[Politics] In Light of Recent Events, How Do You Feel About "Preachy" Environmentalist Media

[Silvanus]

No, but...and allow me to make this as clear as possible, for the partisan-induced reading-impaired among us,

you'll get a lot more traction persuading the people you actually need to persuade, using their language and reasoning on your own terms.

Keyword persuade, because as I quite clearly stated last page, the "Christ, what a prick" factor involved in "debates" such as these when thought-terminating language comes into play. Because what I'm suggesting are the arguments you need to be making to break through echo chamber walls and start convincing people outside your own, if you expect any real sort of policy shift on the subject at all.

Right, and of course, sensible people tend to tailor their arguments to appeal to their audience. This doesn't mean we should abandon the actual core of the issue (the damage to our planet) or endorse amoral drivel like the laissez-faire doctrine.

One small note: I absolutely would tend to agree that we should avoid alienating those with whom we debate, and that these discussions get too polarised and insulting. But... do you not see the contradiction here? You tend to insult and berate those with whom you're debating on this forum. I don't care much, to be clear; I don't take this kind of thing to heart. But your own antagonistic approach to discussions on this forum would seem strongly at odds with the strategic message you're putting forward.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

So, have you been doing it? Have you identified the people who "actually need to be persuaded" and broken into their own echo chambers?

...yeah? My reach any more is local, I'm perfectly happy with that, and where I used to work up until a few months ago was almost exclusively packed with "the MAGA types". I'd go out and talk politics with a lot of my coworkers, many of whom were boomers. And yeah, when you actually talk to these people, give them an inch of respect and treat them with a modicum of decency, you can change their minds on a surprising number of policy issues or at least get them to think about their positions in a way that gets them second-guessing or looking for alternatives.

Most of them in my experience have simply never considered how big a welfare industry fossil fuels really is, and that if government simply ended favoritism towards it, renewables would be the preferable option from both an economic and national security perspective. They've heard the "environment" argument from both sides so long and to the exclusion of any other salient issue, it never occurred to them to think about it any other way.

Local Democrats are a complete blue dog shitshow and it'll be a cold day in Hell before I canvas for any of them, however.

Right, and of course, sensible people tend to tailor their arguments to appeal to their audience...You tend to insult and berate those with whom you're debating on this forum.

Here's the core issue, and the reason for the contradiction in methods you're pointing out.

It's a long time coming, but in the past two and a half years I've lost all patience and respect for "liberalism" in the US. Renewable energy and climate change are pretty much the case example of why, despite the multitude of other issues on which I hold the same lack of esteem for the American "left". I discussed the how and why of that in my very first post here -- cleaving to decades-old, known-losing rhetoric out of raw hubris and partisan zeal, on an issue of almost certainly existential import, absent an iota of self-awareness and dogmatic refusal to engage in a moment's worth of introspection. If the definition of insanity is indeed doing the same thing over and again and expecting different outcomes, no one on this Earth is less sane than the American "left" -- and that's pretty much true irrespective of policy issue up for debate.

In that two and a half years, I've found more willingness to engage, listen, debate, be persuaded, and ultimately tractability, in "the MAGA crowd" than my own tent, so to speak. In my experience, it's easier to convince a "MAGA person" to support renewables based on the economic and national security arguments, than it is to convince an environmentalist to use the economic and national security arguments as outreach. I find that state of affairs to be offensive to my very core, and I'm in a position where I'm no longer willing to hold my tongue against my ideological "allies", because "allied" behavior is fundamentally ignorant, reckless, and self-destructive to the point of burning bridges the left cannot afford to burn.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

What does, is driving the point home the current status quo is anything but laissez-faire capitalism, it's "crony capitalism" wearing a laissez-faire mask, and if anything a good-faith, educated, and honest adherent to the principles of laissez-faire capitalism should be advocated for a prohibition of the very government action that empowers the fossil fuels industry.

