6 ms·

The issue with the global warming advocates is that they seem to believe that in order to solve global warming we need to make everyone's life worse. That was a

The issue with the global warming advocates is that they seem to believe that in order to solve global warming we need to make everyone's life worse. That was already a non-starter. It's just terrible marketing. You say it's for the benefit of "decrepit old men," but the fact is that more and more of the globe is being lifted out of poverty and living more comfortably than ever before. The unfortunate fact is that global warming is an unstoppable force now, humans would have to go extinct for it to waiver. I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I am saying that your framing is exactly why no one listens to global warming advocacy. We are powerless against it, not because of governments, but because people are living better and no one is going to sacrifice that; and even if they did the math doesn't add up to reverse course. The people that say we should all be sacrificing are often the richest among us that don't even know what sacrifice entails, contrary to your point.

collingreen 12d ago
Your framing, that no collective action can ever include reduction or sacrifice, implies this is an inevitable and fatal path we cannot come back from. I hope you are wrong that nothing requiring sacrifice can ever be accomplished.
- partiallypro 12d ago
  This sacrifice involves putting millions back in poverty. I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
  - iamnothere 12d ago
    Western activists are ok with this because (a) they don’t imagine that they will be greatly affected and will live a solarpunk luxury lifestyle and (b) they glorify third world poverty and consume media that presents it as a desirable, more authentic way of life, when the truth is that most of those people are desperately trying to claw their way into affluence. None of the above implies that everyone can achieve a current day Western lifestyle or that current Western lifestyles are sustainable. But average people are going to continue seeking it out, it’s just human nature. Activists who expect people to “just” give up that search are not being realistic.
  - collingreen 9d ago
    I don't want to put millions into deeper poverty or poverty at all and I believe pushing that claim so hard is an intentional false dichotomy intended to excuse inaction. I know you want to paint me as selfish or, like the next commenter, a mislead/naive armchair activist and I understand why that perspective makes things feel simple and either under control or full down-with-the-ship fatalistic. Both of those sound soul soothing in their own way. Collectively we are in a pickle and I think inaction and poor stewardship is probably not the best we can do to get out of it. If you want to throw your hands in the air and give up because "rich people gonna rich" or you want to let it all happen because you think we should be grateful for the easy life this road has given us even though we stepped on everyone along the way then I understand and that's what you have to do. However, I'd rather we don't give up and instead all figure out how to work together and make things better since we're all in the same boat even if not everyone wants to be. It would be easier if we all worked together. Humans aren't like that at all so that will never happen but that's not a good enough reason to convince me to shirk the responsibility of trying anyway.
- senordevnyc 12d ago
  The only time I can think of that democratic populations have made large and sweeping sacrifices have been when they’re actively engaged in total war. And even then, it usually has to be mandated and enforced pretty ruthlessly by the government. We simply did not evolve as a species to make large personal individual sacrifices today in order to benefit billions of strangers decades in the future. Never going to happen. The options here are technology saving us, or eco-totalitarian governments controlling a huge portion of the world’s population. Nothing else will work.
zerot_ 12d ago
> to solve global warming we need to make everyone's life worse This is ignoring that _not_ solving global warming will make everyone's life worse regardless.
- partiallypro 12d ago
  It's not ignoring that at all, but I challenge you to go back to the person in China or India that suddenly has amenities and tell him they all have to go away, and everything they worked for over 20 years is gone for "the greater good." You're probably only viewing this from a Western view (already wealthy.)

collingreen 12d ago

Your framing, that no collective action can ever include reduction or sacrifice, implies this is an inevitable and fatal path we cannot come back from. I hope you are wrong that nothing requiring sacrifice can ever be accomplished.

partiallypro 12d ago
This sacrifice involves putting millions back in poverty. I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
- iamnothere 12d ago
  Western activists are ok with this because (a) they don’t imagine that they will be greatly affected and will live a solarpunk luxury lifestyle and (b) they glorify third world poverty and consume media that presents it as a desirable, more authentic way of life, when the truth is that most of those people are desperately trying to claw their way into affluence. None of the above implies that everyone can achieve a current day Western lifestyle or that current Western lifestyles are sustainable. But average people are going to continue seeking it out, it’s just human nature. Activists who expect people to “just” give up that search are not being realistic.
- collingreen 9d ago
  I don't want to put millions into deeper poverty or poverty at all and I believe pushing that claim so hard is an intentional false dichotomy intended to excuse inaction. I know you want to paint me as selfish or, like the next commenter, a mislead/naive armchair activist and I understand why that perspective makes things feel simple and either under control or full down-with-the-ship fatalistic. Both of those sound soul soothing in their own way. Collectively we are in a pickle and I think inaction and poor stewardship is probably not the best we can do to get out of it. If you want to throw your hands in the air and give up because "rich people gonna rich" or you want to let it all happen because you think we should be grateful for the easy life this road has given us even though we stepped on everyone along the way then I understand and that's what you have to do. However, I'd rather we don't give up and instead all figure out how to work together and make things better since we're all in the same boat even if not everyone wants to be. It would be easier if we all worked together. Humans aren't like that at all so that will never happen but that's not a good enough reason to convince me to shirk the responsibility of trying anyway.
senordevnyc 12d ago
The only time I can think of that democratic populations have made large and sweeping sacrifices have been when they’re actively engaged in total war. And even then, it usually has to be mandated and enforced pretty ruthlessly by the government. We simply did not evolve as a species to make large personal individual sacrifices today in order to benefit billions of strangers decades in the future. Never going to happen. The options here are technology saving us, or eco-totalitarian governments controlling a huge portion of the world’s population. Nothing else will work.

zerot_ 12d ago

> to solve global warming we need to make everyone's life worse This is ignoring that _not_ solving global warming will make everyone's life worse regardless.

partiallypro 12d ago
It's not ignoring that at all, but I challenge you to go back to the person in China or India that suddenly has amenities and tell him they all have to go away, and everything they worked for over 20 years is gone for "the greater good." You're probably only viewing this from a Western view (already wealthy.)