wow even a 16 year old can see that capitalism won't resolve it's own contradictions, nor will it suddenly start cleaning up after itself. Or at any rate, if it does it will likely take the form of our current recycling efforts -- being sent to China to be incinerated, fuelling an efficient market driven system of incinerator design
well i guess that's it then. no problem solving to be done here, let's just continue on with a system that produces mountains of unnecessary waste, and keep our best minds working on the next big Graze Box App But For Dogs
> let's just continue on with a system that produces mountains of unnecessary waste
If you want event more pollution and not even toilet paper available on consistent basis, then socialism is indeed a good alternative.
This is not an emotional exaggeration, but the cold hard reality of my childhood in the USSR. The trendy "post-capitalist" kids have no idea what the alternative looks like and how much worse their lives could be. So much is taken for granted.
For a entrepreneur's forum, HN is pretty averse to the idea you can learn lessons from failure when it comes to political systems (especially if it would come at the cost of your own material wealth and comforts).
If you think the USSR is bad, take lessons from the best case (I'll throw up a mix of the Scando countries with no citation) and let's not be ideologues.
As to government programs, yes there are many, but to finance them, half of your wage is taxed away upon payout and then you have to pay additional 25% of VAT on almost everything you buy. Everyone gets taxed like that, not only "the rich" or Amazon. This gets rarely mentioned when bringing up Scandinavia as an example.
There's no socialism, but capitalism with very high taxation on everyone, even the poor. I'd be very surprised if American climate activists would voluntarily subject themselves to such taxation to finance similar environmental programs like in Scandinavia.
I think the point is to not put one's hopes on the natural tendencies of any system, but to apply "judicious foresight," to borrow the phrase from J.S. Mill's Principles of Political Economy.
" Mechanical inventions... have not yet begun to effect those great changes in human destiny, which it is in their nature and in their futurity to accomplish. Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot..."
looking at the world today, the disintegration of liberal capitalism, the prevalence of the newer Chinese authoritarian model, populist leaders being elected across the globe, I see no tendency towards leaders of judicious foresight coming together to make much happen here.
i can think of no current leader who has judicious foresight about anything other than their own election prospects
I read the context of that whole quote in the past, and iirc judicious foresight did not mean the judicious foresight of leaders in positions of government authority. In the most basic interpretation it can just mean that most people are well-informed. The current system is somewhat hypocritically established upon this idea. If that were the case, PR would not exist at the scale it does.
That doesn't excuse the contradictions. One can't expect a new system to be planned out and solve every problem. Anarchism seems to offer a methodology for moving towards a fairer and just society which removes the contradictions inherent in a system of concentrated power.
Anarchism has its very own sloth of contradictions. If a society without power is established, someone will take power by force and/or guile and establish a new system of power that will not be anarchist in nature. Anarchism as a system is very instable -- read about the fate of the CNT during the spanish civil war for example.
Every system that is complex enough (societies are) will inevitable lead to contradiction. People do not act as in a model of society -- they will always find ways to break out of the model and subvert the ideal. This I think is the main reason left wing ideologies have lead to tyranny: If the citizen does not conform to the ideal of a model state, the state will need a secret-police apparatus to enforce this model.
Anarchism doesn't aim to establish a system without power. The example that a group would seek to rule through force and guile is very much true. In fact that group is already well established and indeed does use a militarised arm to enforce the model. Anarchism seeks to dismantle this, not enable it.
We don't need a completly new system. Just stronger welfare policies (universal health care, higher education etc.) and don't let the very rich avoid the laws we already have in place (monopolies, not paying taxes etc.).
Honestly, if the Illuminati (I'm joking) could set up this world government, I've heard so much about, so that tax havens and outsourcing production to slavery can be actually stopped, that would be great.
Yeah, smartphones will be more expensive, so will flying. We might not get any produce we want right now in the supermarket and our fashion choice will get more limited. That's a small price to pay.
Gotta add something.
Our democratic system is shit. Most people are to stupid to vote for the things they actually want, instead everything is a popularity contest, propaganda and a bunch of lies. Or it's a straight autocracy where only a small handful of people benefit.
For what it's worth, incinerating garbage is widely used in Switzerland/Germany. When done well (which is hard and expensive), it's a good way to generate energy without polluting the environment.
Basically, rather than burn petrol directly, you first turn it into plastic, so you can carry your yoghurt home, before you then use it as fuel.
im talking specifically about waste that was supposed to be recycled. From the UK, the majority of it isn't. It's incinerated in China, or more and more, we send it to them and they send it back.
An emotional address by an inspiring young climate activist, to which the president of the United States of America, a man with considerable power and influence, responds: „She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”
I'm not sure why anybody would be surprised that a post complaining about "sub-80 IQ rightwing|leftwing hot takes" gets downvoted or flagged. Isn't the point of HN that it doesn't host the usual hateful garbage?
> Isn't the point of HN that it doesn't host the usual hateful garbage?
Sure, but HN also shouldn't host the usual political "hot takes" the GGGP pointed out. What's happening here is that unsubstantive comments are given a pass if they meet the "correct opinion" standard.
How is emotional something good? I don't think that deserves to be glorified. There is the stereotype of "a girl is crying, burn the constitution!" - and she's exactly that. It's hard to take this "movement" serious with the blind praise someone like her gets
Reading Twitter today I'm ashamed of how many people are commenting negative things about her and her work. Say what you will about the cause, but how brave do you have to be to be able to stand up and speak your heart to world leaders and to be a focal point of hate from political pundits and not back down? Certainly far more courage than I had at that age, or even have now.
Maybe everyone already knows what you're going to say and they're going to ignore her but look at all the earned media she's getting. Maybe almost everyone in that audience is too jaded to care, but I'd bet that she's having at least some influence in creating a broader movement (or adding fuel to existing climate movements) globally around the issue. Even media circuses can be useful.
It's going to end like the kids from "March For Our Lives" ended: swimming in complete irrelevance. The media are just milking these kids because emotions sell. All of this is boring and useless, and even the beginning of a worrying trend.
she seems to be enjoying the attention (which is odd for an autistic person) , and inevitably she will receive a lot of abuse. It's not very responsible for the media to promote an underage person so much
I'm not going to comment on the autistic piece because I'm not qualified enough to know anything about how a person with autism acts but as far as media responsibility, I agree - but I think it's pretty clear that media (at least from what I see mainly watching US media) has abdicated all sense of responsibility for their programming and is entirely driven by what sells. If this is what sells and gets eyeballs then this is what will be on the air.