Better yet: prohibit capitalists to pay/have cronies in the government. Without capitalists feeding them, cronies starve to death.

To really accomplish this, it is simplest and best to get rid of capitalists entirely. No longer structure the economy in such a way that small groups of owners absorb all the surplus value created by the labor of the mass of people. No longer privatize the wealth created by the social process of production and distribution; no longer accumulate that wealth in the hands of a very small number of individuals who then use it to control society-- not only the politicians, but media, legal, and other institutions.

I think you are trying to describe capitalism but it sounds a lot more like communism in the real world.

If it looks like what I described, it is capitalism.

No you see that's not TRUE capitalism. If it has any problems it isn't true capitalism because under true capitalism everything is perfect and works exactly the way it is supposed to to create the best society for everyone. If a capitalist society ever has anything go badly it's because it has become corrupted or undermined by outside forces or government intervention due to evil people with evil agendas being opposed to TRUE capitalism

I've heard this circular reasoning before. I've also heard it used for Communism as well. It's almost like their utopian ideals that don't have basis in reality. If your economic system can be corrupted, maybe, just maybe, the system has a flaw

Yes that was the point I was trying to make, but I made the mistake of trying to do so flippantly and sarcastically. I shouldn't have done that. The internet has enough of that

 

[Trunkage]

What does, is driving the point home the current status quo is anything but laissez-faire capitalism, it's "crony capitalism" wearing a laissez-faire mask, and if anything a good-faith, educated, and honest adherent to the principles of laissez-faire capitalism should be advocated for a prohibition of the very government action that empowers the fossil fuels industry.

Better yet: prohibit capitalists to pay/have cronies in the government. Without capitalists feeding them, cronies starve to death.

To really accomplish this, it is simplest and best to get rid of capitalists entirely. No longer structure the economy in such a way that small groups of owners absorb all the surplus value created by the labor of the mass of people. No longer privatize the wealth created by the social process of production and distribution; no longer accumulate that wealth in the hands of a very small number of individuals who then use it to control society-- not only the politicians, but media, legal, and other institutions.

I think you are trying to describe capitalism but it sounds a lot more like communism in the real world.

If it looks like what I described, it is capitalism.

No you see that's not TRUE capitalism. If it has any problems it isn't true capitalism because under true capitalism everything is perfect and works exactly the way it is supposed to to create the best society for everyone. If a capitalist society ever has anything go badly it's because it has become corrupted or undermined by outside forces or government intervention due to evil people with evil agendas being opposed to TRUE capitalism

I've heard this circular reasoning before. I've also heard it used for Communism as well. It's almost like their utopian ideals that don't have basis in reality. If your economic system can be corrupted, maybe, just maybe, the system has a flaw

Yes that was the point I was trying to make, but I made the mistake of trying to do so flippantly and sarcastically. I shouldn't have done that. The internet has enough of that

It is a sad day when the internet kills sarcasm unintenionally

 

[Trunkage]

So, have you been doing it? Have you identified the people who "actually need to be persuaded" and broken into their own echo chambers?

...yeah? My reach any more is local, I'm perfectly happy with that, and where I used to work up until a few months ago was almost exclusively packed with "the MAGA types". I'd go out and talk politics with a lot of my coworkers, many of whom were boomers. And yeah, when you actually talk to these people, give them an inch of respect and treat them with a modicum of decency, you can change their minds on a surprising number of policy issues or at least get them to think about their positions in a way that gets them second-guessing or looking for alternatives.

Most of them in my experience have simply never considered how big a welfare industry fossil fuels really is, and that if government simply ended favoritism towards it, renewables would be the preferable option from both an economic and national security perspective. They've heard the "environment" argument from both sides so long and to the exclusion of any other salient issue, it never occurred to them to think about it any other way.

Wow, just wow. So, you general assumption is that young people are too arrogant or lazy to give Boomers a modicum of respect. What evidence are you basing this on?

