You said they got it wrong and it was a corrupt ruling. I’m curious where you think the law went against what they ruled, in other words, how did they interpret the law ‘corruptly’
I asked you to expand on your wild claim, you couldn’t.
I was trying to learn your position and potentially go on your side if you had a solid argument. 1 thing you’re right about is me not having an opinion on if the court is corrupt or not, because I don’t have any information saying they’re corrupt. I wanted to learn your argument, but you failed to convince me, and likely anybody else, with you’ve mentioned.
The only reason people crossing a border is a problem is when you are an authoritarian government trying to control your population.
I am not comfortable at ALL with the US having razorwire borders in common with North Korea. It's not a far journey from keeping people OUT to keeping them IN and conditions in the US are getting worse.
It's not infinite people, because there's not infinite people. There's only about 8 billion people and most of them are in Asia.
And how are our resources over in the US? Well, we throw away more food than we eat. (and a lot of our food production is actually DEPENDENT on migrant workers from the south who come in to pick fruits and vegetables during the harvest season.) We have enough empty homes to actually give every homeless person a home and we are still building. We have huge stretches of unoccupied land. Service industries are COMPLAINING that they don't have enough workers right now.
Yes, you and I individually may not have any money. But this is a problem with rich hoarders, not a problem with lack of resources. Our problems are policy-based, the scarcity is artificial.
A finite number of people live in countries that are too dangerous for them to live in because of US foreign policy. A finite number of people need to move from country to country seasonally to get work.
There is no good reason to hurt someone trying to cross the border. There is no good reason to throw a child into a river to prevent them from entering.
(and a lot of our food production is actually DEPENDENT on migrant workers from the south who come in to pick fruits and vegetables during the harvest season.)
So basically, illegals are second class citizens who don’t deserve a living wage. Every fucking time, you guys come up with racist arguments.
I never once said they didn't deserve a living wage. Jackass businessmen might not pay them enough, but that's wrong. I said our food production is DEPENDENT on migrant workers. No matter what we pay them, we NEED them because we NEED the influx of people to fill those jobs. They should get a living wage.
That you jumped to that conclusion on such a statement suggests you have been WAITING for a change to whatabout me, and tells me that you are not arguing in good faith. So good day.
In a free market, people would be able to get any drug they like.
I'm presuming that over-regulation in the wrong way might be the cause here. But the problem is, markets carrying necessities tend to exploit customers when there's no competition, so I'm not sure that deregulation should be the move either.
In a free market, people can get any drug that provides sufficient profit margins to justify the market producing it. If scarcity needs to be induced to bring the profit margins up to an acceptable level… the market is free to do so.
What boggles my mind more than that is that the homicide rate for St. Louis is 87.83 per 100.000 inhabitants… For comparison, the homicide rate for Osaka (highest im Japan) is 0.8…
Japan doesn’t have guns freely available for purchase from gun shops every couple miles do they? I live in St. Louis and drive past half a dozen gun stores and ranges on my way to work daily, I can stop in every single one of those every day and buy a gun and ammo if I so desired. 20 minutes and a couple hundred could see me easily capable of wiping groups of people off the earth, and the couple hundred dollars is easy to get because the gun stores are always conveniently placed near payday loan shops and pawn shops
I’ve read that Japan police often rule things a suicide if they don’t immediately think they know they can convict someone in order to keep their solve rate above 99%
I would love to move. My house isn’t worth enough for us to be able to afford to move. And it’s a decent house in a decent neighborhood. The problem is, people want to leave this town more than they want to live in it.
Twitter was a great space for breaking news, official alerts like weather, earthquakes and tsunamis, for developing election day tallies.
The "you mean Grimes left the king of SpaceX?" manchild broke all that.
There’s like 100 people with the power to make the change and they’ve all decided to invest the money and power in self preservation. It’s the biggest ‘fuck you proletariat scum’ I could imagine. theguardian.com/…/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apoc…
As if the voters are any better. They could vote for policy makers that bring change, or go into politics themselves. But they don't actually want to be affected by such policy changes. It's always the others, always just finger pointing.
