TokenBoomer15,000 Scientists Warn Society Could 'Collapse' This Century In Dire Climate Report
Even people who accept and believe climate change is real are unwilling to make any personal sacrifices and magically think some scientists somewhere will just solve the problem.
Nobody is coming to your rescue, the planet will save itself from the plague that is our industrial society. We could pretty easily fix this, but it would be politically unpopular, and therefore, won’t happen.
Where’s Homelander when we need him?
Homelander is the type to side with oil.
Tragedy of the commons - no point in making personal sacrifices since it won’t stop others from destroying everything so why bother.
Isnt this the prisoners dilemma?
My hippie commune friend here in the US says that the “tragedy of the commons” began as a lie of the landed gentry in Britain. In law school it’s taught as a fact.
It’s not even that people are unwilling, the problem is that personal sacrifices are a mere drop in the bucket compared to industry pollution.
The problem with industry pollution is that it happens in the shadows. Supporting greener products is fantastic, but so many are in dire situations where they are unable to spend the money to support the extra cost.
Also, a lot of the companies who are “reducing their carbon footprint” are doing it by shady or insignificant means. John Oliver did a segment on it, and I remember one company basically paid to “protect” an area of forest that was already protected by the government from logging etc. So, this company “offset” their carbon footprint with land that wouldn’t have been used for resources either way.
The real clowns are the ones thinking the everyman is making more impact than the massive corporations. People making personal sacrifices won’t fix this.
And what would it take to stop those corporations? Individual actions. Be it voting in an election or with your wallet, it’s our society that continues to not only allows those corporations to exist but to grant them every right to do so. The only alternative to a social rethinking would be the violent overthrow of capitalism and an authoritan installation of some alternative. And nobody could seriously want that.
Bruno_MyersThe only alternative to a social rethinking solution would be the violent overthrow of capitalism
You cannot overthrow capitalism without social rethinking. I mean, you could force people at gunpoint if that sounds like a good plan to you, only then we’d have a capitalisic people that has been told to have every right to overconsume (by people like you, in this thread) for decades.
When you absolve people of their individual responsibility the only way out of capitalism will be by force. Not against corporations, but against the people.
Great insight. An ideological system cannot simply be declared dead nor overthrown. This explains incredibly well why communism has typically led to an enriched and “more equal” ruling class. The economy and its laws may have changed, but people and their desires did not.
To truly have a change, the people have to change their thinking and wants. Marx either naively assumed this would be easier than it is, or his work is meant to describe a very large timespan.
And I do think we’re moving in the right direction. I know this article is very pessimistic, but trends are going the right way. And to quote Mr. Rogers, “look to the helpers” – there’s people working on green energy. There’s people trying to foster more communal thinking.
I’m not a fan of Marx, but I think it’s correct he’s talking about longer timespans. It’s sort of an evolutionary approach. He assumes the core motivations are there, but he (correctly IMO) models people as having different personalities based on their circumstances. A person fighting a bear is a rage and fear filled war machine. A person who’s well fed and comfortable is pretty generous overall and could maybe be trusted with making decisions for others’ best interests.
His idea communist society is a feedback loop: economic abundance (oxymoron if defined technically I know) makes people less selfish, and less selfish people use resources in a way more optimized for global value rather than local value.
I don’t like the way Marxism over-idealizes, over-simplifies things, and I think it’s very dangerous how things are left out, but at least he’s mostly right about the aspects he doesn’t ignore.
Yeah I think it makes a lot of sense viewing it as how our society will evolve.
I vaguely recall that Marx himself didn’t like Marxists. I remember my world history teachers mentioning something about how the actual person behind the -ism is often not a proponent of it.
The way I see it, capitalism is defined by free markets and so if you aren’t willing to use guns to force people, you’re a capitalist.
I refer to it as “the economic system where economic arrangements require consent of both parties”
Fuck that. Companies don’t care about consumers anymore, they’ll just choke out any competing alternative until they’re the only choice left. It’s been seen time and time again, massive corporations only change in the face of heavy regulations. Anything you read or hear about how change has to start with individual action is just propaganda to place the burden on common people and avoid calls for regulations which would actually force change.
But how do we get those regulations if not, in last consequence, by individual action? Personal responsibility specifically includes the need to vote and get socially and politically involved. We can’t just sit around and tell people to wait if and when the right regulations come along. We together are the people who have to fight for them.
Right. In terms of personal sacrifice, turning down the heat is ineffective compared to sacrificing the fun activities of a Saturday to decide late four hours to reading papers and writing to your congresspeople.
IMO the only way to effectively manage atmospheric content is through financial incentives and the simpler the better. Any activity that puts greenhouse gases into the atmosphere needs to be taxed, any activity that pulls them out needs to be subsidized.
Then the rates of those incentives need to be calibrated via measurement and feedback to the point where it eliminates existential threat.
But I can’t do that directly, so if I’m gonna do my part for climate change it needs to be something around (a) find out whether I’m right about my theory of what would work and (b) selling the idea to others.
Shivering in the cold to avoid using natural gas isn’t doing shit for me or anyone else.
It would take all-out global war with billions of deaths to shut them down.