You also claim that treating people nicely helps change their minds. What evidence do you have (other than anecdotal) that people who treat their opponents poorly, wont just continue to treat them poorly after you being nice? Because, I don't at all think that's a thing. And being nice changes their minds? I remember a show called "Go Back to Where You Came From." You traced a immigrants travels back to the country of origin to gain an understanding of their life and reasons for coming. An episode involved one of the typical anti-immigrant talking heads following an immigrant back to Sudan. They were homeless in places like Indonesia and Pakistan, hoping somehow to move forward to the next country. The talking head also saw how their home, and village, were completely gone, with no prospects, no matter how hard anyone tried. The countryside was devastated by war. I remember the talking head cry, on national TV, in complete disbelief of what they had to go through, and the courage it took to move. You couldn't not get a better understanding, in the most kind and gentle circumstance possible, of a refugee.

Did it make any difference to talking heads beliefs. Nope. He went back to hating on immigrants a week later. Being nice to nasty people don't make them nice. (Completely agreeing with them all the time is sure effective though. Definitely don't have your own opinions). People don't have any interest in change and they sure have a lot of interest in not being wrong. Any form of truths and facts get flown out the window for the sake on being right (in their own head).

I don't believe you when you say, "just be nice and people will change their mind." You know why? You could do it here and win people over. You'd be king of the Forum. But that's not the relationship you have with most people here. Usually, it's tell them how wrong they are. You don't seem to making any headway convincing people. (And I'm a person that agrees with you, that progressiveness need to start talking like a conservative to help them understand political issues.)

Maybe, just maybe, you should "actually talk to us people, give them an inch of respect and treat them with a modicum of decency" for us to listen to you. Maybe, just maybe, these 'Boomers' you're talking to could do the same because they sound like people who just don't listen to young people based on the fact that they are young people. If they aren't like this, you sure are painting them in a very bad light.

 

[Silvanus]

Here's the core issue, and the reason for the contradiction in methods you're pointing out.

It's a long time coming, but in the past two and a half years I've lost all patience and respect for "liberalism" in the US. Renewable energy and climate change are pretty much the case example of why, despite the multitude of other issues on which I hold the same lack of esteem for the American "left". I discussed the how and why of that in my very first post here -- cleaving to decades-old, known-losing rhetoric out of raw hubris and partisan zeal, on an issue of almost certainly existential import, absent an iota of self-awareness and dogmatic refusal to engage in a moment's worth of introspection. If the definition of insanity is indeed doing the same thing over and again and expecting different outcomes, no one on this Earth is less sane than the American "left" -- and that's pretty much true irrespective of policy issue up for debate.

That debasement of discussion is a feature across the political divide: its present in the right and the left.

If we accept that this has specifically turned you off American liberals, though, why is that aggression turned towards people who are nothing to do with American liberalism?

I'm not a liberal, I'm not American. When I'm discussing ecology in the real world, yes, I tailor it to those with whom I'm speaking. And I remember pretty intense hostility from you in the past.

I can fully understand frustration with the uselessness of political allies. As a left-winger I'm used to it and feel it every day. But frankly, I think this is just an excuse for shoddy behaviour.

In that two and a half years, I've found more willingness to engage, listen, debate, be persuaded, and ultimately tractability, in "the MAGA crowd" than my own tent, so to speak. In my experience, it's easier to convince a "MAGA person" to support renewables based on the economic and national security arguments, than it is to convince an environmentalist to use the economic and national security arguments as outreach. I find that state of affairs to be offensive to my very core, and I'm in a position where I'm no longer willing to hold my tongue against my ideological "allies", because "allied" behavior is fundamentally ignorant, reckless, and self-destructive to the point of burning bridges the left cannot afford to burn.

Alright. But do you imagine you'll convince those "allies" to adopt more effective debating tools by insulting and berating them? If we can't afford to burn those bridges, then... don't. Take your own advice.

 

[CaitSeith]

So, have you been doing it? Have you identified the people who "actually need to be persuaded" and broken into their own echo chambers?

