334
submitted 9 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] darq@kbin.social 27 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] darq@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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

[-] darq@kbin.social 8 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] darq@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] darq@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

slow-breakup

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

I'm not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.

No, mitigation does not require "drastic" action, fortunately. We've significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.

Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here? I don't think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there's not enough of us willing to do so.

[-] darq@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.

Deny it's happening, then claim we can't change anything once it's happened. The moment where we could do something about it is skipped over.

Like you are doing now.

No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.

What world do you live on? Certainly not the one the rest of us do. Our emissions have only been increasing.

Yes we require drastic action. In fact we required drastic action decades ago. Now we require radical action.

Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here?

First and foremost, stop pointing your finger overseas. It is nothing but a distraction, a convenient excuse to not do what needs to be done domestically because "oh but China and India".

Secondly, investment in equipping developing nations with clean energy infrastructure can help.

I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.

Ultimately it is going to have to come down to protest.

I am hoping non-violent methods, such as general strikes and direct action will be enough.

But that does require solidarity, motivation, and mutual aid.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

Get your facts straight first, otherwise it becomes fully apparent you're really just trying to obfuscate the entire issue.

US emissions over time:

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[-] rah@feddit.uk 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

being bound by ethics

Uhhh....

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

That's fair. We try though, just not all of us.

this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
334 points (97.4% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2698 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS