8 ms·

This is pretty scary. The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. As an individual you can reduce, reuse, recycle, and do your part perfectly and it makes

This is pretty scary. The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. As an individual you can reduce, reuse, recycle, and do your part perfectly and it makes zero difference.

mistrial9 3y ago
this is false "nobody cares" - think for yourself
NickC25 3y ago
And this is the crux of the matter, and why I feel young people are becoming increasingly nihilistic. They are realizing that they are increasingly powerless and unable to drive change. There are major problems out there in the world, and they can't be solved unless entities and individuals who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo actually change their ways. "Be the change you want to see in the world" is increasingly more and more meaningless each day.
- pharmakom 3y ago
  This is why I’m sympathetic to direct action. What on earth else can young people do? But boomers can only think about being made late for work
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > boomers can only think about being made late for work They also show up to vote, show up at town halls and call their electeds. It's only recently, largely due to Gen Z and newly-engaged Millenials, that the tide is turning [1]. [1] https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/gen-z-voted-higher-rate-2022-previous-generations-their-first-midterm-election https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/gen-z-voted-higher-...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > "Be the change you want to see in the world" is increasingly more and more meaningless each day It's a good start. But individual action has always been meaningless. What matters is collective action. Ironically, repeating the meme of widespread nihilism (which isn't true, it's a vocal minority) degrades that capability.
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    What actually matters are the actions of a small handful of elites that hold all the cards. How many people got together to decide to promote wars in the middle east and Ukraine? How much environmental destruction have they caused? Same goes for domestic water. 2 people own a single CA business that uses more water than all of LA. But angelenos are told it’s on them to take shorter showers to save water.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > How many people got together to decide to promote wars in the middle east and Ukraine? Lots of people. Certainly for Ukraine; it's an issue electeds are called about repeatedly. (I've called on it.) > angelenos are told it’s on them to take shorter showers to save water And then don't. California's water shortage is a political choice by, ultimately, its voters.
      - basil-rash 3y ago
        Most citizens don’t support the war, yet it goes on. Calling is pillow talk designed to appease the people into thinking they matter. And what do the showers matter when two people have unilateral control over more water than the entire city? The voters have no power, they are just convenient scapegoats. Not to mention all the water we let drain into the ocean every year, just to have Gavin yell about the reservoirs being low the next, while he laughs all the way to the polling office, accompanied by the two senators he unconstitutionally appointed… “voters have power”. It’d be funny if it weren’t so terrible.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Most citizens don’t support the war Recent shift and highly partisan [1]. Guess what's hitting the rocks in the House [2]. > Calling is pillow talk designed to appease the people into thinking they matter How many electeds do you know? Senior staffers? Because every one I know, on both sides of the political aisle, uses calls and letters as a proxy for whether their voters care about something. Particularly if it's a novel issue, i.e. without polling. Someone willing to call or write may also create a ruckus, or join a primary challenger's campaign. They're likely a regular voter, including in primaries. And if won over they might drive turnout over the issue. > voters have no power, they are just convenient scapegoats Come on, those people have control through the law. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/513680/american-views-ukraine-war-charts.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/513680/american-views-ukraine-w... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/politics/johnson-biden-border-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/politics/johnson-biden...
- marssaxman 3y ago
  Some of us middle-aged people are having that experience, too; years of trying to "be the change you want to see in the world" with no visible result tends to leave one feeling rather tired.
makapuf 3y ago
It does for the part you can act on, which is the only part for which you can be judged, including by yourself. And it also makes an example.
calculatte 3y ago
[flagged]
- Bud 3y ago
  Overuse of water is unverifiable? No it's not. Alarming reduction of water available in soil for plants is unverifiable? No it's not. Rising salinity in fresh water supplies is unverifiable? No it's not. Global temperature increases and increased volatility in weather is unverifiable? No it's not. Alarming increases in extinction of species is unverifiable? No it's not. Increases in CO2 and other pollution are unverifiable? No, they are most certainly not. What are you even talking about?