...yeah? My reach any more is local, I'm perfectly happy with that, and where I used to work up until a few months ago was almost exclusively packed with "the MAGA types". I'd go out and talk politics with a lot of my coworkers, many of whom were boomers. And yeah, when you actually talk to these people, give them an inch of respect and treat them with a modicum of decency, you can change their minds on a surprising number of policy issues or at least get them to think about their positions in a way that gets them second-guessing or looking for alternatives.

Most of them in my experience have simply never considered how big a welfare industry fossil fuels really is, and that if government simply ended favoritism towards it, renewables would be the preferable option from both an economic and national security perspective. They've heard the "environment" argument from both sides so long and to the exclusion of any other salient issue, it never occurred to them to think about it any other way.

Local Democrats are a complete blue dog shitshow and it'll be a cold day in Hell before I canvas for any of them, however.

Well, the only thing I can say is that in general any step to get people out of the MAGA mentality is a win in my book, and I hope this leads to the changes in the corporate policies that are really needed.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

That debasement of discussion is a feature across the political divide: its present in the right and the left.

When and if I figure I can reach a person, I do what I can. When it comes to people I can't, I'm just going to use them as a springboard to hopefully educate or convince third parties. And, sorry to say, but in my experience most liberals nowadays aren't reachable, and the most I can expect out of one is to treat them the way they treat conservatives to entertain myself. I mean, look at this case example,

So, you general assumption is that young people are too arrogant or lazy to give Boomers a modicum of respect. What evidence are you basing this on?

I threw the boomer comment in there on purpose, I call it "pulling a Hitchens". Look, no rational adult with two brain cells to rub together would seriously deny the impact of the generation gap [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/14/the-generation-gap-is-back-but-not-as-we-know-it] on current political issues, let alone climate change and the environment. Trunkage admitted as much in his own post in his rush to pull a "so you're saying", for shit's sake.

But what you should probably ask yourself is "how did trunkage seamlessly segue to racism and immigration, in a thread about climate change apropos of nothing, upon mention of boomers?". Because I did, but back to the point: the only reason you'd want to latch onto five words out of an entire post, let alone those five words that actually have fuck-all to do with the point, is if you don't actually have an argument and just want to drop hot takes. For all it mattered to trunkage's intent and the content of his post, I could have said I was talking to sentient giraffes.

I mean, you try parsing that for a response or counterpoint to my own. My entire point is hubris has made the contemporary left stupid and pliant to the same corruptive influences that have destroyed the right. Particular to this topic, the left has grown irrationally, destructively, preoccupied with the climate argument, and blind to alternatives that are not just bipartisan, but capable of dividing and conquering the right. By my reckoning, that concession makes the left less interested in enacting policy to actually fight climate change, than they are being right about climate change; hence my comment about letting the planet burn just to say "I told you so".

In short, by my reckoning and in trunkage's own language, the left are the "nasty people". And according to trunkage's own argument, being nice to them doesn't make them nice, and doesn't make any difference in the long run. But at the same time, I'm supposed to be nice for...what reason exactly? At least in this, I'm in complete agreement with trunkage's actual argument rather than the one he clearly intended to make; the only difference is, I see the contemporary left for how nasty it really is, and am capable of conceiving of people on the right not being nasty enough to give them the time of day.

 

[Agema]

...yeah? My reach any more is local, I'm perfectly happy with that, and where I used to work up until a few months ago was almost exclusively packed with "the MAGA types". I'd go out and talk politics with a lot of my coworkers, many of whom were boomers. And yeah, when you actually talk to these people, give them an inch of respect and treat them with a modicum of decency, you can change their minds on a surprising number of policy issues or at least get them to think about their positions in a way that gets them second-guessing or looking for alternatives.

I think whilst you're sitting across the table from them, they'll be receptive and interested.