Only about 35 percent of the eligible voters participated, so yeah. Apathy and complacent comfort is a big player in the game. I’m pretty convinced that a lot of people’s apathy comes from the lack of political agency. When business interests conflict with human interests guess who wins every time.
Ok. Well, not all countries are democracies. So, excluded those ones right off the bat. And then narrow it to voters who participate and those who do not.
Participating in what exactly? What the hell are you on about with this US brabbling? You simply don't make any sense and don't seem to have a point. That's what I'm confused about. I didn't mention America, I said voters. Of course that includes the US and excludes non democratic countries, as they do not have voters. So what are you exactly trying to say here?
The largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, and CO2 is China, which not a democratic county. The second largest is United States. Idk how to discuss the possibility of ‘voting’ the climate change problem away without mentioning these two nations.
For sure. But it’s not just Americans. They might be the biggest offenders but the problem of over consumerism has plagued the entire world. At this point our economy is global. The tentacles of capitalism have invaded every corner of the planet.
Our problems today were manufactured well over a hundred years ago. It’s only taken this long for it all to finally catch up.
I felt an existential crisis about this a few years ago. I wanted everyone to simply stop everything, appreciate what they had. I sat down and spent an entire year as simply as possible. Eating simply, consuming very little. The truth is, it’s difficult to do and in our society it is not rewarded. I felt like it was a period of self improvement, but the ultimate truth is, I could not control anyone else, even if I was the living personification of self sustaining anti consumerism. Now I teach early elementary. Participating in this very small way feels like a vast improvement to hiding out like a hermit.
I can’t control anyone, especially wealthy adults. But I can influence the future adults.
The largest total emitter of greenhouse gasses is the US. Followed by the EU and a bunch of other democratic countries. You are doing exactly what I said. Finger pointing rather than taking action. The US does not do enough by themselves, so how about you try stop the stupid agenda pushing and bad faith arguing, interjecting your idiotic talking points that do nothing but derail the actual topic of discussion. Because this issue does not give a flying fuck about borders.
Not that this changes anything. It’s just another idiotic talking point as you so politely pointed out. But then again, I never asserted the idiotic notion that we could simply vote the problem away either.
You did.
Then you politely pointed out that it was stupid to talk about America.
Then you made sure to call me an idiot, because America is the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses.
Care to elaborate on any of this in a productive manner?
I didn't. You're the one who interjected and derailed the topic away. I talked about voters, and you come in with America, then brabbled on and blamed China for your own responsibilities. This is typical climate denier deflections. We have the same in Germany, except they say "Germany only is responsible for less than 2% of all global emissions, we can't change anything." - followed by the same finger pointing to less developed nations that apparently aren't allowed to reach our own living standards. It's nothing but a tired topic and completely pointless. Yeah, China bad. But is the West on that topic. So saying "but China" when asked to do your own part is not going to be solving this issue, nor is it proving any sort of healthy debatte. You can also not expect developing nations to stop developing, while we continue to live in luxury. That's the exact problem I'm talking about. Voters, like you, don't care. They don't want to change anything because it would affect them personally. They rather want other countries, or future generations having to deal with it. And if they're old enough, they also don't want to be seen as the people responsible for actually getting us into this mess. They want to be seen as the generation that brought the younger people comfort and a good live. They want to live in denial and enjoy their remaining time while the world starts to burn.
So. While you blame China, maybe ask yourself how much you helped China by buying Chinese products. What car do you drive and how much? Do you really need to do all your trips with it? Do you really need a 6x6 apocalypse madmax truck that rolls coal by default? Do you really need to vote for people who advocate for non action or even reverse courses, because China? Do you need to live in a big ass sprawling suburb that the cities have to foot the bill for? Everyone loves to shit on China, or big oil, or other big corporations, while doing all they can to support those countries and companies with their own habits. So for the love of everything, stop pointing fingers and derail topics because you don't want to be seen as being part of the responsibility. This requires a global effort, by everyone, and you're not helping.
