> And when I see Thunberg being dragged away by the cops as she tries to save the world, I think to myself: that’s the person I aspire to be, not some asshole influencer who has nothing to offer the world except pictures of his fancy cars.
Why? Greta Thunberg doesn't actually do anything. She's just another "influencer". She is all blah, blah, blah. She is a mascot, a show pony, a cartoon.
If you actually want to save the world then you need to do the science and engineering to make it happen.
The world needs better battery chemistries, better solar power, better wind power, better tidal power, better gravity batteries, better thermal storage and distribution, better hydrogen generation. The world needs fusion reactors. The world needs PFAS taken out of the water cycle. And so on.
Media stunts, protests, people gluing themselves to roads and paintings will not deliver practical results.
Awareness helps create consumer demand. Without a market or significant cost savings (which is incredibly difficult given existing investment and infrastructure) there are no incentives for corporations to do better, the bottom line is all that matters.
'Influencers' will always exist in some form, and I prefer Gretas to the likes of Tates, Trumps, etc.
I find it interesting that her name inspired such a passionate response from you.
Why is it all about doing more and not about doing less? I sincerely doubt that a technological solution is possible that would not require any reduction/change in our current lifestyles. Where is the evidence that we only need a sufficient amount of science and engineering to prevent disastrous climate change?
Moreover, merely developing the technology is not necessarily enough to get it actually adopted. Lobbyists will fight to protect established interests from industries like oil and gas. There will be narratives about how such new technologies destroy jobs, in an attempt to sway voters.
Ultimately, not enough change is going to happen without political will. That is because fighting climate change is not going to make everyone happy. There will be losers, and there is never going to be some magical piece of technology that will let us have our cake and eat it too. Creating political will requires more than just clever engineering, and people like Greta Thunberg can help motivate and inspire large groups of people to create that political will.
> Moreover, merely developing the technology is not necessarily enough to get it actually adopted.
The city I live in runs on 100% renewable power. It's wind and solar, generated both locally and remotely.
One of the solar farms is not far from where I live. Year by year more people are putting solar on their homes. People like generating their own power.
Look what's happening around the world. Pick some countries. Kenya's power generation is 80% renewable:
Yes, it's a big problem to solve and there's lots to do. That's why "influencers" who do nothing are so objectionable. They're not doers and they're not contributors.
Perhaps the reason things are still bad is because engineering alone can not solve climate change and a shift in cultural beliefs and priorities is needed?
Engineering alone can solve climate change. Sustainable energy and industry is perfectly possible but the transition will take time and will be impacted by practical necessity.
This isn't a utopian fantasy. It's a practical direction.
Engineering alone isn't sufficient- whatever it is tha you envisage as being engineered as a solution would also have to adopted and deployed, this is the great barrier that presented itelf in the 1970s when climate problems were first recognised on the global stage, resistance to change.
We also need widespread political and social attitude changes.
Additionally it would be amiss in a thread about sociopathy not to acknowledge that a few virilent plagues that targeted the most affluent consumers could also put a damn good dent in the climate problem.
> whatever it is tha you envisage as being engineered as a solution would also have to adopted and deployed
Yes, and it is. For example, there's more solar power generation in the world than ever before and more is deployed every year.
> We also need widespread political and social attitude changes.
What social change? There need be none. The ramblings of a few "influencers" on social media is not representative of broader society. You may have trapped yourself in an echo chamber.
> The actual widespread adoption of engineered changes in the current ways of doing things of course.
And that's what's happening. But that's not "social change", that's pragmatism.
> Please don't be that person.
You lack perspective. That's the problem with being captured by ideological positions, being influenced by influencers, and fantasising about your personal vision of utopian social and political change. You lose sight of practicality.
Let's be practical. Tell me: is more solar power is being deployed every year?
The answer is "yes", and this practical outcome runs counter to the ideological position you want to take.
If you were interested in being practical you'd recognise that the transition takes time. Infrastructure always takes time to build out. Solar is building out faster than originally expected and that's a good thing.
There's no value in the nihilistic position that change isn't happening when that is plainly contrary to the reality.