And then they'll go home and speak to their mates and listen to their talk radio and watch Fox News, and they'll be right back to where they started in a flash. Because I've seen it a thousand times - they can be open, but in the end it's the weight of their wider social circle and the ties of their history that count, not some earnest guy with the facts who argues with them respectfully once or twice. That's what people are like, whether they're MAGA or liberal.

It's a long time coming, but in the past two and a half years I've lost all patience and respect for "liberalism" in the US. Renewable energy and climate change are pretty much the case example of why, despite the multitude of other issues on which I hold the same lack of esteem for the American "left".

You're right. A great deal of the time conservatives and liberals are effectively talking cross-purposes at each other, because they are trying to justify policies in terms of values the other doesn't rate highly.

But sometimes for professionals in a public forum that's because the job is not convincing the other, it's winning over or winning trust from one's own side. You stand up as a politician in a public debate and argue for "liberal" politics in conservative terms, your base might start to wonder which side you're on. And for the masses in evereyday conversation, they tend to argue from their own heart and the arguments that swayed them: they're not thinking of the deep tactics of persuading the other by appealing to their values.

The left and right aren't completely failing to reach each other because they're just too stupid or hidebound.

It's not just a left and right thing anyway in environmental matters. In Europe, some 70%+ of the population (thereby necessarily meaning at least around half of conservatives) thinks climate change is a massive problem that needs to be urgently tackled. And yet it's not really making much more progress than the USA. Because it's a relatively minor thing compared to jobs, and health, and so on, and because what's really propping up slow progress on environmentalism is the vast amount of money thrown at it by heavily polluting industries, who bypass the people and go straight for the politicians.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The sad reality you have to deal with, is this is as every bit as pig-headed, stubborn, and thought-terminating an argument as the "commernisms is all Stalinsisms!" dogshit I have to deal with on the regular.

The thing is, "commernisms is all Stalinsisms!" is an incredibly weak claim.

Spoiler

..which means that when people say "commernisms is all Stalinsisms!" we can generally safely assume they aren't arguing in good faith.

But let's take a statement like "communism is inherently authoritarian", which is much more similar to the claim I made about capitalism. Now, you could say that this is just a stubborn, dogmatic statement appealing to the prejudices of an ideological echo chamber, but that depends entirely on the perceived motivation, not the validity of the statement. Because the statement is valid. It is a valid observation. Sure, it is not immune from critique. It is not impossible to disagree with. Heck, I disagree with it myself, but to say that it is simply unworthy of consideration is where the conversation actually becomes thought terminating.

We live in a world in which the empirical truth is that communism failed to live up to our ideals, and many people who shared those ideals were somehow taken in by it. We can sit here and insulate our ideals from reality, we can claim that what happened in the Soviet Union or China was simply a good idea being exploited by bad people, or we can attempt the much harder task of refining and updating our ideals themselves in response to ideological criticism. The latter is how we progress.

The sad reality, here, is also that laissez-faire capitalists have a point in this regard. Government interventionism and favoritism -- regardless of the "how" or "why" this came to be -- is every bit as capable of creating and sustaining anti-progressive and anti-market forces, such as monopolies, as the lack thereof.

I mean, if you bracket out the how or why, sure. But why would you do that?

How do we get to a situation in which fossil fuel companies can convince government to consistently legislate in their interests? Is it because individual people within government are bad or evil? Is it because government naturally accumulates bad government energy? Or is it merely a reflection of the fact that fossil fuel companies both control and represent a significant share of the economy of the countries whose governments are expected to regulate their conduct.

Empirically, "lassaiz faire capitalism" has always meant the alignment of government interest with those of capital, because capital will inevitably come to represent the greatest impact on the lives of the greatest number of individuals. You cannot create an economic system in which the lives of millions are determined by a handful of people with a capital monopoly, and expect politics not to cater to those people.

I mean, I guess you could, but that's not a state any of us would want to live in. It may be the one we end up with, at this rate, though.