How shall I help again exactly? Voting? I didn’t blame China, I simply pointed out that your solution, ‘voting’ doesn’t work in a place that doesn’t have participatory democracy. China is to blame just like America is. The wealthy, powerful Chinese and Americans, who actually could do something besides idiotically arguing, decide to continue fucking the world, our children’s futures, and everything else that gets in the way of their maintaining that power. Mostly the people with power over the problem actively ignore or disregard the problem. I do vote. I pick up trash. I avoid buying new stuff, beyond that, since I’m not the CEO of Exon Mobil, I really don’t have agency.
Is your reading comprehension broken are you playing stupid? I never claimed to have a solution. In fact, I pointed out a problem more than anything: Voters. And here you are, derailing towards things that aren't voters, because fuck responsibility. That's why I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. It's like you talk about a completely different topic.
And it's cool that you do all that, but feel free to actually look at other peoples actions, the actions of the huge majority of people. See what the polls around the worlds democracies say. Do you see a huge win for green parties? Do you see people willing to eat less meat? Do you see people swapping from their car to alternatives? No. The contrary. People actually even vote more and more for far right nationalists. The US voted for Trump and there are many places in Europe that are either fully or partially under far right rulership now. And this is something that will get worse with more climate related issues arising, including mass migration from the countries around the equator, that become unlivable hell holes, but also because of food and water shortages. Also, look how many people blame actual climate activists, because they get affected by them in stupidly minor ways, to the point where they want to hurt them.
They could vote for policy makers that bring change, or go into politics themselves. But they don’t actually want to be affected by such policy changes. It’s always the others, always just finger pointing.
This implied that if we voted green, if I went into politics on a environmental platform, if I inconvenienced myself, it could change things. This does, indeed, suggest some sort of solution. I politely disagreed for a variety of reasons, you rudely misunderstood. Did I blame China? No I pointed out that voting green wouldn’t change China. Did I say America is awesome. No I said America is a major part of the problem.
You say everyone is out there finger pointing, but you are unclear, and blaming me for not understanding what you are trying to say perfectly. Point the finger up your tight butt instead of at me.
China is currently one of the leaders in building out renewables. And yes, if the entire democratic world would vote green, it would be a solution. I don't know if you've noticed, but our policies actually change the world, they do it right nor for the negative, and they also have the power to do the opposite. And in the end, there's a lot of tools to hold countries that don't adhere to climate friendly policies accountable. But that first and foremost requires us to actually do the first step of fixing up the mess that we caused. So please stop the climate denial bullshit.
Please point to the place where I denied climate change.
You’ve pointed your finger at me the entire time we’ve talked, while failing to own your own words. You can’t move the goal posts and expect anyone to give a shit about your opinions. You are saying voting can’t change anything, while saying voting is the way to change the problem. Pick one please.
Alright, this is getting too dense for me and I'm not interested in orbiting a black hole. Work on your reading comprehension if you want to communicate with people on the internet. I'm out.
Voters not wanting to lower their living standards is the real elephant in the room. You tell someone that they should eat 1 less hamburger a week and all of a sudden you’re dodging bullets.
I think the worst part of it is that its not actually hopeless, at least not in theory. It’s just that we, or more accurately the people with actual power, refuse to act because it would mean slightly less profit.
Me too, specially when I was younger I thought we could change the world for good if united. I saw cristal clear that the rich wanted to be richer at the expense of the poorer, but as I grew older and saw the reality and stupidity of the world (Like Trump, a massively rich guy being massively voted by the poorest and less educated people) I lost hope. I came to realize that education and stoicism and the best tools the human race has to progress to a healthy society. So that’s what I try to share now when I can.
yeah, it’s true that some humans are really bad, but they’re nothing without (poorly educated) followers, and their followers are the one that give those humans the power to do evil things. Critical thinking is something that should be taught more often to avoid history from repeating.
Though I mostly agree with you, sometimes I feel human nature is just ugly.
This is not true. Humans are created by the material conditions they find themselves in. “Human nature” when in an abundant environment is very different, we can see this among remaining hunter gatherer tribes like the Hadza (watch/read the whole thread).
Living in capitalism is what makes people the way you see them. Competition for resources with your fellow workers and an endless toil for the benefit of someone else enforced by the threat of homelessness and death if you don’t take part.
Being an asshole under capitalism is as natural as coughing is in a smoke filled burning building. If you don’t know anything different you can’t see that to constantly cough is not the natural way of human beings. When you take people and put them in different material conditions you get a completely different outcome.