worldsayshi 3y ago
> The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. I'm not sure i believe this is the main explanation at this point. I rather believe in coordination problems or that it is very hard to make a very large amount of people agree on how to split the cost when it is also almost impossible to verify when any one actor has payed their part of the split.
- ado__dev 3y ago
  I agree there. It's def a hard problem to solve that requires global cooperation. But I believe there is very little actual appetite to even attempt to solve the issues. As long as the shareholders keep getting a return on their investment, let the planet burn. But eventually the music will stop, maybe not in the next 10 years, or the next 50, but we're def heading towards a very bleak future.
  - AndrewSChapman 3y ago
    Personally I think that anyone who believes that they're going to die before climate change kicks them in the nuts are in for an almighty shock (unless you're 80). My prediction is that we have at best 10 years of anything resembling BAU before systematic failure. https://medium.com/@smokingtyger/the-crisis-report-27-4e7e9fa9da05 https://medium.com/@smokingtyger/the-crisis-report-27-4e7e9f... Happy reading.
codingdave 3y ago
If everyone acted individually, it would add up to a huge difference. This is the same discussion we'll soon be hearing about voting - the PTB try to convince the youth that one vote doesn't change anything, when the truth is that if everyone got out to vote at the same rate as the older demographics do, the USA would have a massive political and cultural shift. This is the best time to step up and do what you can, even if it doesn't look like much.
Exoristos 3y ago
> The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. The people in charge fund the research.
cdrini 3y ago
> The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. I disagree with this, citation needed. _Much_ of government spending I've seen in recent years has been towards climate. Bans on plastic bags, carbon reductions, environmental tax deductions, electric cars, etc. And it shows in the data: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions . US, Canada, UK, have all had large decreases in CO2 emissions the last ~20 years. That's not by accident, many of the people in charge really care. Is it enough? Who knows! That's why it's important to vote for the ones who reflect your beliefs/world you want to live in! But you have to keep your wits about you and do your research too. It's _hard_. There's no shortcut and there are no easy answers. It's all nuanced shades of grey. But that is life!
- isilofi 3y ago
  > > The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. > _Much_ of government spending I've seen in recent years has been towards climate. Much of the spending of a few western governments. The majority of the world's governments do nothing except maybe wait for their "climate justice" handouts. And of course, as soon as the first-world nations have ended their dependence on oil and gas, both will get cheaper. So the rest of the world will "pick up the slack" and consume all the rest of the available fossil fuels, because they are getting real cheap now. Far cheaper than any renewable energy sources can ever hope to be since oil/gas-producing nations have to keep the good times (and the buck) rolling, in their own interest (or at least the interest of their ruling class). What we do need is rather a closure of the world's oil/gas fields and coal mines, in the rather short term, by agreement of the respective governments or by changing those governments until they agree. Yes, this will be ugly. But anything else is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
  - cdrini 3y ago
    That's certainly a hypothesis. Definitely not guaranteed. The counterargument would likely be that renewables will be cheaper as a result of technological advancements, so other countries _will_ prefer them. Also, your hypothesis largely hangs on the fact that oil will become cheaper. But: oil becoming cheaper means _it's making less money_. So oil producing countries would start to lose interest in it. Unless they make countries dependent on it, and then they can start increasing prices/profit! But: then the other countries will start looking for other sources, like renewables. Furthermore: although the act of oil production itself _does_ cause co2 emissions, the resulting oil isn't all converted to co2. Some go to producing materials like plastics. Vs like fuel in a plane, which will get "directly" converted to co 2. So even if countries reduce their dependence on oil for fuel, there is still a potential market in things like plastics. In short: the problem is complicated and murky. I am very much not an expert, but there are a ton of variables at play. It's easy to say "everyone sucks no one is doing anything" or "it's hopeless the only way forward is to take immediate drastic action to optimise for one isolated variable ignoring all the others". But I just don't think that's the reality or the best approach. But again: I am not an expert!