 

[Silvanus]

When and if I figure I can reach a person, I do what I can. When it comes to people I can't, I'm just going to use them as a springboard to hopefully educate or convince third parties. And, sorry to say, but in my experience most liberals nowadays aren't reachable, and the most I can expect out of one is to treat them the way they treat conservatives to entertain myself.

This is an excuse to excoriate others for shoddy, rude behaviour while engaging in exactly that.

Those you're condemning could have come to just the same conclusion; "they'll never be convinced anyway"; "maybe I'll convince third parties"; "it's to entertain myself". Its all self-justification for the same behaviour. It doesn't matter. If you want to take a stance against it, its risible hypocrisy to engage in it.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I think whilst you're sitting across the table from them, they'll be receptive and interested...Because it's a relatively minor thing compared to jobs, and health, and so on, and because what's really propping up slow progress on environmentalism is the vast amount of money thrown at it by heavily polluting industries, who bypass the people and go straight for the politicians.

Well, yeah. Rome wasn't built in a day, it takes building relationships and trust, and being respectfully assertive when you must. As I said, a lot of the cross-talk and tension stems from people getting tunnel vision when it comes to key political issues, and not considering other contexts or alternative framing that would prove just as, if not more, effective when it comes to the art of persuasion. Personally, I blame the contemporary, corporate mass media for it, but that's neither here nor there.

I wonder if you have the full context in regards to Europe, though. That austerity shit's gotta go.

The thing is, "commernisms is all Stalinsisms!" is an incredibly weak claim.

Well, yeah. That's why I said it. Your generalization is of the same quality and strength.

If your metric for long-term viability in a political or economic theory is its susceptibility to corruption, you're going to have a bad day especially if you honestly believe the one of your choice is impervious to corruption. All systems are susceptible to corruption -- though how susceptible is a perfectly valid subject of debate -- and the goal ought not to create an incorruptible system, but rather to build a system transparent and accountable enough to identify and excise corrosive influences and actors.

But why would you do that?

I dunno. Why would one do that? Perhaps the first part of your post doesn't exclusively apply to political or economic systems with which you agree?

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well, yeah. That's why I said it. Your generalization is of the same quality and strength.

Show, don't tell.

If your metric for long-term viability in a political or economic theory is its susceptibility to corruption, you're going to have a bad day especially if you honestly believe the one of your choice is impervious to corruption.

I didn't mention corruption.

The reason i didn't mention corruption is because then we are left with the problem of defining what corruption actually is in this context, and that's extremely difficult. Politicians being overly friendly with particular industries, or supporting the interests of corporations, is not generally considered corruption. Corruption implies that something is wrong, that a political or economic system is deviating or being subverted due to malicious action.

Which brings us back to the point you seem unable or unwilling to accept. The close relationship between government and private capital is not a bug in the functioning of liberal capitalism, it is a feature. It is the entirely appropriate and natural consequence of allowing the market to take its course. Because again, if an industry represents millions jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue, and you represent one job and one household income, then whose interests are going to be represented within the political system? And even if all the politicians are struck by some divine revelation from saint Rand, even if against all sense and reason they decide to place your interests above those of capital, then what happens to the hundreds of thousands of jobs? What happens to those billions of dollars of revenue? Will supporting you and your naive vision of "real" capitalism actually make people better off than supporting those industries upon which so many people, so many livelihoods and so much capital relies?

Corruption implies that this relationship is harmful, but if you bracket out the fact that it is contributing directly to the destruction of the planet we live on, or that it is a profoundly unfair system which enables a few people to earn more money than any human being could possibly spend while millions struggle in desperate poverty, then we are talking about a mutually beneficial relationship for everyone involved. What benefit is there for the market in gambling on infrastructure that doesn't exist, or jobs that don't exist, or products that don't exist? We have infrastructure. We have jobs. We have products, and it is clearly in the national interest to ensure they are protected.

I dunno. Why would one do that? Perhaps the first part of your post doesn't exclusively apply to political or economic systems with which you agree?