Yeah, I've seen lots of comments on how she's a left-wing puppet, or why they didn't get some scientist knowing what they speak about up there instead of a kid.
But
- Why is caring about climate left-wing?
- It's the same people ignoring the scientists, that write this crap, so no, a scientist speaking doesn't solve anthing. Unfortunately. It wouldn't have come to this then.
Very simple, because it will be used to increase taxes, taking an even greater share of people's hard earned money. I Germany especially the left loves the concept of a CO2 tax. I hope this helps you understand.
"It would be best if cold, hard facts were enough" : I think that's the major problem with climate change. We don't observe anything out of the ordinary yet, climate change institutions are trying to warn people based on very complex simulations. You can call simulations cold hard facts, but i think that would be a stretch.
The general audience prefer to focus on problems we're having right at the moment.
What the link mentions is that we're observing CO2 concentration going from 2% to 3% of the atmosphere in over a few centuries, and that it's due to humans. This, on its own (that is, without the simulated consequences) isn't something that's likely to alarm the general public and make it dramatically change its lifestyle.
Simulations and modelling is used to try and extrapolate trends to be predictive. And that is important, especially give the problems we are having right now. If people don't believe there are problems relating to climate change it is only because they aren't focusing on the right problem.
And why do we have this modelling? Because we are trying to understand where we are heading based on historical data trends [0]. It is a wonderfully hand-drawn infographic sourcing those cold hard facts [1].
It isn't. Why is it percieved as left-wing? Because President Reagan and business lobbyists pushed hard to associate climate science with a "big government, pro-regulation, anti-business" (in other words, "left-wing" according to their propaganda) agenda[0].
Also likely IMO because of associations between environmentalism, feminism and the left-wing hippie movement of the 1960s.
She is effectively preaching, there is no moral connotation in this statement, but her intention is clearly to rile up the masses and energize the so far slumbering climate activism.
Personally I like different a rhetoric rather than fatalism, but it is undeniable that she is successful and that this is probably going to be a net positive.
Regarding why some people react negatively to her I also understand that.
The "left" with their anti-nuclear positions in the 1970s have set back the environmental movement considerably. If you want to talk about the general human toll on human welfare, you might add DDT banning as well.
To your point about being a puppet, if I were a 16 year old kid in front of the UN, I would be overwhelmed by the august honor of such a moment. I would not have it in me to speak so sharply and imperiously to these leaders regardless of the issue. It sounds coached, sorry to say.
While the average 16-year old may not be able to do this, it's unlikely no 16-year old would be capable, willing, and have a chance to do this. We can't use generalizations to dismiss individuals.
Honestly, I can imagine only a 16 year old would have the confidence to be able to speak so sharply to people with significant political power. Teenagers are the most bullheaded people there are! They know everything!
Seriously though, I think it’s well established that teenagers are in the unique positions where they aren’t beholden to many of the adult pressures of the world, but also are old enough to have significant and strong opinions about things around them. It makes perfect sense for me that a particularly ornery teenager would go to such lengths for their given cause!
As a counterpoint, I am well aware of the reality of the climate emergency but I still believe Greta is being abused for PR reasons.
I agree an impassioned plea can be just as helpful as an expert opinion. But is she mature enough at that age to understand the consequences of the celebrity status that is being put on her through this?
Exactly, I even thought of taking a break off Twitter for a few months. It's getting more and more toxic, just like our environment. How can people express such hate, for a 16 old stating what should be obvious?
I stopped going habitually a few months back and it's been good. I still check every now and then and it seems to be getting something like 10% worse every month - not enough to notice if you check it every day but if only every couple of weeks the downward trajectory of the discourse and the overall sentiment is really noticeable.
I'm not on Twitter but I know exactly what you mean. These days I check hackernews and a forum for a hobby I'm into and that's it. I'll read google news in the morning but I don't go too far (I stay away from opinion pieces).
it's just too toxic and I don't need that in my head.
In my experience even HN has had bad faith and low-substance discussion about certain topics like the recent Stallman ousting and tech employees claiming discrimination. They tend to be filled with people who make claims without understanding the context of events, then deny any provided context as illegitimate and continue on repeating their position.
I highly recommend going in your profile settings and allow dead/flagged posts. This post has already been flagged and there are a bunch of interesting comments that are below the threshold of what you'd normally see.
To each their own. I don't have much to follow, so I go to explore tab to see what Twitter suggest (pretty like this feature). I've noticed two opposing categories now, occasionally picking up same issue.
Group 1: Stock traders - example opinion "Greta is groomed by some sick fuck, no child should act like that".
Group 2: Software developers - mostly never about software; example opinion - a bit like OP.
So the toxicity I'm trying to avoid - anything about US politics, US news, guns, environment(when there's no tech discussed) gender or race.
I find twitter really great. Not for discussing politics though, this is better left to echo chambers like reddit . But the universe of information and opinion there is really unparalleled. You just have to unfollow people who tend to retweet their political opinions even though they are are unrelated to their main feed; that's just rude behaviour.
I guess I'm just not sure what her work is that isn't already being done by others.
There are mobs of great people, scientists, activists etc... speaking truth to power about global climate change worldwide and have been doing so for decades.
I'm just not clear about what is remarkable about what she's doing aside from her being a teenager.
As a relevant counter example, Boyan Slat invented a plastic cleanup device at 16 and has made good progress getting it used in practice. [1] That seems like something that is novel and beneficial.
I see her the same way I see parents who brings kids to various protests. I can see wanting to have your kids involved, but do they understand what you're standing for, or are you using them for your point?
Obviously she's older/a teenager, but this is still at it's core, an emotional draw. Has she authored papers and done the models? She's a spokeswoman. Even if the intent is different, it's still similar in means and effect to the Nayirah testimony.
How exactly is she succeeding?
Macron gave up on petrol tax increases after months of riots by yellow vests; I bet he'll keep responding to them and not to Greta.
I don't understand why you're downvoted. Everybody keeps putting the blame on politicians. But they're not independent, they need to listen to the people. Many people really don't care about something they don't believe is related to them in any way. They do care, however, about their money, expenses, jobs. These are the people that need to be educated so that they get more realistic. And the job of politicians is to give them a good alternative.
Germany, meanwhile, just voted to increase the size of the Green party in the EU parliament. And even the CDU is caucusing with the Greens now. Macron's yellow vest capitulation was what, 4 months ago?