This is pretty scary. The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. As an individual you can reduce, reuse, recycle, and do your part perfectly and it makes zero difference.

mistrial9 3y ago

this is false "nobody cares" - think for yourself

NickC25 3y ago

And this is the crux of the matter, and why I feel young people are becoming increasingly nihilistic. They are realizing that they are increasingly powerless and unable to drive change. There are major problems out there in the world, and they can't be solved unless entities and individuals who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo actually change their ways. "Be the change you want to see in the world" is increasingly more and more meaningless each day.

pharmakom 3y ago
This is why I’m sympathetic to direct action. What on earth else can young people do? But boomers can only think about being made late for work
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > boomers can only think about being made late for work They also show up to vote, show up at town halls and call their electeds. It's only recently, largely due to Gen Z and newly-engaged Millenials, that the tide is turning [1]. [1] https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/gen-z-voted-higher-rate-2022-previous-generations-their-first-midterm-election https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/gen-z-voted-higher-...
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> "Be the change you want to see in the world" is increasingly more and more meaningless each day It's a good start. But individual action has always been meaningless. What matters is collective action. Ironically, repeating the meme of widespread nihilism (which isn't true, it's a vocal minority) degrades that capability.
- basil-rash 3y ago
  What actually matters are the actions of a small handful of elites that hold all the cards. How many people got together to decide to promote wars in the middle east and Ukraine? How much environmental destruction have they caused? Same goes for domestic water. 2 people own a single CA business that uses more water than all of LA. But angelenos are told it’s on them to take shorter showers to save water.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > How many people got together to decide to promote wars in the middle east and Ukraine? Lots of people. Certainly for Ukraine; it's an issue electeds are called about repeatedly. (I've called on it.) > angelenos are told it’s on them to take shorter showers to save water And then don't. California's water shortage is a political choice by, ultimately, its voters.
    - basil-rash 3y ago
      Most citizens don’t support the war, yet it goes on. Calling is pillow talk designed to appease the people into thinking they matter. And what do the showers matter when two people have unilateral control over more water than the entire city? The voters have no power, they are just convenient scapegoats. Not to mention all the water we let drain into the ocean every year, just to have Gavin yell about the reservoirs being low the next, while he laughs all the way to the polling office, accompanied by the two senators he unconstitutionally appointed… “voters have power”. It’d be funny if it weren’t so terrible.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Most citizens don’t support the war Recent shift and highly partisan [1]. Guess what's hitting the rocks in the House [2]. > Calling is pillow talk designed to appease the people into thinking they matter How many electeds do you know? Senior staffers? Because every one I know, on both sides of the political aisle, uses calls and letters as a proxy for whether their voters care about something. Particularly if it's a novel issue, i.e. without polling. Someone willing to call or write may also create a ruckus, or join a primary challenger's campaign. They're likely a regular voter, including in primaries. And if won over they might drive turnout over the issue. > voters have no power, they are just convenient scapegoats Come on, those people have control through the law. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/513680/american-views-ukraine-war-charts.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/513680/american-views-ukraine-w... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/politics/johnson-biden-border-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/politics/johnson-biden...
marssaxman 3y ago
Some of us middle-aged people are having that experience, too; years of trying to "be the change you want to see in the world" with no visible result tends to leave one feeling rather tired.

makapuf 3y ago

It does for the part you can act on, which is the only part for which you can be judged, including by yourself. And it also makes an example.

calculatte 3y ago

[flagged]

Bud 3y ago
Overuse of water is unverifiable? No it's not. Alarming reduction of water available in soil for plants is unverifiable? No it's not. Rising salinity in fresh water supplies is unverifiable? No it's not. Global temperature increases and increased volatility in weather is unverifiable? No it's not. Alarming increases in extinction of species is unverifiable? No it's not. Increases in CO2 and other pollution are unverifiable? No, they are most certainly not. What are you even talking about?