The first part of my post was literally me showing that it doesn't.

What are you reading?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Show, don't tell.

Okay.

I didn't mention corruption...we are left with the problem of defining what corruption actually is in this context, and that's extremely difficult.

No, you want to use your definition of corruption. One that argues liberal capitalism is "incorruptible", at least insofar that...

Corruption implies that something is wrong, that a political or economic system is deviating or being subverted due to malicious action...The close relationship between government and private capital is not a bug in the functioning of liberal capitalism, it is a feature. [...] It is the entirely appropriate and natural consequence of allowing the market to take its course...then we are talking about a mutually beneficial relationship for everyone involved.

...laissez-faire capitalism is economic darwinism, and what any reasonable person would define as corruption -- the subversion of formal and informal institutions to serve oligarchic interests through misconduct and fraud -- is actually its ideal state of affairs. Further buttressed by facetious and uncharitable statements, such as...

...some divine revelation from saint Rand...

...Implying cultish, irrational, zeal...

...Will supporting you and your naive vision of "real" capitalism...

...and a straight-up insult. You do understand my commentary about "commernisms is Stalinisms!" is the tendency of unreasonable partisans to build straw men of their opposition's points by representing their beliefs by the basest-possible terms and worst-possible implementations, yes? So, perhaps you may note the irony in this statement,

The first part of my post was literally me showing that it doesn't.

and that you're trying to "argue" my point by...providing case studies in each grievance I've aired with contemporary liberalism in turn. No, you don't get to dictate the terms of this debate through pedantry.

 

[BrawlMan]

snip

Too bad most of the stuff you mentioned is relegated to stuff that is All There in the Manual. Because most of that does not even get mentioned in the film and is left in websites or commentaries. Compared to Princess Mononoke, Avatar is still black n' white. It had a chance for grey areas, but we don't really see that in the final product regardless of what version you are watching. End point being, I hate this movie, and see the job done better.

As for Sonic, it's not a case of SatAm or Sonic CD doing better, but just a personal preference. What Sonic CD did with its environmental messages I found unique for the time and today by certain circumstances. Compared to preachy certain kids shows, anime, or movies got at the time period, Sonic CD did not shove it down people throats like they were idiotic masses. It shows instead of explaining or giving a 5 minute lecture or putdown with its audience, nor some lame "I learned something today..." spiel.

 

[Hades]

Can't stand it, and I say that as a fairly hard line environmentalist who actually wants shit done.

Specifically, what shit do you want done?

We are at the point now where the total collapse of most ecosystems, the displacement of a significant proportion of earth's population and massive global famine is inevitable within the century. At this point, the question is how bad will it be. How many billions (and it is billions) will be displaced or starve, and what form of civilization (if any) will be left at the end.

You've conveniently left out, of course, by far the largest group of people who are opposed to "doing shit" about climate change. People who are ideologically or personally invested in the idea of an economic system with minimal state intervention, who believe (or want to believe) that "the market" will sort everything out. These people are bad, sure, but they are not literal villains who are witholding environmental legislation out of spite (which ironically is the most Captain Planet view of this debate I've seen). They have ideological biases which make them susceptible to bad arguments, as indeed we all do to some degree or another, but ultimately for the most part opposition to tackling climate change is based in an ideological commitment to a laissez faire model of liberal capitalism and suspicion that efforts to tackle climate change are a front for pushing greater intervention in the economy.

I think what you put in brackets is most important. ''What they want to believe''. I think that's the most positive way we can interpret these people against solving global warming, that they employ willing self delusion because they don't like the methods to fix climate change. They cling to the belief the market will save us and everyone else has to pay the price of them stubbornly refusing to consider this is a flawed approach.

Leaving things to the market has always been an extremely flawed approach if you want something more than just making money. At the end of the day the market just doesn't care. If destroying the planet gives the market a few extra pennies they will merrily destroy the planet and take down everyone in their way. The market doesn't care about anything but profit so letting the market save people will never work.