Germany is an interesting case to say the least.
After decades of campaigning by the Greens, and right in the middle of this global warming crisis, they closed nuclear power plants and started up coal plants again... But, fortunately, the coal plants were only temporary; Germany is now building a big pipeline to get natural gas from Russia.
As for France, there is not much more to do; the country's energy mix is largely nuclear + hydro and the industry has long left the country anyway. Macron could try to promote insect burgers, as they are trying in other countries, by in that case he'll get protests even bigger than the yellow vests :)
> Making politicians uncomfortable about their careers.
While this could be true on some deeper level I don't think that this specific event is a good one to base such an assessment on.
Being invited to talk to the UN is a great honor from the political establishment and her speech got interrupted by applause several times. I only watched the speech itself, but I have difficulties to see evidence that people there were uncomfortable.
edit: This appears to be very controversial? Would someone care to elaborate?
Greta's innovation is bringing two important points into the discussion:
1. Why we talk about climate change being serious threat, yet we are acting as if nothing is going on?
2. What is the point of studying science, if politicians do not listen to science?
That, and her determination to strike (based on the two above points).
You can argue that neither argument is particularly difficult or complicated. They are rather obvious in hindsight. Well, there is a name for things like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus
>2. What is the point of studying science, if politicians do not listen to science?
That's not really what's happening.
From day one, in the eighties, the ones who have been vocal about this have been politicians. Al Gore, the IPCC, etc. I mean, most people can't name a single scientist advocating this issue. In France, just like in the US, the number one advocate on this issue is a TV show host. And in fact, the most well-known French scientist (turned politician) who talked about global warming (Claude Allegre) is what people would call a skeptic or denier...
What's happening today is that:
1. in western democracies, people predominantly vote to ignore it
2. in developing countries, leaders also choose to ignore it
Greta is protesting against point 1. That's not going to achieve much more. At this point, people have made their mind about the issue and I don't think the balance is going to be tipped significantly. I don't even understand what she's trying to achieve. She can shout at politicians as much as she wants, ultimately the power is held by the people of those democracies.
By "politicians" she means people in power, and by "listening" she means taking actions (or at least refraining from doing the opposite). That's what your examples lack.
> in western democracies, people predominantly vote to ignore it
She's a puppet mouthpiece for the climate catastrophist crowd. This is no different than wailing "think of the children!" So, yes, I have only negative things to say about her.
You seem confused. The mindless paternal fawning you're currently engaging in is supposed to be directed toward your own offspring, not someone else's.
I find using kids for political reasons to be problematic.
I find using emotions instead of facts to sway the political discourse to be problematic.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned or even angry at this. Maybe not good enough reasons to create an account on Twitter and scream into the void, though.
Agreed. The line ought to be drawn at personal attacks against her. She's 16, a child, personally attacking her is disgusting behavior.
By that same token, I also don't care what a 16 y.o. has to say about the state of the world. I just turned 25 a few months ago. Over the past 9 years, since I was 16, I've watched my cognitive abilities continually expand and now have a good feeling for just how ignorant I was when I was 16. I have no idea why this girl was let on stage to begin with and even less of an idea why it's news.
Almost as disgusting as the personal attacks are the people whose decision it was to prop up a child on the global stage, for all the world to attack and criticize her, all to advance their political agenda. Gross.
This girl had no choice in her life of forced luxury travel, celebrity meetups, and endless media adoration. She takes on all these burdens instead of going to school. Her life is a nightmare scenario for any teenager. We need to respect that and listen. And how dare you criticize a 16 year old, that's not allowed!
Ugh, you're right, compassion gets the better of me yet again. To be honest, her brave stance has really made me feel so lucky for the way I was able to live my 16th year. Hard manual labor for low pay during the summers, social anxiety about my social status and the mind-numbing tedium of school were the absolute best. I can't imagine where she finds the strength to give all of that up.
Somewhat, yeah. You're overwhelmingly a product of your parents opinions and you're largely doing what they tell you to do or allow you to do. Because of this, it just comes across as shallow. Greta complained about how she should be at school and was blaming the politicians. In reality it's her parents' fault she's not in school.
Sorry mate but that point about complaints is completely wrong.
A demonstration, whatever the type, is exactly that by definition. People interrupting their jobs because officials are not doing theirs well enough.
At her age, and probably even more now, I'd be scared about how the media, politicians, neighbours, peers, and social media would treat me after such a speech.
At her age (okay one year younger) I was busy overthrowing a communist government. One month at the barricades, in the dead of the winter against battons. Didn't consider myself brave at all.
We had teen driven revolutions and riots agains governments in the last decade. The least proteser at Gezi park was braver than her. Ditto for arab spring, Venezuela and now against Putin.
When you talk about being brave, what are the consequences that the person is facing, except being famous and being praised by the media? Would that person be expelled from school or put into a jail?
People on the far right have attempted assassinations of political enemies lately. A high profile advocate of a cause perceived to be on the left places themselves in real physical danger these days.
It's unclear what connection you're making between the expenses of travel and booking speeches and being a "shill". What is the difference between this case of public speaking and others?
Not the parent, but this really doesn't sound right at all.
If you ever participated in a town hall meeting you'll see that half of it is very bureaucratic formalities and slow convergence on a very technical level. At least here in Germany.
There is no pragmatism nor politics without emotion. Emotion is why we care to do anything at all in the first place, and is a fundamental part of being human and identifying what's important to us. Irrational emotion, on the other hand, is perhaps what you're implying she is expressing, in which case I disagree. I find her emotions exactly prudent and commensurate.
If China can ever be persuaded to stop building new coal fired power plants, then there would be reason to be hopeful. If the rest of the world was willing to sanction them like crazy over it, China would likely cave and focus their efforts on solar. Despite the current state of affairs, Scott Adams is an optimist about the future...
China has not been persuaded yet because they have not yet met Greta!
It would make sense to send her lecture the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, like she just did with so much success in front of the United Nations. I'm sure Xi Jinping would love to meet her one on one and hear her wisdom.
They should focus their efforts on Nuclear. That's the only viable option for green energy production that can power their massive industry and 1.3 billion population.
It is up to developed nations to set an example. If they cannot do it, nobody else will.
And Chinas government does indeed take clime protection serious. They tend to understate their measures because of cultural reason, but their results can stand on itself and they don't really need to hide behind anybody.
