European. Liberal. Insufferable green. History grad. I never downvote opinions: jeering is poor form. I ignore questions from downvoters. Comments with insulting language, or snark, or gotchas, or other effort-free content, will also be ignored.

  • 9 Posts
  • 1.86K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle





  • The small sacrifices you or I make are virtually meaningless, and are really just ways to make ourselves feel better.

    Or simply to act to with moral coherence and avoid unnecessary cognitive dissonance. So that’s one difference between our attitudes.

    If you or I really put all our eggs in the basket of individual impact then we’d be blowing up oil wells.

    That would IMO be a negative impact. Ecoterrorism does not work. Wrong ethically, and counterprodutive. So that’s a second difference.

    These are questions of deep philosophy, not simply judgements based on facts. You don’t see things as I see them, and vice versa. In a pluralistic society that should be manageable.

    I would say that we don’t really live in a democratic society

    Hence this third difference. The very fact that we can express disagreements like this and not be arrested is proof of something. The fact that our politicians are useless or malevolent is because we are those things. No societies in human history have been as free and democratic as the modern West. Things were (much) worse before, and soon they’re going to get much worse again.

    Anyway. An unbridgeable gulf. Others can decide which of us, if either, is “right”.





  • Not convinced that this kind of catastrophism is helpful. Certainly not round here, where people are already concerned (indeed stressed) about the subject by definition.

    The fisheries thesis (or at least your strong version of it) I have not heard in those terms (and I’m pretty informed). As you surely know, there are plenty of potentially catastrophic outcomes other than fisheries - freshwater depletion, topsoil loss, plus the climate tipping points you mentioned. But nothing is certain in “10-15 years”. Talking in these apocalyptic terms is really a bit silly, not to mention counter-productive IMO. No surer way to tempt fate than to tell everyone that it’s all hopeless and they should all just go home and call it a day.

    I do agree with your underlying point that climate is just one among a bunch of serious environmental threats. This is something that lots of people seem to have trouble grasping. Especially Americans IMO. Perhaps because the US lifestyle is completely incompatible with, well, basically any environmental limit, so the temptation might be to focus on one specific challenge and treat it as a problem to be solved. After all, Americans are a problem-solving people, right? They’ll just fix this one and get on with their lives. Etc. Anyway, I’ve gone offtopic so I’ll stop.