167
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
167 points (86.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43835 readers
705 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That's exactly why there needs to be enough people to vote for the environment focused government party, if any. There's no downside to raising awareness when there are still people out there who are in denial of climate change. I did not know about the fake protest arrests. Imo, no one can be perfect in the way their convey their message. Convincing the mass is a difficult thing to do. People will have various opinions on what's the right way to protest/spread the message. The important thing is that effort is spent, and it's having an impact. Lastly, we don't need to focus on one issue at a time as a society. Different groups of people can be responsible for different tasks.
Yeah as much as I hate to use this term, I think a small committee is better suited to handle a complex topic than the entirety of society.
That’s not to say I think committees are great ways of handling things, but that I think a small committee is better at handling things than a large committee.
IMO the only workable solutions to global problems are going to be ones only a few people understand. And not from lack of access to the information, but from lack of time to educate everyone on every problem.
I think I've beaten this horse enough. So I'll just say that while you and I are certainly both environmentalists, I disagree that people like Greta doing what she has been doing, is very useful since it takes a fatal systematic problem and individualizes it for, imo, dubious reasons.
Maybe even if the individual responses are futile in their direct effect, they can still help build a sense of commitment to the eventual solution.
Say a person gives up eating meat. That itself might not fix the problem, even when summed across all the people who make that choice, but the act of sacrificing something in their life helps to establish their identity as someone willing to put forward effort.
IMO the right solution is centrally-imposed taxes on carbon extraction, subsidies on sequestration, and modulation of those financial incentives to whatever numbers necessary to actively manage atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.
I think that individual solutions are a waste of time and can even be dangerous because they can create a sense of complacency. But I think psychologically, they could possibly be part of the path toward people doing all the hard work to get that system of taxes and subsidies in place.
Kinda like how punching a bag can get you trained up to punch out an opponent. Giving up meat becomes an exercise, rather than the work itself.