The continuing inaction of all governments leads to increasing radicalization in the climate movement. I wonder how long before the protests stop being peaceful.
I agree, but it only takes only one really desperate person to start bombing refineries. If peaceful protests continue to have no effect, I fear that there will be someone willing to do something like this.
In this case though, what is being discredited aside from poor behaviour? The cause?
It’s not like we’re going to have a habitable world in the best future if nothing is done, as things get more desperate people will more easily be able to rationalise extreme behaviour, More people will sympathise with it too.
It's interesting that this health hazard, which is highly localised, gets the adjective "massive", while the regular pollution in London which is also hazardous to health doesn't. Pollution isn't even classed as "violence" by almost anyone.
This is maybe a little dishonest. Obviously for every existing public opinion or movement there is a non-zero number of individual members who have engaged in something literally violent. It's not useful to extrapolate that into calling all public opinions and movements violent.
There have been waves of high-conflict environmentalism in the past. For decades, in fact. In 1985 Greenpeace tried to stop the French government from polluting the entire atmosphere with above-ground nuclear bomb testing, so the DGSE sank their boat and murdered a photographer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
Anti-oil-pollution activist Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed in Nigeria after a rigged trial; it later emerged that some of the witnesses had been bribed by Shell.
The protesters are rightly being arrested. Sorry but you don’t get to blockade people from getting to where they want to go (work in this case) just because you personally think your opinions/issues are a higher priority than others’ priorities. And climbing onto the roofs of private property is not a “peaceful protest”, it is vigilantism. Furthermore some of the demands outlined in the article (asking google to censor videos) are not reasonable.
Environmental activists would do much better if they weren't so hell-bent on being a pain in the ass and inconveniencing everyone else. All it accomplishes is breeding distaste.
Maybe it's just me, but this kind of childish behavior doesn't make me sympathetic, it engenders the complete opposite effect.
What gives them a right to do anything that "work[s]"? If they can't get their way through rational persuasion, they don't get to have their way at all. That's how democracy works.
"If they can't get their way through rational persuasion, they don't get to have their way at all. That's how democracy works."
Is that the case for other activist groups in the past? I was aware that other activist groups have been disruptive also (anti-war protests during vietnam, throwing literal ashes of the dead onto white house grounds during the AIDS crisis, the civil rights movement had plenty of nonviolent and violent protests...)
No, that's how silencing minorities works, which is explicitly the thing that democracy is not about.
You know the line, "soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box: please use in that order"? Note that last one. Democracy is merely a system wherein the first three boxes have a good chance of fixing whatever issue is occurring. But the ammo box is still there if the issue is important and nothing else works.
You mean the last 40+ years of climate change science politely and rationally explaining that we are killing the planet with little to no action being taken?
I think after that length of time politely explaining with no one listening that you need to kick it up a notch.
Democracy itself only exists because people were willing to go much further than 'rational persuasion' to secure it.
The destruction of the environment is aggression against us all - that people have not responded more firmly before now is the surprising part. Democracy depends on the governed if not giving their explicit consent, then at least acknowledging the governing authority, it is not a carte blanche to do whatever in the name of an untested majority.
Not least on a global scale, where most people have no say in most of the destructive acts.
They are aiming to be arrested. That's part of the point. Whilst remaining entirely peaceful. Peaceful does not mean cooperative.
Climbing onto roofs is entirely peaceful protest, and I think you have misunderstood what vigilante means. I see no delivery of summary justice in climbing onto a roof.
No, it is not peaceful. A peaceful protest must get appropriate permissions from local authorities to be a lawful assembly (this is true in the US and I am assuming the UK has similar law). Such an assembly would take place on public property. Climbing onto roofs is a violation of private property that they have no right to access.
A peaceful protest must be non-disruptive and not take away from others. Blockading bridges is. It peaceful. It is stealing time, value, and safety from others. They are vigilantes because they claim to be pushing for justice where the law failed them. But in reality their arguments and extreme demands simply have failed to persuade people to the extent they desire through democratic processes. That doesn’t give them the right to blockade bridges in London.