Ideology makes a person dumb. You want practicality, not ideology. Science and engineering get you to practicality.
> As if serfs could have engineered their way out of fiefdoms.
Hmm, that sounds like there's a practical problem that needs solving.
How are you going to solve that one? By sitting around pontificating about your social media messaging? By gluing yourself to your plowshare? By joining a nihilistic, apocalyptic cult? By being all blah, blah, blah?
Certainly not gonna accomplish anything by myself. A good first step would be to reach out to other people in similar situations, and convince them to join the cause.
It especially takes time when people are opposed to transitioning to solar energy and politically coordinate to make sure such a transition doesn't happen. (The most recent Republican candadate for example said global warming is a myth).
It sounds like you are willfully ignorant of how the world works, because decisions on how to power cities aren't based just on science or engineering, but also economics and legal frameworks, but you've decided consoderation of the later two are "thought crime" that you call ideology, so you choose to remain ignorant.
Fewer people in the world (sustained lower birth rates across the board) and decreased levels of consumption by the top consumers per capita will also contribute a great deal here.
> If you actually want to save the world then you need to do the science and engineering to make it happen.
And that's where I think Thunberg does the most damage. She encourages hysteria and students to skip class for "the environment". We're literally losing a generation of problem-solvers thanks to her direct efforts, not to mention sowing the entire generation with anxiety and fatalism instead of a desire to approach this like a solvable problem.
Then there's the fact that she's an influencer. In most Western countries that is now the most desired profession, so who knows how many brilliant people we are wasting in the pursuit of getting people to hit Like and Subscribe (oh and the alarm bell!) because people like Thunberg glamorize the lifestyle?
Finally, I think if the author wants to see true sociopathy, a quick visit to their nearest UN SDG, WEF, or the myriad of spawn off environmentalist NGOs would help them clarify what sociopathy is.
I agree and I'm always pro-Greta and anti-Tate in discussions like this. The authors "additions" were not convincing, they were actively annoying and detracted from the potentially interesting argument that was being attempted.
Loaded with treats to brighten up your holidays: Bullshit & Crap, Muskian Tyranny and Neoliberal Libraries, writing on Godard films, "fapstronauts," medical folklore, and more!
If this appeals to you, currentaffairs dot org is the, I guess you would call it, a digital 'coffee table' magazine. No one looks at it except from boredom. It's there to be seen on your coffee table.
Ironic that the article was literally about caring what other people think or feel, but you're desperate to imagine that people go read this for, what, prestige?
The most notable things about currentaffairs are that it's owned by a pastoralist NIMBY leftist who dresses like a plantation owner, and that he recently fired his entire staff because they tried to unionize.
34 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 74.2 ms ] threadWhy? Greta Thunberg doesn't actually do anything. She's just another "influencer". She is all blah, blah, blah. She is a mascot, a show pony, a cartoon.
If you actually want to save the world then you need to do the science and engineering to make it happen.
The world needs better battery chemistries, better solar power, better wind power, better tidal power, better gravity batteries, better thermal storage and distribution, better hydrogen generation. The world needs fusion reactors. The world needs PFAS taken out of the water cycle. And so on.
Media stunts, protests, people gluing themselves to roads and paintings will not deliver practical results.
Only science and engineering will deliver.
'Influencers' will always exist in some form, and I prefer Gretas to the likes of Tates, Trumps, etc.
I find it interesting that her name inspired such a passionate response from you.
They contribute nothing, they do nothing. They're not admirable or respectable. It is misguided to aspire to be like them.
Moreover, merely developing the technology is not necessarily enough to get it actually adopted. Lobbyists will fight to protect established interests from industries like oil and gas. There will be narratives about how such new technologies destroy jobs, in an attempt to sway voters.
Ultimately, not enough change is going to happen without political will. That is because fighting climate change is not going to make everyone happy. There will be losers, and there is never going to be some magical piece of technology that will let us have our cake and eat it too. Creating political will requires more than just clever engineering, and people like Greta Thunberg can help motivate and inspire large groups of people to create that political will.
