Thank you. I normally would RTFA before commenting but I have to say that from here this looks like a really shitty premise for an article, it doesn't inspire me in the least to read further, and...
Thank you.
I normally would RTFA before commenting but I have to say that from here this looks like a really shitty premise for an article, it doesn't inspire me in the least to read further, and it makes me wonder wtf SciAm was thinking:
Is it really just code for white people wishing to hold onto their way of life or to get “back to normal?”
Yeah the conclusion of the article seems to vaguely be "don't stop caring about the climate but do it with more racial awareness" or something. Maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems to me that...
Yeah the conclusion of the article seems to vaguely be "don't stop caring about the climate but do it with more racial awareness" or something.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems to me that the people who care about the climate are the same people who care about racial injustice already.
90% sure the premise was just made for clicks. But what isn't anymore?
I agree with the conclusion to an extent, but I'm also militantly anti-racist. It's about intersectionality, and solidarity building. I wouldn't necessarily assume that there's complete overlap...
I agree with the conclusion to an extent, but I'm also militantly anti-racist. It's about intersectionality, and solidarity building. I wouldn't necessarily assume that there's complete overlap between environmentalists and anti-racists.
But yeah this looks mostly like clickbait at best. There's so much BS being circulated about the climate crisis right now -- I don't know if I'm just paying more attention or if it's been ramped up since Biden took office and people can again look to Washington for some sort of real leadership on the issue.
I read the article and really don't know how I feel about it, but this line really struck me: I believe this is exactly what is going to happen. As the people in power do mostly nothing to stop an...
I read the article and really don't know how I feel about it, but this line really struck me:
"Or will they hoard resources, limit the rights of the most affected and seek to save only their own, deluded that this xenophobic strategy will save them?"
I believe this is exactly what is going to happen. As the people in power do mostly nothing to stop an ecological catastrophe they will have no choice but to act that way in order to hold onto what is left.
I think the author has a few good points, but the article comes across as rambling. I’m also not a fan of her promoting her books constantly. As an aside, why does it seem like a disproportionate...
I think the author has a few good points, but the article comes across as rambling. I’m also not a fan of her promoting her books constantly.
As an aside, why does it seem like a disproportionate number of racial justice writers are (likely) upper/upper-middle class white women? Maybe it’s just my confirmation bias, I don’t know.
I also find the article rambling, but I came away with a much more critical take. I found her writing to be imprecise. It's unclear what her call to action is exactly. Her asking that "people with...
I also find the article rambling, but I came away with a much more critical take. I found her writing to be imprecise. It's unclear what her call to action is exactly. Her asking that "people with privilege" ask themselves self-identity questions like "'Who am I?' and 'How am I connected to all of this?'" instead of practical questions like "'What can I do to stop feeling so anxious?', 'What can I do to save the planet?', and 'What hope is there?'" is unhelpful. Those practical questions are precisely what people should be asking themselves. Everyone should be looking for hope and solutions.
The author drops in a lot of, ahem, buzz terms like "climate justice" and racism-manifested "environmental trauma" (and "vice versa": environmental-trauma-manifested racism) without explaining them. What do these even mean?
She uses the fact that early environmentalists were anti-immigrant eugenicists and the 2019 El Paso shooting by an ecofascist to insinuate that contemporary white ecoanxiety is just one step away from xenophobia and fascism. Maybe it is, but I think it's illogical to suggest that contemporary and early environmentalists might share motivations by virtue of their race and that an entire demographic is colored by one very fringe ecofascist incident. Belief in climate change in the US is strongest among Democrats, who are broadly pro-immigrant.
The writer's claim that Black and brown people have always experienced "the prospect of an unlivable future" and that white and privileged people "are now waking up to the prospect of their own unlivable future" seems strangely forgetful that for much of the late 20th century there was much existential dread over nuclear annihilation and many people in Europe and North America and elsewhere fiercely protested against nuclear proliferation.
The writer's focus on race and climate anxiety in America is very narrow for an issue that is by its nature global. Frankly, minorities in America are not on the chopping block of climate change: America is relatively insulated from the near-term effects of climate change. Right now, the danger of climate change imminent in Asia and the Pacific Islands, where climate change threatens crop production on the limited arable land that feed massive populations of billions and rising sea levels threaten Pacific nations are largely coastal.
Maybe her thesis (or theses) is (or are) valid, but I found her initial arguments to be inflammatory and unconvincing. And I'm nonwhite and queer. I probably spent way more brainpower trying to carefully read her article in good faith than it deserved when it seems to be low-effort clickbait to peddle her books / brand. Now I just feel gross.
We have the solutions already. All of this is so trivially solvable. The only solution left is how do we destroy newscorp which is holding us back from deploying them. Thats a problem we don't...
Everyone should be looking for hope and solutions
We have the solutions already. All of this is so trivially solvable. The only solution left is how do we destroy newscorp which is holding us back from deploying them. Thats a problem we don't have answers for.
I tried reading this with an open mind but honestly, I'm out. I can no longer connect with writers trying to spin literally everything into a racist conspiracy. The entire article dances around...