Of course they still have a lot of problems due to their developmental level and we should be careful to not let the government use climate change as a justification to suppress the population, who hasn't developed a widespread consciousness for environmental protections, if we can even claim our societies did.
Disallowing China to build coal plants doesn't solve anything.
Let's sanction developing countries for doing what the west has done before?
How about having the developing countries pay for the damage done to the enviorment and using that money to help developing countries with building cleaner power plants instead?
It requires the world to stop buying the cheaper options offered by countries that provide you with goods because they have lower (or no) regulatory bar for pollution, environment, human rights, equality, welfare. It is a real side effect of globalisation and total economic wealth being such an over-valued metric of prosperity.
This article is mostly nonsense, but the paragraphs that really stood out to me as particularly stupid were these:
Throughout all modern history, when we humans see a problem coming from far away,
we have a 100% success rate in solving it. Climate change is no different.
All the right people are working hard at a wide variety of solutions and already know how
to get there, meaning more nuclear power plus CO2 scrubbers, plus lots of green power from solar, wind, and more.
If you are worried about rising sea levels, don’t be. The smartest and richest people in the
world are still buying property on the beach. They don’t see the problem.
And if sea levels do rise, it will happen slowly enough for people to adjust.
I disagree so absolutely with both of these statements that I could not consider that someone would argue them in good faith.
The attitude that Adams has is exactly how I felt in 1996, when I was Thunberg’s age. I felt that technological solutions will emerge, the world is in good hands, responsible adults will take appropriate actions.
I was wrong. Fast forward 23 years and nothing has been done, emissions have continued to exponentially increase, every warning has been ignored. It’s now clear that for things to actually turn around the way I thought they would back in 96 would have required massive civil disobedience bordering on revolution, and the aggressive application of military force worldwide to pressure other countries into emissions cuts while pumping huge amounts of resources into supplying the world with carbon free power (at the time, nuclear).
Which is pretty much what has to happen now except the timeline is insanely, unfairly shorter.
It doesn't matter if your opinion is right or wrong. You shouldn't use children as human shields for political agendas. The Hitler youth vibes coming from this are deeply unsettling. She looks exactly like the old propaganda photos.
Well she herself was right in one thing: She should still be in school and not radicalized by climate change activists and they should know better not to use children like this.
While yes, climate change is a serious matter, in this addressing to an institution like the UN, it is no use in having an alarmist rhetoric in-front of them and then shaming everyone altogether due to the appealing to authority of her age, emotions and questionable 'facts'.
This doesn't change the opinions of others but promotes fearmongering and by even saying '...change will come whether you like it or not...' sounds pretty much like an eco-facist attitude to me.
Her speech didn't seem genuine to me at all. It looked rehearse and the content was banal. We need to work on climate change and we need to be more mindful about the environment. But this is like someone said down below, "emotional politics".
Her point was that politicians should listen to the science/scientists, not her. She represents the future generations and the 4 million+ recent climate strike protests.
The sooner everyone starts doing all of them, the sooner we'll reach sustainability. There will be problems along the way. It's also the fastest, most efficient way to motivate governments, corporations, churches, and other institutions to act.
We have to get into our heads and hearts: "Everyone do everything."
HN has a nebulous "anything interesting to the hacker mindset," loose moderation, and a lot of activist types who will reflexively upvote their talking points.
In recent weeks, I’ve had a vague feeling that climate activism may be jumping the shark with the elevation of Thunberg and her brand of rhetoric. Or perhaps what’s happening is that battle lines are being hardened, in a way that seems almost guaranteed not to help anything. When I listen to Thunberg, it just deepens my sense of dread about the political, social, and other structural barriers to confronting anthropogenic climate change. And while I agree with her (and experts generally) that we’re not going to engineer our way out of the problem without sacrifice, the fact is that the few, heavily qualified glimmers of hope that I see, tend to have more to do with technology and energy economics than with policy. What a mess. I hope this won’t be read as criticism of Thunberg herself.
> the few, heavily qualified glimmers of hope that I see, tend to have more to do with technology and energy economics than with policy
That's because the only glimmers of hope we currently have are pure wishful thinking. Pointing toward accelerated technological change is pointing towards the non-existing, and of course that can be hopeful, but it's not guaranteed to change anything. The only real change is not hopeful, because we know it won't happen, but it's what would work: drastic reduction in carbon footprint worldwide through policy.
So we cling on to what might happen, and might work: the magic device, the magic technology, the iPhone of the climate apocalypse, the thing that will solve our issue. We don't need a thing, we need less things, less carbon in the atmosphere and the unavoidable slowdown of the fossil fueled economy it brings with it.
It is not exactly jumping the shark as the global climate strike protests were planned between 20-27 September with her leading it. With millions of people turning out, the media will put it in the news too, so you'll hear more of it.
Yes, the visibility of these events in Berlin has been considerable, the support seemingly unanimous. What does it mean, other than growing disconnect? I guess we’ll see, and I really hope I’m wrong.
It feels fitting to me to see a young person who'll still be around in the year 2100 (along with their children) berating politicians who are making all the decisions yet won't be around to live in the consequences of their choices if the world heats up 5C or more.
I don't understand the mindset of older people who either deny climate change or do nothing about it - do they not care about the world their children are going to live in?
I get that rich people will be shielded from the worst of climate change but at some point don't you get rich enough that other things become more important? Or at that stage does it become all about competing with peers to accumulate power?
You're right! The biggest harm to the rain forests are these developing countries clearing them out for farmland. Ban the consumption of food and ban these developing countries trying to make exports so they can be inclusive in the world market! End the status quo of inclusivity! Raise the banners of exclusivity!
See what I did there? Pretty easy to spin tree hugging to fascism. These climate change talks have been going on for 30 years. Plus, ya ain't the first with that eco-terrorist call to arms. No one brings up why these developing countries do these "horrendous acts against the planet". Because it flies in the face of all the other virtue signalling rhetoric. Figure out a way for developing countries to be apart of the world economy in an environmentally friendly and economical way, you'll be a god damn hero for centuries to come. You'd also get tons of money from the UN, the EU and hell, even Harrison Ford will give you a check from Conservation International like he did yesterday to the amazon fund. Or you can just virtue signal on the internet that you think "da worl' ith bad".
I couldn't find any virtue signaling or calls for terrorism in the parent post. It seems like it may be a potentially valid option, in the end. The post's worst failing is simple vagueness.
Reading the comments here kind of makes me wonder why no negative feedback is allowed? I mean this fits exactly into the binary world of Greta, but I would have expected so much more from this website filled with smart people.