You make a statement about complexity but you’re not actually saying anything. This is all wishy washy.
There is no middle between “the workers hold power” and “the bourgeoisie should hold power”. There is no middle between “private property should exist” and “private property should not exist”. There is no middle between “profit should be the driving force of development” and “the human development index should be the driving force of development”.
Your wishy washy “we need a middle” is nonsense if you can not put into words what that fundamentally means in terms of actual functioning policy and societal design. Who holds power is THE essential question here. Capitalist society functions as a dictatorship-of-the-bourgeoisie. Socialists want the opposite, a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat. Flipping the power on its head and putting the workers in charge of the outcomes instead of the bourgeoisie.
If you can not fundamentally describe in absolute terminology what you think society needs to do in order to change the current situation then all you are doing in your opposition to people who do want change is supporting keeping it the way it currently is. That puts you on the side of the climate death cult driving us towards the inevitable end.
Oh yes I’m the one who simplified a complex problem… literally said it’s more complex then that. That’s it, is it simple enough for you to understand now?mm
Dude: “tErhe aRE nO MIdDLe tHeRM”
Is the most simplistic shit ever, just quoting slogans and not actually recognizing the complexity of everything.
Are you actually going to talk concrete policy or not? This feels very evasive.
Nothing I said above deserves a “very smart” label, it’s all very basic 101 socialism stuff that you would get reading 1 or 2 books on socialism or marx. I don’t really know why you feel the need to act this way.
So wait, you said shit nothing concrete (am I wrong?)
I said wow good job trying to reduce individual problems by generalising…it’s not politics dude. You can’t use generalization with people, with societies,etc … doesn’t matter …
While you keep making general statments about a huge problem with hundreds of different issues, particular issues that can be approached differently no matter where you are.
Doesn’t matter is the difference is geographic, cultural, whatever … It’s not the same solucion for everything and everyone. Because each case deserves it’s own special individual solucion?
Hey maybe you can generalize and it works,tell me how and we can talk. But don’t say I didn’t give any details when I’m only calling you out for that exactly. What kinda of one-sided argument is that?
At no point did I generalise. Capitalist society is a bourgeoise dictatorship. In socialist terms we don’t mean an individual rules, what we mean is that it is a class dictatorship. The ruling class is the bourgeoisie. They hold all the power, by design, so that they can implement the policies that benefit their class rule. The bourgeoise-democracy provides the outcomes that the bourgeoisie want, because it was built that way from the ground up when they took power during the various revolutions that ended feudalism and brought about the beginnings of capitalism.
What socialists seek is revolutions led by the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie, installing a dictatorship of the proletariat and thus socialist society. This new proletarian led society will then provide the outcomes that are most beneficial to the proletariat instead.
These are all specific and absolute things. There is no generalisation here, I am being extremely specific, you just aren’t familiar with the terms or what they mean. If you have questions I am very willing to answer. If you need more specificity about what these classes are I recommend: reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class. I wrote the first iteration of that page when I was a mod there. If you need more answers about what the institutional structure of socialism looks like I am happy to answer, you aren’t asking any questions though and you aren’t pointing out what you claim I am generalising on.
This new proletarian led society will then provide the outcomes that are most beneficial to the proletariat instead.
This is not very specific.
What does this look like? Is it 100% communist, 100% socialism or…. what? Maybe some sort of regulated market with very high tax rates like during the “golden age” of capitalism (post world war 2).
Personally, I think I’d enjoy a capitalist society with high tax rates and a strong safety net. Some sort of middle ground.
The immediate new society is political socialism as soon as you kick out the bougies and redesign the institutions to ensure proletarian outcomes. I think what you’re asking is what it would economically look like, and that is a question that would differ depending on the national conditions. What I mean by that is that ultimately what is possible is determined by many factors, assuming that much of the world remains capitalist the newly socialist country would need to integrate into the global market in some way. This would likely mean taking over strategic national industries while leaving consumer sectors to private industry. You’d have a planned economy while maintaining enough for international investors to prevent isolation (like north korea). This would look something like Vietnam, Cuba or China’s combination of private and state industry.
