Well that's pretty cynical. Why not? We've done many things just in my lifetime to voluntarily transform to more sustainable ways of living. It has been difficult to get people on board, but we've...
Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable.
Well that's pretty cynical.
This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living.
Why not? We've done many things just in my lifetime to voluntarily transform to more sustainable ways of living. It has been difficult to get people on board, but we've stopped using leaded gas (which ironically was invented to improve engine efficiency!), we've eliminated the use of chlorofluorocarbons which has helped in bringing the ozone layer back to normal. We've started up alternative energy sources for electricity generation and it's growing every year. We've made numerous advances in improving the efficiency of existing technologies like solar cells. I very much think we will undergo (or more to the point are undergoing) such a transformation.
If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses.
While I agree to a point, I have to point out that nature has done far more damage to the planet than humans. There have been 6 large-scale extinction events, but life on the planet has survived.
The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.
I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with that point. But that doesn't mean there's no hope.
Hey, perhaps I'm reading your comment wrong, but this kind of insinuation that differing opinions are a result of being gaslit or uninformed is really not cool.
Hey, perhaps I'm reading your comment wrong, but this kind of insinuation that differing opinions are a result of being gaslit or uninformed is really not cool.
I agree with Premises Six and Twenty but disagree with Premise Fourteen. I observe that (keyword:)idealized nature has become a product itself to be consumed. The problem (I think) isn't that...
I agree with Premises Six and Twenty but disagree with Premise Fourteen. I observe that (keyword:)idealized nature has become a product itself to be consumed. The problem (I think) isn't that humans hate the natural world and wild animals: the problem (I think) is that we can only interface with the natural world as consumers, whether we're depleting an underground water reservoir for agriculture or eco-touristing and glamping in a rainforest.
I believe that culture drives economics which in turn drives culture in a feedback loop. This loop grows an ever taller stack of cultural-industrial abstractions that becomes increasingly divorced from the natural world and its processes.
I find Derrick's premises interesting. Premise Fifteen—"love does not imply pacifism"—struck me because I'm reading a book that makes a strong argument that most violence is morally motivated (virtuous violence theory).
I think a few premises are missing. I'd add that humans compete for status; and that status is currently underlined by one's essential ability to expend resources. This seems to be a universal biological pattern: animals compete for mates by signaling their fitness — their ability to uselessly expend resources and energy. Similarly, I observe in my highly-educated peers the same animal drives: posting photos and updates about their new homes and home renovations with all the latest accoutrements, Peloton home gyms, jet-hopping between hip global cities, Michelin restaurant meals, and so on.
One person—who shall be unnamed but floats about in one of my queer tech social circles—expressed that working remotely and not commuting helps save the environment. The irony is that he's spent the pandemic jet-setting between tropical destinations, and he directs product at an e-commerce "unicorn" that sells unbranded bargain-priced Chinese-made crap—$4 waist-slimming tights! $12 plastic hamburger phone speaker for your smartphone! $6 LED showerhead for fun colored water! $7 galaxy print panty! All stuff that is destined for some landfill in a few months—and then also algorithmically suggests more crap to users based on their preferences so they can make impulsive 'fun' purchases.
I find right-wing criticism of globally-visible environmentalists like Al Gore and Bill Gates for leading high-consumption lifestyles to be valid. I think that these high-status folks both get their status from consumption model that underlies our hierarchal status model while simultaneously reinforcing said model. I wish that things could be different.
You're making some pretty sweeping assertions there. If poor people can be "brainwashed", why can't rich people be brainwashed? The human capacity for greed and delusion doesn't seem to be...
You're making some pretty sweeping assertions there. If poor people can be "brainwashed", why can't rich people be brainwashed? The human capacity for greed and delusion doesn't seem to be isolated to any particular class?
I generally disagree with this. It really depends on the type of environmental destruction you're looking at. Crude oil pollution, for example, is primarily caused by individuals driving leaky...
The general population is not to blame for the environmental destruction of the Earth.
I generally disagree with this. It really depends on the type of environmental destruction you're looking at.
Crude oil pollution, for example, is primarily caused by individuals driving leaky cars or boats. High-profile oil spills account for a much smaller share of total pollution than most people would expect.
There's enough blame to go around. Keeping some of it on the individual is important to avoid rampant non-point pollution, but I understand the point that this has historically been used to deflect blame from those profiting from environmental degradation. It's just important to not make false generalizations.
So i went to a Bill McKibbon lecture in affluent, supposedly progressive Asheville, NC. Guess how many of us road our bicycle? 8 out of >1000 in attendance. And at least a quarter lived less than...
So i went to a Bill McKibbon lecture in affluent, supposedly progressive Asheville, NC. Guess how many of us road our bicycle? 8 out of >1000 in attendance. And at least a quarter lived less than two miles from the venue, my guess is more than that. And more than 75% probably within 3 miles.
This is <1% of people who paid money to see Bill Freaking McKibbon didn’t drive a personal co2 emitting vehicle to get there.
I had hope before, i do no longer. My kids will probably be ok because i am affluent by global standards. But most of us are toast.