First and foremost, you have to give the kid a lot of respect. Few people ever hit the world stage as adults. She did it as a teen.
But, I've had an interest in geopolitics for about 2 years now. So, I've been reading and watching what's been going on at the UN a bit. Especially this week since it's general assembly week. At the end, this is nothing special.
If you've listened to one "we need to save the planet due to climate" speech, you have heard them all. After listening to about five hours worth of different people, including thunberg, no one really stood out. Yesterday, she was not the only one talking about climate change at the UN. Macron, Merkel, hell even Harrison Ford was there. But he at least hit the problem on the nose, "Sting held a concert here about climate change 30 years ago. And we're still talking about it today." Plus, he needs to number his note cards. He shuffled them and lost his place too many times.
It's not like I'm against making fossil fuels a footnote in history. That'll be a good thing on so many levels. But all these "climate talks" are just talk.
We're all fired up the past few weeks due to the Amazon burning. Which is terrible. But all these talks act like the end game to those fires is to twirl a mustache. It's to clear land so Brazil becomes more of a world player. Which! Mind you! Was a huge part of yesterday's talks. Peru, for example, had some of their indigenous groups in talking about inclusion into the world market.
You have two "positive" ideals that are currently in conflict and no one is figuring out how to rectify that. How do developing countries still compete in the highly competitive world market without using cheaper fossil fuel options? How do they do it if they can't use their sovereign land due to international rhetoric? I'm not saying this as being apologetic for coal or Amazon burning. I'm just saying these "save the trees" talks are a waste of time. Figuring out how to redirect the causes into cleaner alternatives or more environmentally friendly methods is the real goal. Not crying about "my future". Which, to be honest, was the most cringe first world cry fit ever. For someone who got on the UN stage, she should probably take a gander at some UN programs where they try helping children with barely an immediate future before she cries about her distant future. That's why when people say she's "brave"... eh... the UN has a ton of youth programs that introduce teens to the UN functions. Not like she's the only kid giving a talk they've ever dealt with... this week alone.
I'm just sick of the rhetoric and people thinking that the virtue signalling is enough to save the planet. What about all the CO2 generated due to travel and resource use to mobilize all these folks from across the world due to the talks?
Like, here's a quick example, as I have the UN live stream playing. Palm Oil, I think most of you know, is shitty for the environment in different parts of the supply chain. The EU wants to ban palm oil. Knee jerk morally righteous action. Malaysia exports a lot of it. Small to mid size country wanting to be relevant in a world economy. They cut down lots of forests to grow and process palm oil. Well, let's say the same farmers now switch over to a different cash crop. There's no cash crop they can grow to make the same amount of money in the same amount of farm land. Soybeans, for example, requires about 4-5 times more land compared to palm oil to make the same amount of revenue. Thus, more forest cutting for farm land to sustain the people.
Ban palm oil to save the forests... but leads to more forests being cut because smaller countries want to have an export to be apart of the world market. This is why I hate politicians and "talks". I'm worried that some short sighted policy is going to spring up due to this girl. And that short sighted policy is...
I completely agree. Time has proven that the international market is a powerful force, both in positive and negative. As far as I can see focusing on nurturing the positive effect of the already existing market is the way forward.
I have a vague sense that climate change deniers/skeptics or those that simply get angry at climate change activism have either consciously or unconsciously grokked one of the fundamentals of the problem - action on climate change is at odds with modern capitalism.
We (the current population and effectively the richest 10%) have to be willing to give up our personal riches and 'freedom' comforts for the sake of others. Others who are now facing the effects of a changing climate and others who will be facing it in the future.
It is best described by this comic [0] tomtoro.com/cartoons/#jp-carousel-135
I mostly agree with you. My personal issue with it is the "talks". I want to see actionable planning, not people crying. To me, Ethiopia is currently a hero in trying to combat global warming by at least doing something. We can argue the grand effectiveness. But trying to plant as many damn trees as possible is more productive than "you stole my future".
I don't believe environmentalism and capitalism have to be at odds. I think the "at odds" is artificial, from both sides. As a bit of trivia, when kerosene use to be processed, gasoline was a waste by product. Thus, dumped straight into the water supply. While anything oil is essentially the devil, and not exactly the best example, but is a form iteration. At least it wasn't dumped into the water supply anymore after a profitable use was found. My grand point, take that same economic drive and have that person try doing the same with an environmental twist. Oh, better one. Sorry, I'm thinking on the fly. What if Dick Chaney was a tree hugger? And I'm serious. Think if a guy like him, with his hardcore tenacity, lack of care of others, woke up one day and went "I'm going to save the rainforest because the forests need saving. Fuck people." Because I know the guy would still make money doing it... God have mercy on your soul if you're holding a chainsaw.
I find the problem lies between attitude and... well... competence. Not competence is like a general sense. But how the "world functions". First, it's complicated as hell. It's so interconnected, it's crazy. That seems silly and obvious, but the more you try to understand it, it's a situation where you learn how little you actually know. Like, why does the USA gov not like coffee prices going down? Because Columbian farmers don't make as much from growing coffee. They now have more reason to grow coca. Thus, more cocaine. Higher coffee prices keeps coca productions at a certain level. Still high, but if the production goes higher, supply of cocaine goes up, thus prices go down, and it becomes even more accessibly to the world stage and then even more cocaine users. But then you have people complain about the price of a pound of coffee. I'm okay with spending more on coffee ever since I learned of this. And that's just a super simple example. There are better ones. But I hope that makes the point.
On the other point of attitude. I'm well... allergic to people "spreading awareness". Going back to Ethiopia, why is it that a country tries and does break a world wide daily tree planting record in the name of trying to save the planet, got what? An article or two? A teen cries and says "shame on you", we all lose our minds? Seriously, that's where a lot of the anger comes from. One group of people spreads awareness by trying to make one shred of actual difference to actually help the planet. In a long term manner at that. No one cares. But yesterday there was a slew of "young people out to save the world" at the UN, not just greta. They all just say "Shame on you old people." They have no real plan. No real course of action. They don't even know the history or system that led us to this. But they have plenty of "shame on you".
In truth, they are right. Shame on us. We listen to the talkers, the virtue signalers and the politicians who led us to the hell hole. We ignore those planting trees, picking up garbage and educating developing countries on eco-friendly methods of production.
