3 ms·

I myself am convinced that man-made global warming can't be stopped without changing the way our political economies work, and I happen to believe that Palestin

by tovej 2y ago

I myself am convinced that man-made global warming can't be stopped without changing the way our political economies work, and I happen to believe that Palestinians are people and therefore deserve basic human rights (which they do not currently have). I'm also a researcher. I _would_ be thrilled if there was an expedient way to solve climate change. But the best systems models for the earth all tell us that there's one way to solve the issue: just leave the carbon in the ground. That's it. Stop extracting it. Nothing else will solve the problem, it's a really simple, really bad, feedback loop. This characterization of environmental or Palestinian activists as wanting to have the moral high ground is, imo, a knee jerk reaction. The people on the street aren't in it for clout, they're doing it because it is the right thing and they feel compelled to act. What gets me moving is not wanting to feel morally superior (a religious aspect, more at home in right wing politics), but an anxiety for the future, which is projected to include horrible death and suffering due to obvious problems that we could all fix if we just decided to recognize them.

inglor_cz 2y ago
The motivations of regular participants vs. leaders may be rather different. Only a specific type of person is attracted to leading crowds.
- foldr 2y ago
  You can apply the same cynicism to any political or protest movement. Not sure that it tells us very much.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    I agree with your first sentence, only I would replace the word "cynicism" with "skepticism". And I think it is actually useful. People will try to manipulate other people through emotions, and mobs are easy to manipulate. One should have fairly high barriers before joining a street mob, because its potential destructive power is enormous, and it also tends to elevate unsavory characters to positions of power. I am not saying that those barriers should be infinitely high, but fairly high. For us humans, it is easy to succumb to "righteousness in numbers".
    - dmbche 2y ago
      So free association is less than ideal is what you're getting at?
      - inglor_cz 2y ago
        If you abstract away enough, you will always get to "X is less than ideal". Food is less than ideal, war is less than ideal, death is less than ideal, HN is less than ideal. Are you satisfied with this sort of Twitter-like posting and thinking? I am not. Pixels are basically free and we should strive to post more than one-sentence snarks. For one-sentence snarks and drive-by dismissals, Reddit is the ideal territory.
        dmbche 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - foldr 2y ago
      If innocent people being murdered or the threat of an imminent environmental catastrophe don't meet your 'high barriers', then nothing will. So though you claim in principle to approve of some protests, what you're saying in practice is that no-one should protest against anything because they'll probably just make things worse – because people in general are fairly awful and people who take charge of things are even worse. It's impossible to argue against this kind of cynicism as it's self-reinforcing, but it doesn't strike me as an interesting or insightful position to take. Especially when painting in broad brushstrokes rather than addressing issues with particular political or protest movements (which no doubt are not beyond criticism). It's also important to weigh the harmful effects of apathy in the balance. These are easily forgotten but almost inestimably enormous. Just think of all the damage done in the decades (centuries) where hardly anyone could be bothered to protest against slavery, women's oppression, racial segregation, pollution, etc. etc.
      - inglor_cz 2y ago
        War is often more complicated than "innocent people being murdered" and we both know it. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't morally black and white, and the current Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is something else entirely. I think you may be proving my point. Taking one side of a complicated situation because of a black-and-white moralistic thinking is potentially destructive, and organizations like Hamas benefit from that. As for your slavery example, did slavery disappear because humanity awakened morally and started demonstrating in the streets, or because we gained a new non-human resource of raw power? Previous civilizations didn't engage in slavery because they were profoundly immoral, but because human and animal muscle was the only practical source of power. The specifics varied across the globe, but unfree labor was ubiquitous in pre-modern societies. For a contemporary situation, imagine a 22nd century activist judging people of 2024 for eating meat from dead animals, when he can get a good steak by pressing a button on a steak-making machine. It wouldn't be demonstrations which made the difference between 2024 and 2124.
bsenftner 2y ago
And I'm of the opinion that we'll not change our political economies without a material society adjustment, a threshold recognition between an emotional reasoning and a more controlled rational level of reasoning. Basically maturity; we've got a material volume of immature adults that derail any and all public and many private conversations with immature observations, short sighted reasoning, and the belief that their unprofessional opinion carries weight with those whose careers are the issue at hand. Until we do something about these, frankly, idiots, we're left adrift in a culture of unintended chaos.

by tovej 2y ago

inglor_cz 2y ago

The motivations of regular participants vs. leaders may be rather different. Only a specific type of person is attracted to leading crowds.

foldr 2y ago
You can apply the same cynicism to any political or protest movement. Not sure that it tells us very much.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  I agree with your first sentence, only I would replace the word "cynicism" with "skepticism". And I think it is actually useful. People will try to manipulate other people through emotions, and mobs are easy to manipulate. One should have fairly high barriers before joining a street mob, because its potential destructive power is enormous, and it also tends to elevate unsavory characters to positions of power. I am not saying that those barriers should be infinitely high, but fairly high. For us humans, it is easy to succumb to "righteousness in numbers".
  - dmbche 2y ago
    So free association is less than ideal is what you're getting at?
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      If you abstract away enough, you will always get to "X is less than ideal". Food is less than ideal, war is less than ideal, death is less than ideal, HN is less than ideal. Are you satisfied with this sort of Twitter-like posting and thinking? I am not. Pixels are basically free and we should strive to post more than one-sentence snarks. For one-sentence snarks and drive-by dismissals, Reddit is the ideal territory.
      - dmbche 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - foldr 2y ago
    If innocent people being murdered or the threat of an imminent environmental catastrophe don't meet your 'high barriers', then nothing will. So though you claim in principle to approve of some protests, what you're saying in practice is that no-one should protest against anything because they'll probably just make things worse – because people in general are fairly awful and people who take charge of things are even worse. It's impossible to argue against this kind of cynicism as it's self-reinforcing, but it doesn't strike me as an interesting or insightful position to take. Especially when painting in broad brushstrokes rather than addressing issues with particular political or protest movements (which no doubt are not beyond criticism). It's also important to weigh the harmful effects of apathy in the balance. These are easily forgotten but almost inestimably enormous. Just think of all the damage done in the decades (centuries) where hardly anyone could be bothered to protest against slavery, women's oppression, racial segregation, pollution, etc. etc.
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      War is often more complicated than "innocent people being murdered" and we both know it. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't morally black and white, and the current Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is something else entirely. I think you may be proving my point. Taking one side of a complicated situation because of a black-and-white moralistic thinking is potentially destructive, and organizations like Hamas benefit from that. As for your slavery example, did slavery disappear because humanity awakened morally and started demonstrating in the streets, or because we gained a new non-human resource of raw power? Previous civilizations didn't engage in slavery because they were profoundly immoral, but because human and animal muscle was the only practical source of power. The specifics varied across the globe, but unfree labor was ubiquitous in pre-modern societies. For a contemporary situation, imagine a 22nd century activist judging people of 2024 for eating meat from dead animals, when he can get a good steak by pressing a button on a steak-making machine. It wouldn't be demonstrations which made the difference between 2024 and 2124.

bsenftner 2y ago

And I'm of the opinion that we'll not change our political economies without a material society adjustment, a threshold recognition between an emotional reasoning and a more controlled rational level of reasoning. Basically maturity; we've got a material volume of immature adults that derail any and all public and many private conversations with immature observations, short sighted reasoning, and the belief that their unprofessional opinion carries weight with those whose careers are the issue at hand. Until we do something about these, frankly, idiots, we're left adrift in a culture of unintended chaos.