Corporations are just the sum of their customers. One customer doesn’t have much influence, that’s true, but collectively they have a ton.
what personal sacrifice can you make that will make a meaningful impact?
kaduLemmy (and Reddit) react pretty aggressively to this data point, but it’s true nevertheless: meat consumption. Meat consumption is the single most powerful impact you as an individual have when it comes to climate change, and it’s significantly ahead than everything else.
Would a healthy dose of ecoterrorism against the top 100 most lucrative brands in the world be better? Yes. Does removing animal products from your diet also significantly reduce emissions? Yes.
As a biologist, I can’t tell you how to live your life and what decisions are worth it or not. But if you’re asking what impact you could have, this is it, it’s not a mystery or speculative assumption - cut out meat from your diet.
I’m not even a vegan. But things are what they are. We can’t pretend this isn’t true just because meat tastes good.
possibly a catIn that case, it’s not true that “even people who accept and believe climate change is real are unwilling to make any personal sacrifices” because many people have given up meat for the climate.
it makes an impact in the same way as spraying a hose at the sun.
That’s just convenient defeatism. People are part of societies and are sensitive to choices others make. It does not save the sharks if you stop eating shark fin soup. But when there was a campaign against shark fin soup in China, and people actually chose to eat less of it, then that does have an impact on the shark population. Things can change surprisingly fast. It’s just a drop in the bucket, but we’re several billion people dripping into it. The collective impact of significantly reducing animal product consumption is important enough to try for it.
In general, drop the “this is a nonsense solution, we should do this other thing instead”. We need to do all the things to survive this. Focus on making others with the same goal stronger, convincing them to do this other thing too, instead of ridiculing their efforts.
Sounds like someone isn’t willing to personally sacrifice for climate change…
He’s not wrong. There’s no way to coordinate any boycott of any product on the scale you’d need to shut down an entire industry, especially one so deeply tied to human culture.
Sounds like someone else isn’t willing to sacrifice…
My guy, it’s the truth. It’s not possible to coordinate any boycott of any product on the scale you’d need to to effectively reduce climate change. There are too many people with too many diverse opinions, worldviews, and situations for it to be possible or effective. You need a better plan that’ll actually work instead of just moralizing it because you’re angry at everyone else.
SmirkAs expected, crickets. X
This @pintdrunkenelephant guy’s a reactionary dog with a bone they can’t let go of. An antagonist and contrarian, unable to see the big picture, and nothing will ever be good enough for them till the world burns. I wouldn’t bother mate.
Margaret Atwood was spinning a yarn in the Maddadam trilogy when she wrote that alpha gal allergy was created by ecoterrorists trying to cut mammal consumption. But maybe she’s on to something. Will people start intentionally spreading Lone Star ticks? It’s already estimated to be the third most common food allergy in the US and growing fast. Even in folks that have the alpha gal antibody but no anaphylaxis, it’s thought that it causes a massive increase in risk of stroke from causing build up of unstable arterial plaque.
“Meaningful”, as in, “even if I alone do it this will somehow stop climate change”? Not possible, very obviously.
Meaningful as in “if everyone would adapt that mindset we’d be half way to the solution” - there are many, many options. Vegan diet, fuck cars, use public transport, buy local, vote green (or the closest approximation available), support sustainable companies, less consumerism in general, change your electricity provider, get politically involved, social activism, convince your friends and family…
Pick and chose as many as you want and can and you start becoming part of the solution.
wow, what a load of things that are instantly rendered useless in comparison to what shell alone is doing.
People don’t like to hear things like these because it means they are truly powerless. But its absolutely true. None of those sacrifices mean shit in the face of the actions of massive corporations. And no, change in lifestyle won’t make these companies adapt. The global market is so interconnected at this point that things like boycotts are meaningless. If a company that sells pork suddenly finds people in their area are eating less pork, they aren’t going to downsize. They’re going to find a different market to keep selling the same amount, or more, even if they have to ship it across the globe.
Yeah but like massive corporations are run by people. Massive corporations respond to the individual decisions of the people who run them.
yep, most people are terrified of finding out how insignificant they really are.
You just want to argue. Fuck off and do nothing.
no, im realistic.
Lol ok, kid.
kid is when i see someone who’s not delusional, i am very smart. yeah man, be sure to recycle all your cans. im sure you’re helping 🙄
You type like someone whose mother drank while pregnant with them.
I honestly think a person should be asking themselves “If I alone did this, would it make a change?”
But those actions aren’t going to be installing solar panels on your house. They’re going to be things like writing a book or learning how to connect with people you disagree with.
I don’t know about sacrifices, but you could plant a tree.
You sacrifice the other things you were going to do with your day.
Stop eating meat would be a good one.
I wish everyone had alpha gal allergy. Beef and pork production would cease and you’d stop seeing dairy put into every fucking packaged food on earth (chicken ramen? Dairy! God fuck on a Tuesday morning it drives me batty).
Maybe because nothing we, the normal people, will have any real impact?
Check your carbon footprint! You can choose to starve to death. You can choose to buy brand A which has 99% as big carbon impact as brand B!! Oh wow the differences! Regulating business is communism!!