This feels like child abuse to me. Those who incite and subject children to such trauma should be ashamed. She is absolutely right that she should be in school. It is her peers that study and work hard that will deliver solutions for the problems in the future.
Child abuse is also what I call this. Seeing children in tears over climate change is the result of a lot of propaganda and hysteria, often instilled by parents
I'm privileged. I get to see with my own eyes how a religion is getting formed in the 21 century in otherwise atheist west. We have the original sin (releasing of CO2), doomsday prophecy (destruction of the habitable earth) and now also a savior to lead us on the one true path.
171 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 236 ms ] threadWhile this is basically true, I haven't heard of any other system of organizing a society that has.
If you want event more pollution and not even toilet paper available on consistent basis, then socialism is indeed a good alternative.
This is not an emotional exaggeration, but the cold hard reality of my childhood in the USSR. The trendy "post-capitalist" kids have no idea what the alternative looks like and how much worse their lives could be. So much is taken for granted.
If you think the USSR is bad, take lessons from the best case (I'll throw up a mix of the Scando countries with no citation) and let's not be ideologues.
There's a widespread, but very misguided belief that Northern Europe is a socialist utopia.
Denmark and Norway rank higher than the USA in ease of doing business, Sweden closely behind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index#R...
As to government programs, yes there are many, but to finance them, half of your wage is taxed away upon payout and then you have to pay additional 25% of VAT on almost everything you buy. Everyone gets taxed like that, not only "the rich" or Amazon. This gets rarely mentioned when bringing up Scandinavia as an example.
There's no socialism, but capitalism with very high taxation on everyone, even the poor. I'd be very surprised if American climate activists would voluntarily subject themselves to such taxation to finance similar environmental programs like in Scandinavia.
" Mechanical inventions... have not yet begun to effect those great changes in human destiny, which it is in their nature and in their futurity to accomplish. Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot..."
i can think of no current leader who has judicious foresight about anything other than their own election prospects
Every system that is complex enough (societies are) will inevitable lead to contradiction. People do not act as in a model of society -- they will always find ways to break out of the model and subvert the ideal. This I think is the main reason left wing ideologies have lead to tyranny: If the citizen does not conform to the ideal of a model state, the state will need a secret-police apparatus to enforce this model.
Honestly, if the Illuminati (I'm joking) could set up this world government, I've heard so much about, so that tax havens and outsourcing production to slavery can be actually stopped, that would be great.
Yeah, smartphones will be more expensive, so will flying. We might not get any produce we want right now in the supermarket and our fashion choice will get more limited. That's a small price to pay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
Please, thank you.
Basically, rather than burn petrol directly, you first turn it into plastic, so you can carry your yoghurt home, before you then use it as fuel.
What's not to like?? :-)
The world is looking rather bleak today.
Sure, but HN also shouldn't host the usual political "hot takes" the GGGP pointed out. What's happening here is that unsubstantive comments are given a pass if they meet the "correct opinion" standard.
Neither type of comment should fly.
This is just the media circus of the month. Well, it's even worse because it's a repeat of the two kids from "March For Our Lives". Boring.
But
- Why is caring about climate left-wing?
- It's the same people ignoring the scientists, that write this crap, so no, a scientist speaking doesn't solve anthing. Unfortunately. It wouldn't have come to this then.
Very simple, because it will be used to increase taxes, taking an even greater share of people's hard earned money. I Germany especially the left loves the concept of a CO2 tax. I hope this helps you understand.
The general audience prefer to focus on problems we're having right at the moment.
Pretty sure I read somewhere extreme weather events are occurring more frequently.
And why do we have this modelling? Because we are trying to understand where we are heading based on historical data trends [0]. It is a wonderfully hand-drawn infographic sourcing those cold hard facts [1].
[0] https://xkcd.com/1732/
[1] https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Tempe...
- The left-wing hates prosperity (and freedom).
- Prosperity comes from coal, oil, and cutting down forests to make cattle ranches. Freedom comes from buying weapons with the profits.
- Climate scientists/advocates say we have to scale back the coal, oil and forest bits, or we're flirting with extinction-level risks.
- Ergo, climate scientists/advocates are left-wing.
It isn't. Why is it percieved as left-wing? Because President Reagan and business lobbyists pushed hard to associate climate science with a "big government, pro-regulation, anti-business" (in other words, "left-wing" according to their propaganda) agenda[0].
Also likely IMO because of associations between environmentalism, feminism and the left-wing hippie movement of the 1960s.
[0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...
Meaning she spoke strongly and powerfully and is difficult to argue against so they attack everything else.
Personally I like different a rhetoric rather than fatalism, but it is undeniable that she is successful and that this is probably going to be a net positive.
Regarding why some people react negatively to her I also understand that.
To your point about being a puppet, if I were a 16 year old kid in front of the UN, I would be overwhelmed by the august honor of such a moment. I would not have it in me to speak so sharply and imperiously to these leaders regardless of the issue. It sounds coached, sorry to say.
Seriously though, I think it’s well established that teenagers are in the unique positions where they aren’t beholden to many of the adult pressures of the world, but also are old enough to have significant and strong opinions about things around them. It makes perfect sense for me that a particularly ornery teenager would go to such lengths for their given cause!
But you aren't, you also don't have aspergers syndrome and were never mute.
I agree an impassioned plea can be just as helpful as an expert opinion. But is she mature enough at that age to understand the consequences of the celebrity status that is being put on her through this?
I saw her speak in a fireside chat and spoke with people who have spent time with her.
She's plenty mature.
it's just too toxic and I don't need that in my head.
Group 1: Stock traders - example opinion "Greta is groomed by some sick fuck, no child should act like that".
Group 2: Software developers - mostly never about software; example opinion - a bit like OP.
So the toxicity I'm trying to avoid - anything about US politics, US news, guns, environment(when there's no tech discussed) gender or race.
There are mobs of great people, scientists, activists etc... speaking truth to power about global climate change worldwide and have been doing so for decades.
I'm just not clear about what is remarkable about what she's doing aside from her being a teenager.
As a relevant counter example, Boyan Slat invented a plastic cleanup device at 16 and has made good progress getting it used in practice. [1] That seems like something that is novel and beneficial.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyan_Slat
Obviously she's older/a teenager, but this is still at it's core, an emotional draw. Has she authored papers and done the models? She's a spokeswoman. Even if the intent is different, it's still similar in means and effect to the Nayirah testimony.
Making politicians uncomfortable about their careers. Lots of other people have tried and failed. She's succeeding.
