6 ms·
We won't lab-grown-meat our way out of this. We won't electric-cars our way out of this. We won't nuclear-power our way out of this. And the overall tone is tha
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
We won't lab-grown-meat our way out of this. We won't electric-cars our way out of this. We won't nuclear-power our way out of this. And the overall tone is that any shift in a positive direction is still driving the getaway car, even if you aren't the one to actually pull the trigger for the crime.
If you want progress in anything, you have to give people a way to atone for their sins, even if the atonement doesn't undo all of the damage already done. Without that, the vast majority are going to ignore you, because the shock to the system is too high to do what needs to be done. People do not willingly start to play games they are nearly certain they will lose, they only continue those games once they are already playing them.
- satvikpendem 3y agoWhat are you suggesting as the solution to getting "our way out of this," then? I'm not exactly sure by what you mean in your second paragraph regarding this.
- isityouyesitsme 3y agoIt does no good to shoot down every change as "not good enough." I think the people who do this, almost as a knee jerk response, either do not actually believe that global climate change is something to be concerned over, or else instead achieve their self-esteem through tearing others down. The environmentalists eat their own so often and so badly that they can't be taken seriously. You need to give people something to latch on to that appeals to them, to start something. Scolding them for believing something is a true solution when it is about a 1% solution is helping nobody. 1000 people each doing a different 1% solution is better than 10 people each doing a theoretical 100% solution. Over time, the former will run in to some good practices. The latter are just turn-offs.
- xnx 3y agoWe can probably reduced-population our way out of this.
- Boatfaceing 3y ago[flagged]