Because the truth has limits on how hopeful and how simple it can be. Whereas the lies of billionaires have no such limitations.
I agree with your point that the messaging isn’t working. But pushing hope without radical reform of our current systems is basically just trying to diffuse the reaction to the facts without actually changing the facts leading to the reaction.
Agreed. But I think we need to focus our attention away from actual solutions to major problems, and onto minor solutions to minor problems, that will give us a footing for actually being able to take steps forward again.
We need to fight the battle right in front of our faces, instead of focusing on our more standard long-term views. Otherwise we’re going to be strategically and tactically outmaneuvered by people that follow fewer rules than we do.
The problem with that being that the “minor solutions” aren’t really solving the problem. We’ve been doing “minor solutions” for many years now, and we have only accelerated in our destruction of the environment.
We need drastic change. Failing some deus-ex-machina-esque invention that quickly and cheaply solves the issue with no sacrifice needed, then we have to be demanding radical change. If that isn’t possible, our other option is to just fail and die.
In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.
In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.
The problem is there may not be survival for all of us at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that’s the one we’ve been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.
Otherwise you’re asking for authority, and putting all your trust in it. That has like, a 5% of working or something, and a 95% of the authority being co-opted by fascists in the near future. It’s a rock and a hard place. Catch 22. We’ve been maneuvered into this situation, very cleverly. By fucking McConnell, mainly, but whatever. That idiot has to live with his party now.
In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.
Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.
We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.
Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the “right choice uwu”.
In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.
I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.
So I’m not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.
I’m hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.
The problem is there may not be survival at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that’s the one we’ve been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.
Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.
I don’t only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.
I said this to someone else, we need to move forward. Prevention is now impossible without using military force to achieve our goals, which we cannot do, being bound by ethics. We cannot get Modi to cut his emissions, he doesn’t particularly like us. And his right-leaning style is very popular in India.
We’re onto limiting worsening, mitigation, and maybe someday reversal? We lost prevention though, time to move on.
Because the truth has limits on how hopeful and how simple it can be. Whereas the lies of billionaires have no such limitations.
I agree with your point that the messaging isn’t working. But pushing hope without radical reform of our current systems is basically just trying to diffuse the reaction to the facts without actually changing the facts leading to the reaction.
Agreed. But I think we need to focus our attention away from actual solutions to major problems, and onto minor solutions to minor problems, that will give us a footing for actually being able to take steps forward again.
We need to fight the battle right in front of our faces, instead of focusing on our more standard long-term views. Otherwise we’re going to be strategically and tactically outmaneuvered by people that follow fewer rules than we do.
It’s a feasibility and priorities consideration.
The problem with that being that the “minor solutions” aren’t really solving the problem. We’ve been doing “minor solutions” for many years now, and we have only accelerated in our destruction of the environment.
We need drastic change. Failing some deus-ex-machina-esque invention that quickly and cheaply solves the issue with no sacrifice needed, then we have to be demanding radical change. If that isn’t possible, our other option is to just fail and die.
In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.
In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.
The problem is there may not be survival for all of us at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that’s the one we’ve been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.
Otherwise you’re asking for authority, and putting all your trust in it. That has like, a 5% of working or something, and a 95% of the authority being co-opted by fascists in the near future. It’s a rock and a hard place. Catch 22. We’ve been maneuvered into this situation, very cleverly. By fucking McConnell, mainly, but whatever. That idiot has to live with his party now.
edit for wording
Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.
We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.
Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the “right choice uwu”.
I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.
So I’m not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.
I’m hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.
Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.
I suppose it depends on what you consider “okayish”. You sound to me like a utopian, which I admire, but cannot personally accept.
At any rate, if you look out at our world and see only disaster, that’s a function of your news feed, not reality. It’s just not that black and white.
I don’t only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.
I said this to someone else, we need to move forward. Prevention is now impossible without using military force to achieve our goals, which we cannot do, being bound by ethics. We cannot get Modi to cut his emissions, he doesn’t particularly like us. And his right-leaning style is very popular in India.
We’re onto limiting worsening, mitigation, and maybe someday reversal? We lost prevention though, time to move on.
You’re responding to a point I didn’t make. Even mitigation requires the drastic action you are arguing is impossible.
But also, no, y’all don’t get to slow-breakup this.
Removed by mod