It depends on the jurisdiction. Usually there’s a process defined in local law to get approval for an assembly. In the US people do not have a universal right to protest when and where they want.
Regarding your note on authority: it is indeed earned and not assumed - it is encoded in law and in a Democracy, through elections. Certainly the protesters have no authority because they’ve failed to change the law or win elections. These protests amount to them wanting to get undue attention or undue changes because they’ve failed to succeed under the framework of their society.
"A peaceful protest must be non-disruptive and not take away from others."
I've literally never heard of this before. I thought that a peaceful protest was one where violence (ie. assaulting people, destroying property) didn't occur.
Civil disobedience can be entirely peaceful, but disruptive and non-cooperative. Intending quite intentionally to steal time and value, but not safety from others.
It is stealing time and effort from the authorities that has achieved change across history. Sometimes with violence which is obviously no longer peaceful, sometimes not. Police time. Court time. Parliamentary discussion time. In the one year XR have existed, surprisingly the issue has surged in the UK opinion polls - ie more in the UK find the climate crisis an important issue than did before. There has been a much increased level of exposure in the media, and in parliament.
To me, inconvenient though it may be, that is simply democracy working as intended.
An entirely non-disruptive march or demo is, democratically, not a peaceful protest, it's an irrelevance. It's a nice day out and little else, and achieves a similar level of change.
So in your way of thinking, when MLK was arrested in Birmingham for leading a civil rights march after the city had banned all forms of protest, and when others were arrested for sitting quietly at whites-only lunch counters, they were committing violence and they deserved to be arrested?
I remember when the way to get people to "wake up" on creationism was to unite sub-groups and pump out loads of content that rationally went over all the scientific evidence against it and trusted people to make up their own minds, including all of the debates between atheists/anti-creationism and pro-creationism speakers.
Despite there being very little hope in rattling an entrenched belief like that, many people began to think outside scope of their religion and creationism is not as widely accepted as it once was.
I hope that in the future the new generation of rational believers on climate change can adopt a similar non-violent mindset instead of letting their passion get the best of them.
I think the point is that conflict and arguing doesnt change minds, it can be used as a blocker to stop something but it doesnt affect the underlying opinion of those on the other side.
There won't be another generation of rational believers that can do anything about climate change. Either we do something today, or we'll trigger feedback loops that are beyond our power to stop.
Have ER considered teaming with an organization dedicated to digital freedom (like the EFF) for cases like this? Because just coming into a new space, pressing your own demands and ignoring pre-existing efforts looks very unprofessional (IMO at least).
This. Extinction Rebellion is already being co-opted for unrelated issues.
> We demand a just transition that prioritizes the most vulnerable people and indigenous sovereignty; establishes reparations and remediation led by and for Black people, Indigenous people, people of color and poor communities
> We do not trust our Government to make the bold, swift and long-term changes necessary to achieve these changes and we do not intend to hand further power to our politicians. Instead we demand a Citizens’ Assembly to oversee the changes, as we rise from the wreckage, creating a democracy fit for purpose.
They don’t trust the nebulous “government” and demand a group be placed into power by citizens. So...a representative democracy? Like the one they’ve failed to gain support within (to the extent they demand anyways)?
I don't want to sound dismissive but I am afraid we must conclude that "pre-existing efforts" have utterly failed. Global emissions are still rising, investments into fossil infrastructure are still rising, fossil subsidies are not repealed.
FYI, I think you're getting downvoted because the word "pessimistic" often colloquially implies being at least somewhat "wrong" about the topic at hand, though I don't think you were trying to make any such judgement.
Might also be that Star Trek takes place in a universe where only AFTER massive wars and near extinction does humanity set aside its short-sightedness and cruelty to embrace egalitarianism. Within the Star Trek universe, there is no history of science outpacing human damage. They barely save themselves from the brink.
