7 ms·

Meanwhile the most popular politician in Belgium claims that climate activists are overly dramatic and that we should trust technology to save us. Just great.

lazide 2y ago
Delusion is always an easier sell than hard work.
InDubioProRubio 2y ago
Which is a inherently insane argument, to trust on the exploration of a labyrinth (research) to uncover ever more powerful hot potatoes, to save you from the hot potatoes you already juggle with. One missed juggling motion and you are stuck in a position you are unlikely to get out of because the failure to juggle reveals the original tribal societies inability to hold it together and propel a scientific society under stress.
- trueismywork 2y ago
  That has been humanity forever now though
netsharc 2y ago
Yeah, also here I've seen commenters having faith that "some technology will come along and save us!". It's a different sort of "climate denial"[1]. OK, my faith that we're totally fucked is also based on guesstimate, just in the opposite direction (it can be viewed as a denial of the idea that there's something we can do to rescue this extravagantly luxurious modern life). [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/what-if-there-just-is-no-solution-how-we-are-all-in-denial-about-the-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/...
- suzzer99 2y ago
  What is it to have no faith in humans to make shared sacrifice on a global scale, but at least some hope in mitigation technologies?
Wololooo 2y ago
Fucking Bart, if that guy kicked the bucket everyone would be better off...
yodsanklai 2y ago
> we should trust technology to save us I'd be curious about the actual stats, but I have the feeling it's a widely shared point of view, even in educated circles. The alternative option which is consuming less in order to pollute less is pretty unpopular.
- consp 2y ago
  It might be able to but that would require getting rid of cheap sources of energy and manufacturing which the deck is stacked so hard against it will never happen. Before humanity will do anything we have to get rid of the current ruling autocracy since acting now would create pain over time, acting later would create pain when most people alive are dead. And maybe put the environment before profits, same problem though.
- throwup238 2y ago
  I mean at this point we’re likely looking at the dreaded 2C scenario even if we ceased all carbon emissions and regressed back to the stone age immediately, which obviously isn’t going to happen because I really like my hot showers. We’ve been using technology to solve our problems for thousands of years. If that streak stops now, we’re royally fucked.
  - lproven 2y ago
    Seriously, given the way that globally we keep exceeding worst-case predictions... no, we are not looking at 2ºC. Very seriously, without hyperbole, without exaggeration, we are looking at twice that by the end of the century. Forget 2º. Think 4º in the lifetime of children alive today. Next century, we are looking at 6-7º C or more. Possibly as soon as early 22nd century, maybe sooner. We are currently heading for 10ºC increase. https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7 https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to... I can't tell you in ºF. I am 57 years old and they stopped teaching that in schools before I was in primary schools where I have lived all my life (Europe and Africa).
- stakhanov 2y ago
  > The alternative option which is consuming less in order to pollute less is pretty unpopular. If you frame the problem like that, does it actually surprise you that no one will act on it? One has to either freeze or feel guilty of some kind of moral failing about the heat one consumes? You might say: No, no, the problem is not consumption, it's the superfluous part of the consumption, the overconsumption that's the problem. Okay, but, then, who exactly stands in judgment of which part of the consumption is the overconsumption? The same moralising types who bemoan the melting of the glaciers? Reminds me a bit of pre-enlightenment Europe and its juxtaposition of power and catholic moralising guilttripping. What's needed is a humanistic way forward, a way wherein man gets to fundamentally be the hero of the story. If you come to me and say: Here is a way to reconfigure the economy through technological, economic, and political change, to make it so that one can feel good about consumption again, then I will go to hell and back to make that change happen. If you just tell me "consume less", then don't expect me to do anything.
selimthegrim 2y ago
Who is this so if I move to Belgium I turn the TV off when they come on it?
wiz21c 2y ago
who is the most popular ? BdW ? JLB ?

lazide 2y ago

Delusion is always an easier sell than hard work.

InDubioProRubio 2y ago

Which is a inherently insane argument, to trust on the exploration of a labyrinth (research) to uncover ever more powerful hot potatoes, to save you from the hot potatoes you already juggle with. One missed juggling motion and you are stuck in a position you are unlikely to get out of because the failure to juggle reveals the original tribal societies inability to hold it together and propel a scientific society under stress.

trueismywork 2y ago
That has been humanity forever now though

netsharc 2y ago

Yeah, also here I've seen commenters having faith that "some technology will come along and save us!". It's a different sort of "climate denial"[1]. OK, my faith that we're totally fucked is also based on guesstimate, just in the opposite direction (it can be viewed as a denial of the idea that there's something we can do to rescue this extravagantly luxurious modern life). [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/what-if-there-just-is-no-solution-how-we-are-all-in-denial-about-the-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/...

suzzer99 2y ago
What is it to have no faith in humans to make shared sacrifice on a global scale, but at least some hope in mitigation technologies?

Wololooo 2y ago

Fucking Bart, if that guy kicked the bucket everyone would be better off...

yodsanklai 2y ago

> we should trust technology to save us I'd be curious about the actual stats, but I have the feeling it's a widely shared point of view, even in educated circles. The alternative option which is consuming less in order to pollute less is pretty unpopular.

consp 2y ago
It might be able to but that would require getting rid of cheap sources of energy and manufacturing which the deck is stacked so hard against it will never happen. Before humanity will do anything we have to get rid of the current ruling autocracy since acting now would create pain over time, acting later would create pain when most people alive are dead. And maybe put the environment before profits, same problem though.
throwup238 2y ago
I mean at this point we’re likely looking at the dreaded 2C scenario even if we ceased all carbon emissions and regressed back to the stone age immediately, which obviously isn’t going to happen because I really like my hot showers. We’ve been using technology to solve our problems for thousands of years. If that streak stops now, we’re royally fucked.
- lproven 2y ago
  Seriously, given the way that globally we keep exceeding worst-case predictions... no, we are not looking at 2ºC. Very seriously, without hyperbole, without exaggeration, we are looking at twice that by the end of the century. Forget 2º. Think 4º in the lifetime of children alive today. Next century, we are looking at 6-7º C or more. Possibly as soon as early 22nd century, maybe sooner. We are currently heading for 10ºC increase. https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7 https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to... I can't tell you in ºF. I am 57 years old and they stopped teaching that in schools before I was in primary schools where I have lived all my life (Europe and Africa).
stakhanov 2y ago
> The alternative option which is consuming less in order to pollute less is pretty unpopular. If you frame the problem like that, does it actually surprise you that no one will act on it? One has to either freeze or feel guilty of some kind of moral failing about the heat one consumes? You might say: No, no, the problem is not consumption, it's the superfluous part of the consumption, the overconsumption that's the problem. Okay, but, then, who exactly stands in judgment of which part of the consumption is the overconsumption? The same moralising types who bemoan the melting of the glaciers? Reminds me a bit of pre-enlightenment Europe and its juxtaposition of power and catholic moralising guilttripping. What's needed is a humanistic way forward, a way wherein man gets to fundamentally be the hero of the story. If you come to me and say: Here is a way to reconfigure the economy through technological, economic, and political change, to make it so that one can feel good about consumption again, then I will go to hell and back to make that change happen. If you just tell me "consume less", then don't expect me to do anything.

selimthegrim 2y ago

Who is this so if I move to Belgium I turn the TV off when they come on it?

wiz21c 2y ago

who is the most popular ? BdW ? JLB ?