But quite frankly I suspect self delusion is giving them too much credit. They know what they do is wrong. They might not try to destroy the environment out of glee like a captain planet villain but the negative effects of their actions aren't mistakes. Its all a calculated decision to make more money regardless the cost. They know what they are doing. Whether buried deep down or proudly on the surface every attempt to sabotage the fight against climate change stems from the knowledge that its the future generation that will suffer the negative effects. A corrupt CEO can cheerfully sabotage any attempt to stave off global warming because he know he'll be long dead by the time it kicks in and that his kids can just live in shelters while the plebs suffer. Perhaps they employ self delusions about the glory of the free market or perhaps they proudly don't care but deep down they all know what they are doing and they are all fine with it.

 

[Agema]

Leaving things to the market has always been an extremely flawed approach if you want something more than just making money. At the end of the day the market just doesn't care. If destroying the planet gives the market a few extra pennies they will merrily destroy the planet and take down everyone in their way. The market doesn't care about anything but profit so letting the market save people will never work.

The last thing businesses and the market want to do is destroy the planet: their assets and profits go up in smoke as well. What a business wants to do is examine a cost/benefit analysis of doing something about climate change and how much climate change will cost them. However, in the absence of any clear figures on what the costs of climate change will be and a timescale sufficiently long-term that is beyond their reasonable ability to plan for, they simply won't and don't factor it in. Thus the market theoretically cares, but practically is not provided the motivation it needs to act.

The problem therefore is really that of capitalists, not the market itself. Let's face it, just about every major league investor knows they'll be dead when/if the shit really hits the fan. Leaving a world in good condition for their children might provide a motivation, except I suspect a significant number don't have children, or are too sociopathic or narcissistic to care that much about the ones they have, or think leaving their kids enough millions will insulate them from things going to pot if the worst does happen.

And some of it is human nature. Humans can plan for the distant future, obviously (which is a big step up on most animals), but we're honestly not that good at it.

 

[Hawki]

How do I feel about preachy environmental media?

Don't care anymore. The UN climate summit has failed. Just as Paris has, just as Copenhagen has, just as Kyoto has, just as Rio has. It's not that the people in charge don't understand the science. They just don't fucking care.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Leaving things to the market has always been an extremely flawed approach if you want something more than just making money. At the end of the day the market just doesn't care. If destroying the planet gives the market a few extra pennies they will merrily destroy the planet and take down everyone in their way. The market doesn't care about anything but profit so letting the market save people will never work.

The last thing businesses and the market want to do is destroy the planet: their assets and profits go up in smoke as well. What a business wants to do is examine a cost/benefit analysis of doing something about climate change and how much climate change will cost them. However, in the absence of any clear figures on what the costs of climate change will be and a timescale sufficiently long-term that is beyond their reasonable ability to plan for, they simply won't and don't factor it in. Thus the market theoretically cares, but practically is not provided the motivation it needs to act.

Another problem is that destroying the planet is mostly an external cost: sure, your own assets and profits go up in smoke, but so do everyone else's! And perhaps of more relevance, whatever impact you personally have on climate change, even if you're a relatively large corporation, it will most likely not be decisive. So there's a coordination problem if you rely on the market: it is better to let others bear the costs of curbing greenhouse gas emissions than to unilaterally act in a positive manner. This specifically could theoretically be addressed by a carbon tax. But interestingly enough, you keep seeing exceptions for big business carved out such proposals (e.g. Justin Trudeau's carbon tax.) And I think that goes more to the reasons you laid out.

 

[Trunkage]

How do I feel about preachy environmental media?

Don't care anymore. The UN climate summit has failed. Just as Paris has, just as Copenhagen has, just as Kyoto has, just as Rio has. It's not that the people in charge don't understand the science. They just don't fucking care.

Yet, we still voted Morrison in. Despite what we knew he would say