At a later date this would transition to something more and more socialist as and when the national conditions allow for it. Most likely as less and less of the world is capitalist.
Personally, I think I’d enjoy a capitalist society with high tax rates and a strong safety net. Some sort of middle ground.
That’s just a capitalist society ruled by the bourgeoisie, with welfare tacked on. We’re talking about what is necessary here to stop the world from boiling to death, that doesn’t achieve that.
The biggest issue with our environment that drives these problems is that human brains can only reliably grok a few hundred other humans as being people. Beyond that, to a greater or lesser degree, anyone else just feels like an object (which is why we feel upset when people we know die but the statistics of how many people die each day globally don’t have a similar effect.)
Some of us cope better than others but fundamentally any environment that requires humans to be reliant on interacting with over a few hundred other people will lead to people treating each other as objects.
It’s why conservative people often feel it would be inconceivable to mistreat someone they personally know but will casually do profoundly cruel things to people they don’t. If you view their actions towards people outside of their sphere of personhood through the lense of what is and isn’t an appropriate way to treat an object rather than a person they often seem perfectly naturally.
I know the research you’re talking about here but don’t think it should be viewed as something that makes people incapable of empathy to those outside their core group. It makes it harder, but that hasn’t stopped entire nations of people moving hard left towards extreme vocal empathy among one another as the working class. Unity, solidarity and love for one another is demonstrably possible among very large numbers it just requires the right set of prerequisites to achieve, these prerequisites are what socialists should be working towards ticking off in order to set the stage for a wider revolutionary movement.
Nah. Some people have the capacity to have a wider net than others. Some people have the capacity to intellectually overcome the limitations of how we naturally are. Some people put sufficient effort into fulfilling that potential. We all should each do our best to do so.
Doesn’t change that even those of us who are especially good at it are still only good at it for a human. We are all terrible at it and it is fundamentally cruel to try to force everyone to live in a society that requires a level of empathic ability that is profoundly beyond what humans are evolved to be able to handle. It’s like expecting everyone on Earth to be able to lift 5 tonnes or outcalculate a supercomputer in their head. It’s a foolish and unreasonable thing to hang the success of society of people’s ability to do.
intellectually overcome the limitations of how we naturally are
The brain is not distinct from the body. This is very close to a Dualist argument which is a hack philosophy that proposes the mind and “spirit” of a person are distinct from the rest of that person. It comes from the belief that our human sentience is special or different.
If the intellect can do it, it is natural. The difference between one person’s capability to do this and another is simply the background and material conditions these two find themselves in. The background being the historic education and upbringing of that person and the conditions being relevant because people (as you point out) will look to protect their own interests and that of their group first before they seek to protect the interests of others. I argue however that with the right education on class, a person becomes able to see the interests of their class as analogous with their own interests as a result of being a member of that class. This then results in them fighting for the interests of others as a result of recognising it is in their own interests as shared members of that class group. This is basically what we socialists call “class consciousness” compared to “false consciousness”.
You’re making the mistake of thinking the human brain has an infinite capacity to expand its intuitive empathy. It just doesn’t. No more than your bixepf has an infinite capacity to increase it’s strength. You can fulfil that potential more or less but you’ll still never win an arm wrestling match with a gorilla or a robot. Humans have finite limits to their potential. Our current society and most of the proposed alternatives is structured in such a way as to only really work if humans generally have a far higher capacity for intuitive empathy than humans have.
That is fundamentally a flaw that must be overcome by a more thoughtful and purposeful design process than either “well this is just kinda how things ended up really” or “let’s imagine if things were different, but not too different because that’s hard!” (because our brains are also kinda bad at imagining things being seriously different to how they are.) Or if we decide for actual specific reasons that it isn’t viable to even attempt to approach a human society that is shaped to humans rather than one which humans have to clumsily try to shape themselves to, we have to find ways to overcome the limitations of our biology. Often we do a good job of that externally, but for this it might only be possible through trans-humanist approaches. Which to be seems like it should be something we consider because we must, not because we think it is somehow more convenient than thinking purposefully about how we should share our lives together (though for the purposes of that, we may also be currently limited by how well our languages allow for those discussions to meaningfully occur. That’s a fairly solvable issue as we are constantly evolving new ways for our languages to help us express ideas they previously didn’t easily cover.)