As for France, there is not much more to do; the country's energy mix is largely nuclear + hydro and the industry has long left the country anyway. Macron could try to promote insect burgers, as they are trying in other countries, by in that case he'll get protests even bigger than the yellow vests :)
While this could be true on some deeper level I don't think that this specific event is a good one to base such an assessment on.
Being invited to talk to the UN is a great honor from the political establishment and her speech got interrupted by applause several times. I only watched the speech itself, but I have difficulties to see evidence that people there were uncomfortable.
edit: This appears to be very controversial? Would someone care to elaborate?
Evaluations about his project should be extremely careful, as [currently] there isn't any meaningful way to measure progress.
Both 2019 deployments failed, and interestingly, there is very little analysis of the second, aside the company's own reports.
1. Why we talk about climate change being serious threat, yet we are acting as if nothing is going on?
2. What is the point of studying science, if politicians do not listen to science?
That, and her determination to strike (based on the two above points).
You can argue that neither argument is particularly difficult or complicated. They are rather obvious in hindsight. Well, there is a name for things like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus
That's not really what's happening. From day one, in the eighties, the ones who have been vocal about this have been politicians. Al Gore, the IPCC, etc. I mean, most people can't name a single scientist advocating this issue. In France, just like in the US, the number one advocate on this issue is a TV show host. And in fact, the most well-known French scientist (turned politician) who talked about global warming (Claude Allegre) is what people would call a skeptic or denier...
What's happening today is that:
Greta is protesting against point 1. That's not going to achieve much more. At this point, people have made their mind about the issue and I don't think the balance is going to be tipped significantly. I don't even understand what she's trying to achieve. She can shout at politicians as much as she wants, ultimately the power is held by the people of those democracies.> in western democracies, people predominantly vote to ignore it
According to polls, it is considered to be very important issue, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/15/americans-cl...
There was another poll and in European countries the support is even higher.
The amount of defeatism, unfounded scepticism, denial, and just pure and nasty ad hominem attacks is sickening.
The one potentially positive thing to note may be that denial and anger often come before acceptance. Eventually.
I find using emotions instead of facts to sway the political discourse to be problematic.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned or even angry at this. Maybe not good enough reasons to create an account on Twitter and scream into the void, though.
By that same token, I also don't care what a 16 y.o. has to say about the state of the world. I just turned 25 a few months ago. Over the past 9 years, since I was 16, I've watched my cognitive abilities continually expand and now have a good feeling for just how ignorant I was when I was 16. I have no idea why this girl was let on stage to begin with and even less of an idea why it's news.
Almost as disgusting as the personal attacks are the people whose decision it was to prop up a child on the global stage, for all the world to attack and criticize her, all to advance their political agenda. Gross.
Is being young disqualifying for having strong opinions ?
At her age, and probably even more now, I'd be scared about how the media, politicians, neighbours, peers, and social media would treat me after such a speech.
We had teen driven revolutions and riots agains governments in the last decade. The least proteser at Gezi park was braver than her. Ditto for arab spring, Venezuela and now against Putin.
Until there's UBI and free instant teleportation, people got to get around somehow unless you're hoping people do miracles when protesting?
Do you even know who that is?
If you ever participated in a town hall meeting you'll see that half of it is very bureaucratic formalities and slow convergence on a very technical level. At least here in Germany.
I don't think that changes a lot "higher up".
You must be talking about the people not reacting to the science: fear of acting, denial, complacency.
https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/23/a-message-for-chil...
the dilbert guy?
And Chinas government does indeed take clime protection serious. They tend to understate their measures because of cultural reason, but their results can stand on itself and they don't really need to hide behind anybody.
Of course they still have a lot of problems due to their developmental level and we should be careful to not let the government use climate change as a justification to suppress the population, who hasn't developed a widespread consciousness for environmental protections, if we can even claim our societies did.
Disallowing China to build coal plants doesn't solve anything.
How about having the developing countries pay for the damage done to the enviorment and using that money to help developing countries with building cleaner power plants instead?
I was wrong. Fast forward 23 years and nothing has been done, emissions have continued to exponentially increase, every warning has been ignored. It’s now clear that for things to actually turn around the way I thought they would back in 96 would have required massive civil disobedience bordering on revolution, and the aggressive application of military force worldwide to pressure other countries into emissions cuts while pumping huge amounts of resources into supplying the world with carbon free power (at the time, nuclear).
Which is pretty much what has to happen now except the timeline is insanely, unfairly shorter.
Adults are dismissed as brain-washed idiots
Children are dismissed as propaganda Hitlerjugend
Who else is left?
While yes, climate change is a serious matter, in this addressing to an institution like the UN, it is no use in having an alarmist rhetoric in-front of them and then shaming everyone altogether due to the appealing to authority of her age, emotions and questionable 'facts'.
This doesn't change the opinions of others but promotes fearmongering and by even saying '...change will come whether you like it or not...' sounds pretty much like an eco-facist attitude to me.
Greta: "Don't shit where you eat"
Twitter: "Someone should kill this left-wing scum"
People keep asking, "But what should I do?"
There are innumerable resources with what to do. The first page of a search shows over 100 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tips+environment&atb=v173-1&ia=web.
The sooner everyone starts doing all of them, the sooner we'll reach sustainability. There will be problems along the way. It's also the fastest, most efficient way to motivate governments, corporations, churches, and other institutions to act.
We have to get into our heads and hearts: "Everyone do everything."
That's why we get this political shilling.
That's because the only glimmers of hope we currently have are pure wishful thinking. Pointing toward accelerated technological change is pointing towards the non-existing, and of course that can be hopeful, but it's not guaranteed to change anything. The only real change is not hopeful, because we know it won't happen, but it's what would work: drastic reduction in carbon footprint worldwide through policy.
So we cling on to what might happen, and might work: the magic device, the magic technology, the iPhone of the climate apocalypse, the thing that will solve our issue. We don't need a thing, we need less things, less carbon in the atmosphere and the unavoidable slowdown of the fossil fueled economy it brings with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2019_climate_strikes
I don't understand the mindset of older people who either deny climate change or do nothing about it - do they not care about the world their children are going to live in?
I get that rich people will be shielded from the worst of climate change but at some point don't you get rich enough that other things become more important? Or at that stage does it become all about competing with peers to accumulate power?