The city I live in runs on 100% renewable power. It's wind and solar, generated both locally and remotely.
One of the solar farms is not far from where I live. Year by year more people are putting solar on their homes. People like generating their own power.
Look what's happening around the world. Pick some countries. Kenya's power generation is 80% renewable:
https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Statistics/...
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210303-geothermal-the-i...
The UK is putting in renewables everywhere they can. The renewable share of electricity generation is now 44%:
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cx1m7zg0gpet
https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Statistics/...
Australia's electricity generation is 22% renewable: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Statistics/...
The US is 19% renewable electricity generation. Renewables are trending up, fossil fuels are trending down: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Statistics/...
Read reports on more countries: https://www.irena.org/Data/Energy-Profiles
Global renewable electricity generation grew by 7.4% from 2019 to 2020. Solar grew by 22% and wind by 12%: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication...
Nihilism, cynicism, and pessimism are all useless. Optimism is naive.
The perspective you want to cultivate is meliorism. Everything else is wank.
Odd that we've been embracing them for a while now, and things seem.... still bad?
This isn't a utopian fantasy. It's a practical direction.
We also need widespread political and social attitude changes.
Additionally it would be amiss in a thread about sociopathy not to acknowledge that a few virilent plagues that targeted the most affluent consumers could also put a damn good dent in the climate problem.
Yes, and it is. For example, there's more solar power generation in the world than ever before and more is deployed every year.
> We also need widespread political and social attitude changes.
What social change? There need be none. The ramblings of a few "influencers" on social media is not representative of broader society. You may have trapped yourself in an echo chamber.
The actual widespread adoption of engineered changes in the current ways of doing things of course.
> You may have trapped yourself in an echo chamber.
Please don't be that person.
And that's what's happening. But that's not "social change", that's pragmatism.
> Please don't be that person.
You lack perspective. That's the problem with being captured by ideological positions, being influenced by influencers, and fantasising about your personal vision of utopian social and political change. You lose sight of practicality.
Let's be practical. Tell me: is more solar power is being deployed every year?
The answer is "yes", and this practical outcome runs counter to the ideological position you want to take.
If you weren't trying to "win" an internet conversation I would think you'd recognise the issue is "sufficient" adoption, not "more" adoption.
There's no value in the nihilistic position that change isn't happening when that is plainly contrary to the reality.
Ideology makes a person dumb. You want practicality, not ideology. Science and engineering get you to practicality.
Quite an ideological position. One that entirely lacks nuance or evidence. As if serfs could have engineered their way out of fiefdoms.
Nope, just practical one.
> As if serfs could have engineered their way out of fiefdoms.
Hmm, that sounds like there's a practical problem that needs solving.
How are you going to solve that one? By sitting around pontificating about your social media messaging? By gluing yourself to your plowshare? By joining a nihilistic, apocalyptic cult? By being all blah, blah, blah?
Or are you going to do something about it?
It sounds like you are willfully ignorant of how the world works, because decisions on how to power cities aren't based just on science or engineering, but also economics and legal frameworks, but you've decided consoderation of the later two are "thought crime" that you call ideology, so you choose to remain ignorant.
And that's where I think Thunberg does the most damage. She encourages hysteria and students to skip class for "the environment". We're literally losing a generation of problem-solvers thanks to her direct efforts, not to mention sowing the entire generation with anxiety and fatalism instead of a desire to approach this like a solvable problem.
Then there's the fact that she's an influencer. In most Western countries that is now the most desired profession, so who knows how many brilliant people we are wasting in the pursuit of getting people to hit Like and Subscribe (oh and the alarm bell!) because people like Thunberg glamorize the lifestyle?
Finally, I think if the author wants to see true sociopathy, a quick visit to their nearest UN SDG, WEF, or the myriad of spawn off environmentalist NGOs would help them clarify what sociopathy is.
If this appeals to you, currentaffairs dot org is the, I guess you would call it, a digital 'coffee table' magazine. No one looks at it except from boredom. It's there to be seen on your coffee table.
You're what's under discussion.
The obnoxious culture of shaming creates the market opportunity for this crap.