I tried reading this with an open mind but honestly, I'm out. I can no longer connect with writers trying to spin literally everything into a racist conspiracy. The entire article dances around the words "concern" and "anxiety". I threw them into an online thesaurus out of curiosity and "concern" is the 3rd suggestion for replacing the word "anxiety". It's the same fucking thing. You do not have to feel guilty for being afraid of climate change.
The suggestion that people being concerned about the environment being rooted in "racial anxiety" is honestly ridiculous. People sit and watch the news every day and see everything is doomed with...
The suggestion that people being concerned about the environment being rooted in "racial anxiety" is honestly ridiculous. People sit and watch the news every day and see everything is doomed with no clear path to replace the powers that hold us back. That's why people feel anxiety.
The problems we face are clear. The governments and news companies of the world are suppressing new technology which can save us because they have ties with legacy industry which would rather engage in protectionism than innovate.
Worrying about issues that will affect you decades from now is a privilege. People of color are getting fucked over right now.
Thank you.
I normally would RTFA before commenting but I have to say that from here this looks like a really shitty premise for an article, it doesn't inspire me in the least to read further, and it makes me wonder wtf SciAm was thinking:
Yeah the conclusion of the article seems to vaguely be "don't stop caring about the climate but do it with more racial awareness" or something.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems to me that the people who care about the climate are the same people who care about racial injustice already.
90% sure the premise was just made for clicks. But what isn't anymore?
I agree with the conclusion to an extent, but I'm also militantly anti-racist. It's about intersectionality, and solidarity building. I wouldn't necessarily assume that there's complete overlap between environmentalists and anti-racists.
But yeah this looks mostly like clickbait at best. There's so much BS being circulated about the climate crisis right now -- I don't know if I'm just paying more attention or if it's been ramped up since Biden took office and people can again look to Washington for some sort of real leadership on the issue.
I read about half before I turned around.
I read the article and really don't know how I feel about it, but this line really struck me:
I believe this is exactly what is going to happen. As the people in power do mostly nothing to stop an ecological catastrophe they will have no choice but to act that way in order to hold onto what is left.
I think the author has a few good points, but the article comes across as rambling. I’m also not a fan of her promoting her books constantly.
As an aside, why does it seem like a disproportionate number of racial justice writers are (likely) upper/upper-middle class white women? Maybe it’s just my confirmation bias, I don’t know.
I also find the article rambling, but I came away with a much more critical take. I found her writing to be imprecise. It's unclear what her call to action is exactly. Her asking that "people with privilege" ask themselves self-identity questions like "'Who am I?' and 'How am I connected to all of this?'" instead of practical questions like "'What can I do to stop feeling so anxious?', 'What can I do to save the planet?', and 'What hope is there?'" is unhelpful. Those practical questions are precisely what people should be asking themselves. Everyone should be looking for hope and solutions.
The author drops in a lot of, ahem, buzz terms like "climate justice" and racism-manifested "environmental trauma" (and "vice versa": environmental-trauma-manifested racism) without explaining them. What do these even mean?
She uses the fact that early environmentalists were anti-immigrant eugenicists and the 2019 El Paso shooting by an ecofascist to insinuate that contemporary white ecoanxiety is just one step away from xenophobia and fascism. Maybe it is, but I think it's illogical to suggest that contemporary and early environmentalists might share motivations by virtue of their race and that an entire demographic is colored by one very fringe ecofascist incident. Belief in climate change in the US is strongest among Democrats, who are broadly pro-immigrant.
The writer's claim that Black and brown people have always experienced "the prospect of an unlivable future" and that white and privileged people "are now waking up to the prospect of their own unlivable future" seems strangely forgetful that for much of the late 20th century there was much existential dread over nuclear annihilation and many people in Europe and North America and elsewhere fiercely protested against nuclear proliferation.
The writer's focus on race and climate anxiety in America is very narrow for an issue that is by its nature global. Frankly, minorities in America are not on the chopping block of climate change: America is relatively insulated from the near-term effects of climate change. Right now, the danger of climate change imminent in Asia and the Pacific Islands, where climate change threatens crop production on the limited arable land that feed massive populations of billions and rising sea levels threaten Pacific nations are largely coastal.
Maybe her thesis (or theses) is (or are) valid, but I found her initial arguments to be inflammatory and unconvincing. And I'm nonwhite and queer. I probably spent way more brainpower trying to carefully read her article in good faith than it deserved when it seems to be low-effort clickbait to peddle her books / brand. Now I just feel gross.
We have the solutions already. All of this is so trivially solvable. The only solution left is how do we destroy newscorp which is holding us back from deploying them. Thats a problem we don't have answers for.
I tried reading this with an open mind but honestly, I'm out. I can no longer connect with writers trying to spin literally everything into a racist conspiracy. The entire article dances around the words "concern" and "anxiety". I threw them into an online thesaurus out of curiosity and "concern" is the 3rd suggestion for replacing the word "anxiety". It's the same fucking thing. You do not have to feel guilty for being afraid of climate change.
The suggestion that people being concerned about the environment being rooted in "racial anxiety" is honestly ridiculous. People sit and watch the news every day and see everything is doomed with no clear path to replace the powers that hold us back. That's why people feel anxiety.
The problems we face are clear. The governments and news companies of the world are suppressing new technology which can save us because they have ties with legacy industry which would rather engage in protectionism than innovate.