> It’s a bit sad to see the youth so pessimistic. Growing up with Star Trek
I forget if we are one or two destructive global wars behind schedule compared to the original Star Trek timeline, but at any case we have not reached anywhere close to the lows Star Trek predicted we would before we got to the brighter (internally to humanity, most of the time, at least) future that show portrayed, which lows included the near total elimination of human civilization through science slaved to destructive ideals.
These kids aren't, compared to that, pessimistic; they are fighting for the possibility to avoid that.
I see an incredible optimism in believing that power lies with the people and mass movements, instead of indulging fantasies that some solution will be handed down from on high, counter to the interest of wealthy and elite. Not to mention that scientists have already endorsed what they’re doing:
I could equally argue it's a fantasy to believe that you will curb human greed, and/or bring a player like china to follow your rules.
In other words, I am pessimistic about humankind's ability to curb its wants, but optimistic about scientific advancement, inventors of the future, and unknown unknowns.
Just a reminder that climate change is not an existential threat. A problem, yes. An existential threat, no. Greta Thunberg and these activists are hysterical and engaging in alarmism. But why take it from me? Here’s the Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington, an expert on the topic, saying as much:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-global-warming-exi...
It will be / is interesting watching this cult mutate.
Currently they are taking advantage of the fact we are reasonably lax about policing protest and punishment, which we consider part of democracy.
But it can be shut down. And will be. It will be a loss to society.
Like most cults they will adapt. They might splinter and turn violent. They might start things like self-immolation.
They are forming strong emotion bonds around a issue that they consider a important part of their being. You could see perhaps IRA style commitment. But because of the lack of a past history it is easy to infiltrate, unlike religious separatist movements.
You do see a large amount of mentally ill people drawn to these cults, which is sad really.
72 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadIf anything, they've calmed down.
It’s not like we’re going to have a habitable world in the best future if nothing is done, as things get more desperate people will more easily be able to rationalise extreme behaviour, More people will sympathise with it too.
-1 day: https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/15/extinction-rebellion-co-...
Anti-oil-pollution activist Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed in Nigeria after a rigged trial; it later emerged that some of the witnesses had been bribed by Shell.
Maybe it's just me, but this kind of childish behavior doesn't make me sympathetic, it engenders the complete opposite effect.
Nothing. At least not the legal rights. They accept the arrest and corresponding consequences. That's what civil disobedience is about.
Is that the case for other activist groups in the past? I was aware that other activist groups have been disruptive also (anti-war protests during vietnam, throwing literal ashes of the dead onto white house grounds during the AIDS crisis, the civil rights movement had plenty of nonviolent and violent protests...)
You know the line, "soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box: please use in that order"? Note that last one. Democracy is merely a system wherein the first three boxes have a good chance of fixing whatever issue is occurring. But the ammo box is still there if the issue is important and nothing else works.
I think after that length of time politely explaining with no one listening that you need to kick it up a notch.
The destruction of the environment is aggression against us all - that people have not responded more firmly before now is the surprising part. Democracy depends on the governed if not giving their explicit consent, then at least acknowledging the governing authority, it is not a carte blanche to do whatever in the name of an untested majority.
Not least on a global scale, where most people have no say in most of the destructive acts.
If I were trying to convince someone of my cause, I'd try to couch it so that doing what I wanted would be in the other person's best interest.
Instead I tend to see a playbook of 1.) Make things more difficult. 2.) Make things more expensive. 3.) Lower your quality of life.
Selling asceticism only works for people that already have everything.
Climbing onto roofs is entirely peaceful protest, and I think you have misunderstood what vigilante means. I see no delivery of summary justice in climbing onto a roof.
