5 ms·

This is fundamentally why I find the technology / media narratives fairly compelling. I tend to agree that the first order issue is that people seem to increas

This is fundamentally why I find the technology / media narratives fairly compelling. I tend to agree that the first order issue is that people seem to increasingly subscribe to "demoralizing narratives". But not just climate change. I see the same phenomenon, just with different narratives among my more "right wing" loved ones. Instead of the demoralizing narrative being climate change, it is that society is crumbling due to the decline of religion, or because men aren't manly enough and women aren't womanly enough, or because people like them are being censored into oblivion, etc. But why is it that all these different kinds of doom narratives seem to be spreading so much and getting so much traction now, when they didn't seem to in the past? I have trouble seeing what else has changed significantly enough to cause this, if the explanation is not mass adoption of a new kind of media.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
I think blaming it on the phones themselves though is incredibly useless. Yes, the phones and networks permitting the construction of these echo-chambers are a problem that does warrant attention, but it doesn't change the fact that there are numerous, wide scale, huge problems that we are just not dealing with as a society. Is it healthy to have those problems shoved in your face non-stop? No, of course not, but it's arguably even more unhealthy to pretend they don't exist, especially when many of these are existential threats to us as a species. Basically: Climate doomerism is a problem, yes. But climate change is also a problem, one that our power structures seem completely unwilling to address. And in such an environment, Climate doomerism is kind of a logical outcome: we know there's an issue, scientists have known since the 70's, yet we do precious little about it and fundamentally our leaders seem content to ride out the collapse of the biosphere and cash their checks. Of course that's fucking depressing.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Collectively, we might do more about climate change (and other problems) if we weren't spending all our time and energy on our phones...
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    Oh bullshit. What are people supposed to do? More importantly, what COULD people do that would be 10% as effective as proper, top-down regulation on emissions and environmentally destructive industry? It's been bluntly obviously demonstrated at this point that this problem is above consumer activism's ability to solve. Maybe the market could be persuaded at one time to buy more electric cars and eat less meat, but we're reaching a point where politely asking is no longer sufficient if we want the planet to continue supporting us. Now we need to DEMAND it.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      > Now we need to DEMAND it. Demanding it is part of what "we'd do better if we put down our phones".
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      I understand how it can feel very daunting to figure out the right step, but there are tons of useful things to work on in this space. There is a huge amount of technological work going on, from academic research labs to commercial deployment. And there are also lots of people working on the policy and politics, which work is not actually primarily about doom-posting on social media. But it still is hard, I get it, it's either time consuming on top of a "normal" job, or likely to be less lucrative as a career than most things the HN audience can do. But it's not true that there's nothing people can do, if they want to.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Phones use very little energy, and if it causes a person to move around less, then it would greatly help reduce worldwide energy consumption. Energy = mass * acceleration * distance
- creato 3y ago
  > Basically: Climate doomerism is a problem, yes. But climate change is also a problem, one that our power structures seem completely unwilling to address. And in such an environment, Climate doomerism is kind of a logical outcome: we know there's an issue, scientists have known since the 70's, yet we do precious little about it and fundamentally our leaders seem content to ride out the collapse of the biosphere and cash their checks. Of course that's fucking depressing. You seem to be exhibiting the exact symptom you are complaining about. I fully accept that climate change exists and is human caused, and will cause serious problems in the future. Where I differ from you (probably) is that I think cutting emissions to a useful degree will also cause serious problems. Maybe even worse problems. Both problems have the real potential to cause total war across the globe, not seen since WWII. Many people think we're already in the early stages of WWIII, and a big part of that is basically due to an utterly trivial minor disruption in the politics/trade of fossil fuels when compared to what is required by mitigating climate change via emissions reductions. My view is obviously no less doomer-ish I suppose, but, in your view, the problem is "people suck", "politicians suck", etc., and I think that makes people cynical and resentful of other people, politically unstable in general.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    I don't think people suck at all, politicians do suck though. Numerous ones are clearly on the direct payroll of fossil fuel companies. And I mean, you're basically conceding then that the doomerism has merit, even if we might disagree on the specifics of why. Then why judge these kids for being depressed? Irrespective of what you decide to park as the "real cause" of the problems, the problems remain and the power structure is either refusing to or is incapable of solving it.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Nobody is judging kids for being depressed! > the power structure is either refusing to or is incapable of solving it This is where I think the whole doomerism project goes astray. It seems to only notice difficulties and challenges and never pay even a tiny bit of lip service to the flip side of the coin. Surely "the power structure" must include the executive administration and a majority of the members of both houses of the last US Congress? Those people coordinated the passage of a hugely beneficial package of mostly carrots but also some sticks targeted directly at this problem. The criticism of this always boils down to "well sure, but that's too little and too late", but that is letting perfect be the enemy of good. People who care about this should be energized by this, both by the opportunities it has created to work on research and deployment of useful technologies, and by the relatively paltry political backlash to it, suggesting more political capital can be spent on this moving forward. It's a way more exciting time to be involved in solving this problem than it has ever been, certainly in my adult life and I'd say ever. But despite that, the "discourse" on it among young people seems to be one of cynical nihilism. I don't know for sure why that is, but I struggle to believe it has nothing to do with social media echo chambers.
makk 3y ago
Which past? People have been willing to follow doom narratives into the abyss pretty consistently over history, yeah?
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Well, obviously it's very hard to compare things like this across time, and be confident you're still comparing apples to apples. But for instance, the evidence seems fairly compelling that young people are experiencing more mental health issues now than in past decades. For instance, suicide rates are a pretty firm indicator of this problem. And in pretty much any one of those past decades, you can find similarly compelling "doom narratives" as those today. But it seems fewer people were following them "into the abyss" of death.
chrisweekly 3y ago
> "if the explanation is not mass adoption of a new kind of media" there it is