As for the difference between the mind and the brain I’m not convinced by your argument at all. The mind is an emergent property of the brain but that does not make them one and the same any more than it makes Windows 98 an x86 PC.
I’m going to gently remind you that Drumpf’s base is actually on avg. wealthier than the opposition’s base. That’s why you get those obnoxious trucks, flags and infinite merchandise (courtesy of Chinese workers).
No need to smear the common people, it’s simply a fact that democracy is not a real tool for change.
Nono look at the 10 poorest states in America(with worse living conditions). They all voted majority Trump, some of the porest counties in the USA are literally voting 80% for trump
If you listen to Obama on that podcast recently (whom those people probably voted for too), paraphrasing: he says economic anxiety makes people prone to risk taking, emotional voting and feel racial resentment.
Yes but that’s only true due to a suite of nefarious influences having to do with things like voter suppression, gerrymandering, dark money and manufactured voter apathy.
There are various versions of democracy. Some are far more effective at implementing the will of their constituents than others.
In my opinion the problem isn’t democracy itself, but rather, has to do with the many various ways in which it’s implemented.
The US version of democracy, for example, is very old, clunky and buggy as fuck because it was created by 18th century white men, some of whom were slave owners, and all of whom were terrified of the possibility that in creating a new (to them) form of governance they might accidentally create a new mechanism for tyranny.
Accordingly, they deliberately created a system that by design would be almost impossible to change short of massive civil unrest and that to this day is very unresponsive to real public sentiment.
The key is that they designed it that way not because they wanted an efficient democracy, but rather, because they wanted to protect themselves and their rights against the rise of a possible tyrant.
What they created was very stable, but again, it wasn’t responsive, nor was it meant to be responsive, to public opinion.
Since then, political scientists have figured out much better ways to run democracies.
One of my favorites is the Irish Republic which, in the 1920s, instituted a suite of reforms to the US model in creating its government with the result that Ireland has gone from being the last third-world country in western Europe, to now being a thriving and economically developed western European nation with a highly-educated English-speaking population that isn’t obliged to take orders from any of the world’s great powers.
Ireland did this by having a high-functioning modern-style democracy.
Median income is BS though. If me and Elon musk make up the test then it would show we have a median income of billions. …I don’t have anywhere close to billions. So a bunch of poor people vote trump and ten billionaires vote trump so trump voters are better off on a average? That’s a joke
They used exit polls, so I doubt the data includes that. It’s likely that anomalies are cut out too if the data is processed this way - they also compare the median to the state median to make the comparison more meaningful, which is how we ‘know’ that his base is wealthier.
I am fully convinced that won’t materialize until a major Western city or province/state/territory/[insert administrative unit here] gets catastrophically and irreparably fucked up.
Neoliberals won’t (nor will the reactionaries they’ve carefully trained) and unfortunatly we’ve let them infest all major political parties and media outlets across most of the globe.
With these managed democracies, they’re able to delay actual progress until the mining and oil execs are satisified with their obscene wealth (which is never going to happen).
Until these people are pried from their positions of power, everybody “coming together” is meaningless.
The solution is going to require immediate, strict, drastic regulations and billions of dollars of research and investment that will never turn into profits, with much of it financed through taxing the rich appropriately.
Neoliberals hate every one of those ideas and have positioned themselves so they can veto all of them.
Voting genuine progressives and ensuring they keep their promises is the only way out because the best we’ll ever get out of this neoliberal psuedo-left is “Maybe we can find a way to save the world that’s more profitable than just letting everyone die”.
Nah, imo voting is kinda like giving your little brother an unpluged controler and pretending he is playing video games with you so that he doesnt riot. Of course we are the little brother. It changes nothing and the candidate that wins just makes everyone feel beter abbout themselves for believing they contributed when the candidate does or says something that they agree with or viseversa, the one that won and the people that didnt vote for him, when it does or say something it just makes them feel that this country is diyng cuz i dont agree with that guy, and then will blame the majority of the voters for voting on the guy while the fault is on the sistem itself.