A peaceful protest must be non-disruptive and not take away from others. Blockading bridges is. It peaceful. It is stealing time, value, and safety from others. They are vigilantes because they claim to be pushing for justice where the law failed them. But in reality their arguments and extreme demands simply have failed to persuade people to the extent they desire through democratic processes. That doesn’t give them the right to blockade bridges in London.
Define "authorities", therein lies the rub. Authority is earned not assumed. If they were authorities the protests would be unnecessary
Regarding your note on authority: it is indeed earned and not assumed - it is encoded in law and in a Democracy, through elections. Certainly the protesters have no authority because they’ve failed to change the law or win elections. These protests amount to them wanting to get undue attention or undue changes because they’ve failed to succeed under the framework of their society.
I've literally never heard of this before. I thought that a peaceful protest was one where violence (ie. assaulting people, destroying property) didn't occur.
It is stealing time and effort from the authorities that has achieved change across history. Sometimes with violence which is obviously no longer peaceful, sometimes not. Police time. Court time. Parliamentary discussion time. In the one year XR have existed, surprisingly the issue has surged in the UK opinion polls - ie more in the UK find the climate crisis an important issue than did before. There has been a much increased level of exposure in the media, and in parliament.
To me, inconvenient though it may be, that is simply democracy working as intended.
An entirely non-disruptive march or demo is, democratically, not a peaceful protest, it's an irrelevance. It's a nice day out and little else, and achieves a similar level of change.
Despite there being very little hope in rattling an entrenched belief like that, many people began to think outside scope of their religion and creationism is not as widely accepted as it once was.
I hope that in the future the new generation of rational believers on climate change can adopt a similar non-violent mindset instead of letting their passion get the best of them.
So its really only ever of limited value
quite an assumption here
I can't hope about the past..
> We demand a just transition that prioritizes the most vulnerable people and indigenous sovereignty; establishes reparations and remediation led by and for Black people, Indigenous people, people of color and poor communities
Their demands are somewhat nonsensical IMO: https://extinctionrebellion.us/
> We do not trust our Government to make the bold, swift and long-term changes necessary to achieve these changes and we do not intend to hand further power to our politicians. Instead we demand a Citizens’ Assembly to oversee the changes, as we rise from the wreckage, creating a democracy fit for purpose.
They don’t trust the nebulous “government” and demand a group be placed into power by citizens. So...a representative democracy? Like the one they’ve failed to gain support within (to the extent they demand anyways)?
It’s a bit sad to see the youth so pessimistic. Growing up with Star Trek myself I always believed science would grow faster than human damage.
Their 3 demands[1]: - Tell the truth - Act Now - Beyond Politics
[1]: https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/demands/
I forget if we are one or two destructive global wars behind schedule compared to the original Star Trek timeline, but at any case we have not reached anywhere close to the lows Star Trek predicted we would before we got to the brighter (internally to humanity, most of the time, at least) future that show portrayed, which lows included the near total elimination of human civilization through science slaved to destructive ideals.
These kids aren't, compared to that, pessimistic; they are fighting for the possibility to avoid that.
I see an incredible optimism in believing that power lies with the people and mass movements, instead of indulging fantasies that some solution will be handed down from on high, counter to the interest of wealthy and elite. Not to mention that scientists have already endorsed what they’re doing:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/extinction-rebell...
If you actually want a Star Trek future, this is how you get it.
In other words, I am pessimistic about humankind's ability to curb its wants, but optimistic about scientific advancement, inventors of the future, and unknown unknowns.
I hope we are both right though.
Currently they are taking advantage of the fact we are reasonably lax about policing protest and punishment, which we consider part of democracy.
But it can be shut down. And will be. It will be a loss to society.
Like most cults they will adapt. They might splinter and turn violent. They might start things like self-immolation.
They are forming strong emotion bonds around a issue that they consider a important part of their being. You could see perhaps IRA style commitment. But because of the lack of a past history it is easy to infiltrate, unlike religious separatist movements.
You do see a large amount of mentally ill people drawn to these cults, which is sad really.