worldsayshi 3y ago

> The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. I'm not sure i believe this is the main explanation at this point. I rather believe in coordination problems or that it is very hard to make a very large amount of people agree on how to split the cost when it is also almost impossible to verify when any one actor has payed their part of the split.

ado__dev 3y ago
I agree there. It's def a hard problem to solve that requires global cooperation. But I believe there is very little actual appetite to even attempt to solve the issues. As long as the shareholders keep getting a return on their investment, let the planet burn. But eventually the music will stop, maybe not in the next 10 years, or the next 50, but we're def heading towards a very bleak future.
- AndrewSChapman 3y ago
  Personally I think that anyone who believes that they're going to die before climate change kicks them in the nuts are in for an almighty shock (unless you're 80). My prediction is that we have at best 10 years of anything resembling BAU before systematic failure. https://medium.com/@smokingtyger/the-crisis-report-27-4e7e9fa9da05 https://medium.com/@smokingtyger/the-crisis-report-27-4e7e9f... Happy reading.

codingdave 3y ago

If everyone acted individually, it would add up to a huge difference. This is the same discussion we'll soon be hearing about voting - the PTB try to convince the youth that one vote doesn't change anything, when the truth is that if everyone got out to vote at the same rate as the older demographics do, the USA would have a massive political and cultural shift. This is the best time to step up and do what you can, even if it doesn't look like much.

Exoristos 3y ago

> The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. The people in charge fund the research.

cdrini 3y ago

> The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. I disagree with this, citation needed. _Much_ of government spending I've seen in recent years has been towards climate. Bans on plastic bags, carbon reductions, environmental tax deductions, electric cars, etc. And it shows in the data: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions . US, Canada, UK, have all had large decreases in CO2 emissions the last ~20 years. That's not by accident, many of the people in charge really care. Is it enough? Who knows! That's why it's important to vote for the ones who reflect your beliefs/world you want to live in! But you have to keep your wits about you and do your research too. It's _hard_. There's no shortcut and there are no easy answers. It's all nuanced shades of grey. But that is life!

isilofi 3y ago
> > The worst part is nobody in charge really cares. > _Much_ of government spending I've seen in recent years has been towards climate. Much of the spending of a few western governments. The majority of the world's governments do nothing except maybe wait for their "climate justice" handouts. And of course, as soon as the first-world nations have ended their dependence on oil and gas, both will get cheaper. So the rest of the world will "pick up the slack" and consume all the rest of the available fossil fuels, because they are getting real cheap now. Far cheaper than any renewable energy sources can ever hope to be since oil/gas-producing nations have to keep the good times (and the buck) rolling, in their own interest (or at least the interest of their ruling class). What we do need is rather a closure of the world's oil/gas fields and coal mines, in the rather short term, by agreement of the respective governments or by changing those governments until they agree. Yes, this will be ugly. But anything else is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
- cdrini 3y ago
  That's certainly a hypothesis. Definitely not guaranteed. The counterargument would likely be that renewables will be cheaper as a result of technological advancements, so other countries _will_ prefer them. Also, your hypothesis largely hangs on the fact that oil will become cheaper. But: oil becoming cheaper means _it's making less money_. So oil producing countries would start to lose interest in it. Unless they make countries dependent on it, and then they can start increasing prices/profit! But: then the other countries will start looking for other sources, like renewables. Furthermore: although the act of oil production itself _does_ cause co2 emissions, the resulting oil isn't all converted to co2. Some go to producing materials like plastics. Vs like fuel in a plane, which will get "directly" converted to co 2. So even if countries reduce their dependence on oil for fuel, there is still a potential market in things like plastics. In short: the problem is complicated and murky. I am very much not an expert, but there are a ton of variables at play. It's easy to say "everyone sucks no one is doing anything" or "it's hopeless the only way forward is to take immediate drastic action to optimise for one isolated variable ignoring all the others". But I just don't think that's the reality or the best approach. But again: I am not an expert!