I say burn everything to the ground, their corrupt institutions, goverment and private/bussines, mainly banks amd administrative burecratical government institutions, make sure rich people (mainly oligarchs and corrupt politicians) cannot get influence nor voice on any kind of venture or decicion on the big picture or the world order or whatever you wannna call it and when we get the chance, replace leadership with A.I. Because at the scale the world is headed right now it will probably be the only way to purge corruption from the actions of human kind and keep everything as morally correct as posible, and im talking morally as in everyone lives as pleasantly as humanlly posible and no mass murders and rehabilitating instead of punishing and susteinability, not that dumb culture wars b.s. that americans are so obssesed with.
Not sure if this will give you hope or not, but one thing to consider is that we could still make it far worse, or put differently, that it’s still in our power to stop that from happening. We can’t change the fact that climate change already has noticeable negative consequences today, nor that global temperatures will rise by at least 1.5° towards the end of the century (compared to 1950-1980), probably more. But we do have a somewhat realistic chance of keeping it at around 2° or below (see e.g. here or here for easy simulations in your browser). The point is that every tenth of a degree counts, and our action or lack thereof now might well make the difference between it “just” getting bad with regular droughts, crop failures, some regions becoming temporarily uninhabitable due to wet bulb temperatures and so on on the one hand, or all of that at a much larger scale leading to societal collapse if we don’t act at all. We live in the worst extinction event the earth has seen since the asteroid that killed the non-bird dinosaurs, but we can still keep it at that instead of turning it into the worst extinction event the earth has ever seen. Luckily, governments (and industry) largely have at least accepted that climate change is a thing, and in Europe and the Americas green-house gas emission have actually already been sinking for the last 15 years or so. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not great, and these governments still should do much more, but it could also be worse, and the fact that we’re lowering emissions despite our politicians generally being very friendly with industry could give at least a sliver of hope. The emissions of China and India (and the rest of Asia) are still rising, but show signs of decelerated growth at least, and in Africa emissions are still fairly low and rising rather slowly, with a chance that some less developed countries might more or less just skip a big chunk of carbon-based industrialisation in favour of renewables. Altogether this means that we’re already on a way to avoid the worst possible scenarios, and still have the power to keep it towards the lower end of the scale as far as terrible outcomes are concerned.
In addition, while individuals have always less power than whole governments or industries, there are nevertheless things anyone reading this could do, e.g.:
Voting for parties that favour stronger climate action, and perhaps even more importantly, not supporting those who do less or even nothing. You can also protest or try to influence your government in some other ways.
Reduce your personal impact by not consuming animal products (in particular meat and dairy), not flying if you can avoid it, not buying stuff you don’t really need, and not having (more) kids.
Tell other people you know who might listen to do those things. Many people favour climate action in principle, but are too lazy, scared or just otherwise preoccupied to actually start doing stuff on their own. You kicking them in the butt or leading by example can motivate them and in turn other people they might now.
If you’re reading this and whether or not you’re already doing some of those things, I’m sure you can find at least some things you could do (I know I can, and I’m trying to put it into practice), which might in turn also make you feel less depressed about the situation. As mentioned before, I’m not saying that we’re in a great situation, but whining about it helps nobody, and we’re still in a situation where we have the power to stop things from getting even worse.
You’d think that staring the future of climate disaster directly in the face would cause at least a few people in charge to, I don’t know, make a few changes. But nothing. Corporate profits are more important than anything else even if the world burns. It does feel hopeless because, to be honest, it is.
