a technological issue, it is a societal one. Governments need to take action and regulate, but they don't because it is against the (financial) interest of a political party.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Can you link to the source?
      - blooalien 3y ago
        Here is a source of a similar statistic. [0] Ten seconds on your favorite search engine will turn up many more saying pretty much the same thing. The "ultra-rich" tend to contribute to the issue far more than everyone else combined. Them and their corporations really are the "lion's share" of the problem. Obviously they're not the entire problem, but taking care of that (somehow; "eat the rich" perhaps?) would take a massive "bite" out of it. [0]: https://www.statista.com/chart/26904/estimated-global-co2-emission-share-by-income-groups/ https://www.statista.com/chart/26904/estimated-global-co2-em...
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        That statista pages cites this paper in 'nature sustainability': https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00842-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00842-z Which does not seem credible, it has way too many guesstimates.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > The "ultra-rich" tend to contribute to the issue far more than everyone else combined The link does not appear to show this at all.
      - rickdeckard 3y ago
        Sorry, didn't read the replies until now. There are several studies coming to similar conclusions. Here's the study from Stockholm Environment Institute: https://www.sei.org/publications/the-carbon-inequality-era/ https://www.sei.org/publications/the-carbon-inequality-era/ Here's one about the impact of private jets vs. average carbon emissions of other travellers: https://ips-dc.org/report-high-flyers-2023/ https://ips-dc.org/report-high-flyers-2023/ Carbon inequality report from Oxfam: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/confronting-carbon-inequality https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/confronting-carbon-inequal...

refurb 3y ago

Commuting violence now because you think it’ll happen in the future is a horrible argument and can be used to justify anything. I mean Hitler argued exterminating the Jews was necessary to save the German people from extermination. Logic don’t work that way.

eesmith 3y ago
Logic does work that way. Just war theory is completely based in the moral logic that committing violence now can be acceptable to prevent violence in the future. The police are authorized, within limits, to use violence to prevent future violence. An officer, for example, may get end up getting into a fight with someone being arrested for conspiring to commit murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Violent_vs._nonviolent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Violent_vs.... is a section on violence in the context of civil disobedience. "Zinn states that while the goals of civil disobedience are generally nonviolent, 'in the inevitable tension accompanying the transition from a violent world to a non-violent one, the choice of means will almost never be pure, and will involve such complexities that the simple distinction between violence and non-violence does not suffice as a guide ... the very acts with which we seek to do good cannot escape the imperfections of the world we are trying to change.'" Lastly, "[T]here is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
- refurb 3y ago
  No it doesn't work that way. Your arguments don't support your claim in the least. Just war theory isn't blanket justification to go to war based on whatever "threat" you think exists. I mean, was Japan justified in going to war with the US because it felt a conflict was inevitable? Of course not, because such a conflict was not inevitable. The police are empowered with special rights to use violence, not sure how that's at all applicable to an average person. Nobody cares about Godwin's law. If Nazi Germany is a good analogy, it's a good analogy.