See what I did there? Pretty easy to spin tree hugging to fascism. These climate change talks have been going on for 30 years. Plus, ya ain't the first with that eco-terrorist call to arms. No one brings up why these developing countries do these "horrendous acts against the planet". Because it flies in the face of all the other virtue signalling rhetoric. Figure out a way for developing countries to be apart of the world economy in an environmentally friendly and economical way, you'll be a god damn hero for centuries to come. You'd also get tons of money from the UN, the EU and hell, even Harrison Ford will give you a check from Conservation International like he did yesterday to the amazon fund. Or you can just virtue signal on the internet that you think "da worl' ith bad".
But, I've had an interest in geopolitics for about 2 years now. So, I've been reading and watching what's been going on at the UN a bit. Especially this week since it's general assembly week. At the end, this is nothing special.
If you've listened to one "we need to save the planet due to climate" speech, you have heard them all. After listening to about five hours worth of different people, including thunberg, no one really stood out. Yesterday, she was not the only one talking about climate change at the UN. Macron, Merkel, hell even Harrison Ford was there. But he at least hit the problem on the nose, "Sting held a concert here about climate change 30 years ago. And we're still talking about it today." Plus, he needs to number his note cards. He shuffled them and lost his place too many times.
It's not like I'm against making fossil fuels a footnote in history. That'll be a good thing on so many levels. But all these "climate talks" are just talk.
We're all fired up the past few weeks due to the Amazon burning. Which is terrible. But all these talks act like the end game to those fires is to twirl a mustache. It's to clear land so Brazil becomes more of a world player. Which! Mind you! Was a huge part of yesterday's talks. Peru, for example, had some of their indigenous groups in talking about inclusion into the world market.
You have two "positive" ideals that are currently in conflict and no one is figuring out how to rectify that. How do developing countries still compete in the highly competitive world market without using cheaper fossil fuel options? How do they do it if they can't use their sovereign land due to international rhetoric? I'm not saying this as being apologetic for coal or Amazon burning. I'm just saying these "save the trees" talks are a waste of time. Figuring out how to redirect the causes into cleaner alternatives or more environmentally friendly methods is the real goal. Not crying about "my future". Which, to be honest, was the most cringe first world cry fit ever. For someone who got on the UN stage, she should probably take a gander at some UN programs where they try helping children with barely an immediate future before she cries about her distant future. That's why when people say she's "brave"... eh... the UN has a ton of youth programs that introduce teens to the UN functions. Not like she's the only kid giving a talk they've ever dealt with... this week alone.
I'm just sick of the rhetoric and people thinking that the virtue signalling is enough to save the planet. What about all the CO2 generated due to travel and resource use to mobilize all these folks from across the world due to the talks?
Like, here's a quick example, as I have the UN live stream playing. Palm Oil, I think most of you know, is shitty for the environment in different parts of the supply chain. The EU wants to ban palm oil. Knee jerk morally righteous action. Malaysia exports a lot of it. Small to mid size country wanting to be relevant in a world economy. They cut down lots of forests to grow and process palm oil. Well, let's say the same farmers now switch over to a different cash crop. There's no cash crop they can grow to make the same amount of money in the same amount of farm land. Soybeans, for example, requires about 4-5 times more land compared to palm oil to make the same amount of revenue. Thus, more forest cutting for farm land to sustain the people.
Ban palm oil to save the forests... but leads to more forests being cut because smaller countries want to have an export to be apart of the world market. This is why I hate politicians and "talks". I'm worried that some short sighted policy is going to spring up due to this girl. And that short sighted policy is...
You have to ask how much of this is genuine and on merit, and how much was engineered.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/maga...
This is just based on what you said, and you might clarify afterwards. But I find it weird that palm oil planting was US led. They're only 6th in import: http://www.worldstopexports.com/palm-oil-imports-by-country/
I would imagine china or india being bigger driving forces in clear cutting forests for palm oil planting.
[0] https://pastebin.com/vhkA6a99
We (the current population and effectively the richest 10%) have to be willing to give up our personal riches and 'freedom' comforts for the sake of others. Others who are now facing the effects of a changing climate and others who will be facing it in the future.
It is best described by this comic [0] tomtoro.com/cartoons/#jp-carousel-135
I don't believe environmentalism and capitalism have to be at odds. I think the "at odds" is artificial, from both sides. As a bit of trivia, when kerosene use to be processed, gasoline was a waste by product. Thus, dumped straight into the water supply. While anything oil is essentially the devil, and not exactly the best example, but is a form iteration. At least it wasn't dumped into the water supply anymore after a profitable use was found. My grand point, take that same economic drive and have that person try doing the same with an environmental twist. Oh, better one. Sorry, I'm thinking on the fly. What if Dick Chaney was a tree hugger? And I'm serious. Think if a guy like him, with his hardcore tenacity, lack of care of others, woke up one day and went "I'm going to save the rainforest because the forests need saving. Fuck people." Because I know the guy would still make money doing it... God have mercy on your soul if you're holding a chainsaw.
I find the problem lies between attitude and... well... competence. Not competence is like a general sense. But how the "world functions". First, it's complicated as hell. It's so interconnected, it's crazy. That seems silly and obvious, but the more you try to understand it, it's a situation where you learn how little you actually know. Like, why does the USA gov not like coffee prices going down? Because Columbian farmers don't make as much from growing coffee. They now have more reason to grow coca. Thus, more cocaine. Higher coffee prices keeps coca productions at a certain level. Still high, but if the production goes higher, supply of cocaine goes up, thus prices go down, and it becomes even more accessibly to the world stage and then even more cocaine users. But then you have people complain about the price of a pound of coffee. I'm okay with spending more on coffee ever since I learned of this. And that's just a super simple example. There are better ones. But I hope that makes the point.
On the other point of attitude. I'm well... allergic to people "spreading awareness". Going back to Ethiopia, why is it that a country tries and does break a world wide daily tree planting record in the name of trying to save the planet, got what? An article or two? A teen cries and says "shame on you", we all lose our minds? Seriously, that's where a lot of the anger comes from. One group of people spreads awareness by trying to make one shred of actual difference to actually help the planet. In a long term manner at that. No one cares. But yesterday there was a slew of "young people out to save the world" at the UN, not just greta. They all just say "Shame on you old people." They have no real plan. No real course of action. They don't even know the history or system that led us to this. But they have plenty of "shame on you".
In truth, they are right. Shame on us. We listen to the talkers, the virtue signalers and the politicians who led us to the hell hole. We ignore those planting trees, picking up garbage and educating developing countries on eco-friendly methods of production.