Not sure if this will give you hope or not, but one thing to consider is that we could still make it far worse, or put differently, that it’s still in our power to stop that from happening. We can’t change the fact that climate change already has noticeable negative consequences today, nor that global temperatures will rise by at least 1.5° towards the end of the century (compared to 1950-1980), probably more. But we do have a somewhat realistic chance of keeping it at around 2° or below (see e.g. here or here for easy simulations in your browser). The point is that every tenth of a degree counts, and our action or lack thereof now might well make the difference between it “just” getting bad with regular droughts, crop failures, some regions becoming temporarily uninhabitable due to wet bulb temperatures and so on on the one hand, or all of that on a much larger scale leading to societal collapse if we don’t act at all. We live in the worst extinction event the earth has seen since the asteroid that killed the non-bird dinosaurs, but we can still keep it at that instead of turning it into the worst extinction event the earth has ever seen. Luckily, governments (and industry) largely have at least accepted that climate change is a thing, and in Europe and the Americas green-house gas emission have actually already been sinking for the last 15 years or so. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not great, and these governments still should do much more, but it could also be worse, and the fact that we’re lowering emissions despite our politicians generally being very friendly with industry could give at least a sliver of hope. The emissions of China and India (and the rest of Asia) are still rising, but show signs of decelerated growth at least, and in Africa emissions are still fairly low and rising rather slowly, with a chance that some less developed countries might more or less just skip a big chunk of carbon-based industrialisation in favour of renewables. Altogether this means that we’re already on a way to avoid the worst possible scenarios, and still have the power to keep it towards the lower end of the scale as far as terrible outcomes are concerned.
In addition, while individuals have always less power than whole governments or industries, there are nevertheless things anyone reading this could do, e.g.:
Voting for parties that favour stronger climate action, and perhaps even more importantly, not supporting those who do less or even nothing. You can also protest or try to influence your government in some other ways.
Reduce your personal impact by not consuming animal products (in particular meat and dairy), not flying if you can avoid it, not buying stuff you don’t really need, and not having (more) kids. Edit: Also try to favour public transport over driving your own car, and if you need a car, try to use a small, electrical one to reduce emissions.
Tell other people you know who might listen to do those things. Many people favour climate action in principle, but are too lazy, scared or just otherwise preoccupied to actually start doing stuff on their own. You kicking them in the butt or leading by example can motivate them and in turn other people they might now.
If you’re reading this and whether or not you’re already doing some of those things, I’m sure you can find at least some things you could do (I know I can, and I’m trying to put it into practice), which might in turn also make you feel less depressed about the situation. As mentioned before, I’m not saying that we’re in a great situation, but whining about it helps nobody, and we’re still in a situation where we have the power to stop things from getting even worse.
Yes, my list is by no means complete. I’m sure there are many more things any of us could do, it’s more meant as a list of some examples to give people starting points for practical things to do.
I know this won’t change your mind or anything, but this is probably pretty close to the mindset of some other ~1.5 billion first world countries’ populations’ mindset. And those combined account to currently around ~37% of CO2 emissions. So if all people like you (if you consider first world countries’ people to be people like you) all came together and did more we could have some pretty huge impact. Of course the other ~63% may still fuck things up, but this is a much different comparison than just you against the rest of the world, you’re not very unique in that regard.
I’m so tired of people turning everything into an awful prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone should just aim to be the best person you can be and stop fretting about whether everyone else is trying quite as hard as you. It doesn’t need to be complicated.
Right? On a global scale, though, “best person you can be” should be something like, “let’s try to behave in such a way so that if everyone behaved like me, the world would be a good place”. That is hard though, to think like that.
What can help is the knowledge that by doing so it is impossible not to on some level inspire others to do the same to some degree by example.
If you’re a selfish jerk that will cause people around you to be .001% (or something) more selfish and jerky. If you are kind and good that will push the needle the other way similarly.
Except the amount more those people are better or worse for knowing you then also influences how much better or worse the people they know are etc and so while it is a small effect per person, the diffused effect is meaningful, cumulative and self-reinforcing. It doesn’t take a lot of people within a community either giving up and being the worst or finding enough of a spine to try to be good to start to tip the balance of the whole community in either direction. It also means that as you are better and kinder, your immediate external world gradually becomes a little better and kinder which makes it easier and more rewarding to be that way in an endless virtuous cycle.
Ok now apply the fact that at least 45% of the western world is brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry. They’re low IQ repeater bots who would glady kill every single one of us because climate change is a “hoax”.
I think a very small minority “would gladly kill every single one of us”, not 45%. If it were 45%, there’d already be open civil war all over the west.
Thank you this was actually really nice to read. I feel like everywhere I look is more bad news about the climate it’s nice to see we can at least still mitigate it
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.