If your concern is an existential threat to humanity then there are plenty to fret about but little you can do individually but the idea that we're years from disaster is not really accurate...
If your concern is an existential threat to humanity then there are plenty to fret about but little you can do individually but the idea that we're years from disaster is not really accurate outside a catastrophic black swan event. Climate change will take generations. There is a good podcast called Hidden Forces that had a recent episode on the topic the I'd recommend.
If you are concerned about the misery humans inflict on the world then consider that it's balanced by the beauty.
But at the end of th day, there is only the one life, the one game in town, so play it. Or not.
Well that's pretty cynical.
Why not? We've done many things just in my lifetime to voluntarily transform to more sustainable ways of living. It has been difficult to get people on board, but we've stopped using leaded gas (which ironically was invented to improve engine efficiency!), we've eliminated the use of chlorofluorocarbons which has helped in bringing the ozone layer back to normal. We've started up alternative energy sources for electricity generation and it's growing every year. We've made numerous advances in improving the efficiency of existing technologies like solar cells. I very much think we will undergo (or more to the point are undergoing) such a transformation.
While I agree to a point, I have to point out that nature has done far more damage to the planet than humans. There have been 6 large-scale extinction events, but life on the planet has survived.
I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with that point. But that doesn't mean there's no hope.
Hey, perhaps I'm reading your comment wrong, but this kind of insinuation that differing opinions are a result of being gaslit or uninformed is really not cool.
I agree with Premises Six and Twenty but disagree with Premise Fourteen. I observe that (keyword:)idealized nature has become a product itself to be consumed. The problem (I think) isn't that humans hate the natural world and wild animals: the problem (I think) is that we can only interface with the natural world as consumers, whether we're depleting an underground water reservoir for agriculture or eco-touristing and glamping in a rainforest.
I believe that culture drives economics which in turn drives culture in a feedback loop. This loop grows an ever taller stack of cultural-industrial abstractions that becomes increasingly divorced from the natural world and its processes.
I find Derrick's premises interesting. Premise Fifteen—"love does not imply pacifism"—struck me because I'm reading a book that makes a strong argument that most violence is morally motivated (virtuous violence theory).
I think a few premises are missing. I'd add that humans compete for status; and that status is currently underlined by one's essential ability to expend resources. This seems to be a universal biological pattern: animals compete for mates by signaling their fitness — their ability to uselessly expend resources and energy. Similarly, I observe in my highly-educated peers the same animal drives: posting photos and updates about their new homes and home renovations with all the latest accoutrements, Peloton home gyms, jet-hopping between hip global cities, Michelin restaurant meals, and so on.
One person—who shall be unnamed but floats about in one of my queer tech social circles—expressed that working remotely and not commuting helps save the environment. The irony is that he's spent the pandemic jet-setting between tropical destinations, and he directs product at an e-commerce "unicorn" that sells unbranded bargain-priced Chinese-made crap—$4 waist-slimming tights! $12 plastic hamburger phone speaker for your smartphone! $6 LED showerhead for fun colored water! $7 galaxy print panty! All stuff that is destined for some landfill in a few months—and then also algorithmically suggests more crap to users based on their preferences so they can make impulsive 'fun' purchases.
I find right-wing criticism of globally-visible environmentalists like Al Gore and Bill Gates for leading high-consumption lifestyles to be valid. I think that these high-status folks both get their status from consumption model that underlies our hierarchal status model while simultaneously reinforcing said model. I wish that things could be different.
You're making some pretty sweeping assertions there. If poor people can be "brainwashed", why can't rich people be brainwashed? The human capacity for greed and delusion doesn't seem to be isolated to any particular class?
I generally disagree with this. It really depends on the type of environmental destruction you're looking at.
Crude oil pollution, for example, is primarily caused by individuals driving leaky cars or boats. High-profile oil spills account for a much smaller share of total pollution than most people would expect.
There's enough blame to go around. Keeping some of it on the individual is important to avoid rampant non-point pollution, but I understand the point that this has historically been used to deflect blame from those profiting from environmental degradation. It's just important to not make false generalizations.
So i went to a Bill McKibbon lecture in affluent, supposedly progressive Asheville, NC. Guess how many of us road our bicycle? 8 out of >1000 in attendance. And at least a quarter lived less than two miles from the venue, my guess is more than that. And more than 75% probably within 3 miles.
This is <1% of people who paid money to see Bill Freaking McKibbon didn’t drive a personal co2 emitting vehicle to get there.
I had hope before, i do no longer. My kids will probably be ok because i am affluent by global standards. But most of us are toast.
Sounds like nihilism with extra steps
We tend to outhtink our messes and I'm sure it'll be no different here, plus it's the only game in town, so why bet against yourself?
If your concern is an existential threat to humanity then there are plenty to fret about but little you can do individually but the idea that we're years from disaster is not really accurate outside a catastrophic black swan event. Climate change will take generations. There is a good podcast called Hidden Forces that had a recent episode on the topic the I'd recommend.
If you are concerned about the misery humans inflict on the world then consider that it's balanced by the beauty.
But at the end of th day, there is only the one life, the one game in town, so play it. Or not.