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

I think blaming it on the phones themselves though is incredibly useless. Yes, the phones and networks permitting the construction of these echo-chambers are a problem that does warrant attention, but it doesn't change the fact that there are numerous, wide scale, huge problems that we are just not dealing with as a society. Is it healthy to have those problems shoved in your face non-stop? No, of course not, but it's arguably even more unhealthy to pretend they don't exist, especially when many of these are existential threats to us as a species. Basically: Climate doomerism is a problem, yes. But climate change is also a problem, one that our power structures seem completely unwilling to address. And in such an environment, Climate doomerism is kind of a logical outcome: we know there's an issue, scientists have known since the 70's, yet we do precious little about it and fundamentally our leaders seem content to ride out the collapse of the biosphere and cash their checks. Of course that's fucking depressing.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Collectively, we might do more about climate change (and other problems) if we weren't spending all our time and energy on our phones...
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  Oh bullshit. What are people supposed to do? More importantly, what COULD people do that would be 10% as effective as proper, top-down regulation on emissions and environmentally destructive industry? It's been bluntly obviously demonstrated at this point that this problem is above consumer activism's ability to solve. Maybe the market could be persuaded at one time to buy more electric cars and eat less meat, but we're reaching a point where politely asking is no longer sufficient if we want the planet to continue supporting us. Now we need to DEMAND it.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    > Now we need to DEMAND it. Demanding it is part of what "we'd do better if we put down our phones".
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    I understand how it can feel very daunting to figure out the right step, but there are tons of useful things to work on in this space. There is a huge amount of technological work going on, from academic research labs to commercial deployment. And there are also lots of people working on the policy and politics, which work is not actually primarily about doom-posting on social media. But it still is hard, I get it, it's either time consuming on top of a "normal" job, or likely to be less lucrative as a career than most things the HN audience can do. But it's not true that there's nothing people can do, if they want to.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Phones use very little energy, and if it causes a person to move around less, then it would greatly help reduce worldwide energy consumption. Energy = mass * acceleration * distance
creato 3y ago
> Basically: Climate doomerism is a problem, yes. But climate change is also a problem, one that our power structures seem completely unwilling to address. And in such an environment, Climate doomerism is kind of a logical outcome: we know there's an issue, scientists have known since the 70's, yet we do precious little about it and fundamentally our leaders seem content to ride out the collapse of the biosphere and cash their checks. Of course that's fucking depressing. You seem to be exhibiting the exact symptom you are complaining about. I fully accept that climate change exists and is human caused, and will cause serious problems in the future. Where I differ from you (probably) is that I think cutting emissions to a useful degree will also cause serious problems. Maybe even worse problems. Both problems have the real potential to cause total war across the globe, not seen since WWII. Many people think we're already in the early stages of WWIII, and a big part of that is basically due to an utterly trivial minor disruption in the politics/trade of fossil fuels when compared to what is required by mitigating climate change via emissions reductions. My view is obviously no less doomer-ish I suppose, but, in your view, the problem is "people suck", "politicians suck", etc., and I think that makes people cynical and resentful of other people, politically unstable in general.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  I don't think people suck at all, politicians do suck though. Numerous ones are clearly on the direct payroll of fossil fuel companies. And I mean, you're basically conceding then that the doomerism has merit, even if we might disagree on the specifics of why. Then why judge these kids for being depressed? Irrespective of what you decide to park as the "real cause" of the problems, the problems remain and the power structure is either refusing to or is incapable of solving it.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Nobody is judging kids for being depressed! > the power structure is either refusing to or is incapable of solving it This is where I think the whole doomerism project goes astray. It seems to only notice difficulties and challenges and never pay even a tiny bit of lip service to the flip side of the coin. Surely "the power structure" must include the executive administration and a majority of the members of both houses of the last US Congress? Those people coordinated the passage of a hugely beneficial package of mostly carrots but also some sticks targeted directly at this problem. The criticism of this always boils down to "well sure, but that's too little and too late", but that is letting perfect be the enemy of good. People who care about this should be energized by this, both by the opportunities it has created to work on research and deployment of useful technologies, and by the relatively paltry political backlash to it, suggesting more political capital can be spent on this moving forward. It's a way more exciting time to be involved in solving this problem than it has ever been, certainly in my adult life and I'd say ever. But despite that, the "discourse" on it among young people seems to be one of cynical nihilism. I don't know for sure why that is, but I struggle to believe it has nothing to do with social media echo chambers.

makk 3y ago

Which past? People have been willing to follow doom narratives into the abyss pretty consistently over history, yeah?

sanderjd 3y ago
Well, obviously it's very hard to compare things like this across time, and be confident you're still comparing apples to apples. But for instance, the evidence seems fairly compelling that young people are experiencing more mental health issues now than in past decades. For instance, suicide rates are a pretty firm indicator of this problem. And in pretty much any one of those past decades, you can find similarly compelling "doom narratives" as those today. But it seems fewer people were following them "into the abyss" of death.

chrisweekly 3y ago

> "if the explanation is not mass adoption of a new kind of media" there it is