Before I go on, I know that what I am about to say is heretical. We are saving the planet every time we use a cardboard straw, of course we are. Of course I know I am not a climate scientist. Of course I am not denying climate change. Of course I agree with you that <insert mandatory opinion here>.
Look, the problem is that you are arguing from the position of logic, from empirical evidence. The 'well-intentioned' people - to be polite - who see climate change as an existential crisis that will wipe us out in the next five years don't do logic. They think everyone in the developing world thinks like them. And they ignore the evidence of places like Sri Lanka that overthrew it's government rather than be placed higher up on the ESG scores while its people starved. But bloody good article anyway.
Wholeheartedly agree, KK. I have said this from the start, without the considered research into the percentages or statistics of others in the world and what they are or aren't doing to save the planet. I remember at Junior School, several hundreds of years ago, now, haha, where we were taught that the sun would swallow us all up without us doing anything to prevent its demise, even the great Professor Cox said similar. I'm not saying he's a climate change denier but it is far more complicated than not flying, changing to ridiculous electric cars and all the other nonsense we hear from the irrepressible numpties who fly the doo-gooder flag for this sort of stuff. I think it's totally arrogant for humans to believe they have the power over good old Mother Nature - that'll get me cancelled, calling nature, Mother! However, crack on, KK. I bet you're asked on a daily basis whether you have ever thought of going into politics because you are very erudite with extremely sensible arguments and you would be a standard bearer, as would your party, for truth, common sense and straight talk.; you should! I, too, am on a bit of a rant today. Keep up the good work.
I wouldn’t get too worried about the emphasis on “de-growth.” In fact I hope to see more of this, because it will be self-defeating. It’s not only in less affluent countries that people like to consume more. People in rich countries also like rising living standards. Politicians so far have tended to lie about the costs of a rapid green transition. As the costs become coldly evident, popular opposition rises. So I prefer an open debate on de-growth to the stealth imposition of measures with hidden costs. (Though my nightmare, I confess, is a replay of the pandemic scenario with populations enthusiastically embracing dystopian restrictions and hardships. But it's only a nightmare, right…?)
I agree Konstantin but howling into the void like this is not going to achieve anything. Hold events with the like-minded. Not in London but out where most will be easily persuaded by your obvious common sense. Maybe GB News would help spread the word. We all need sensible honest leadership that has not been corrupted by big business.
KK, we agree that the personal sacrifices of individuals in N.America or Europe is pointless and inconsequential. But if these emissions are harmful, who emits what amount is less important than that it occurs at all. Needing address is how much should be allowed globally? Who decides that and gambles the fate of all Earthlings? If techno-industrial activity pollutes our planet, mustn't we draw the line somewhere? Should those now producing much of the emissions be allowed, or prevented from, economic growth and causing this damage to the future?
Yes, the world's poor, with their high birth rates, do want to gain "economic prosperity" and be "pulled out of poverty", get educated, have indoor toilets and proper healthcare, inhabit a technological and modern society - precisely the kind place where people are medicated to continue, paying to exercise under fluorescent lighting, going crazy and being so unhappy as to be suicidal - and not having children. They see our luxurious lifestyle but not the many problems it has also delivered to us: obesity and depression, addictions and ennui, loss of traditions, breakage of family/small-group bonds. The biological impulse and the deep traditions of those poor, "economically developing" people toward parenthood are no match for the conforming ability of technology to deter people from parenthood. If the technological system can benefit from (or tolerate) only a small human population (if any at all), then human breeding will be discouraged and effectively deterred - yet another deprivation of our nature, one more outrage against human autonomy and dignity.
Look, the problem is that you are arguing from the position of logic, from empirical evidence. The 'well-intentioned' people - to be polite - who see climate change as an existential crisis that will wipe us out in the next five years don't do logic. They think everyone in the developing world thinks like them. And they ignore the evidence of places like Sri Lanka that overthrew it's government rather than be placed higher up on the ESG scores while its people starved. But bloody good article anyway.
Wholeheartedly agree, KK. I have said this from the start, without the considered research into the percentages or statistics of others in the world and what they are or aren't doing to save the planet. I remember at Junior School, several hundreds of years ago, now, haha, where we were taught that the sun would swallow us all up without us doing anything to prevent its demise, even the great Professor Cox said similar. I'm not saying he's a climate change denier but it is far more complicated than not flying, changing to ridiculous electric cars and all the other nonsense we hear from the irrepressible numpties who fly the doo-gooder flag for this sort of stuff. I think it's totally arrogant for humans to believe they have the power over good old Mother Nature - that'll get me cancelled, calling nature, Mother! However, crack on, KK. I bet you're asked on a daily basis whether you have ever thought of going into politics because you are very erudite with extremely sensible arguments and you would be a standard bearer, as would your party, for truth, common sense and straight talk.; you should! I, too, am on a bit of a rant today. Keep up the good work.
I wouldn’t get too worried about the emphasis on “de-growth.” In fact I hope to see more of this, because it will be self-defeating. It’s not only in less affluent countries that people like to consume more. People in rich countries also like rising living standards. Politicians so far have tended to lie about the costs of a rapid green transition. As the costs become coldly evident, popular opposition rises. So I prefer an open debate on de-growth to the stealth imposition of measures with hidden costs. (Though my nightmare, I confess, is a replay of the pandemic scenario with populations enthusiastically embracing dystopian restrictions and hardships. But it's only a nightmare, right…?)
I agree Konstantin but howling into the void like this is not going to achieve anything. Hold events with the like-minded. Not in London but out where most will be easily persuaded by your obvious common sense. Maybe GB News would help spread the word. We all need sensible honest leadership that has not been corrupted by big business.
KK, we agree that the personal sacrifices of individuals in N.America or Europe is pointless and inconsequential. But if these emissions are harmful, who emits what amount is less important than that it occurs at all. Needing address is how much should be allowed globally? Who decides that and gambles the fate of all Earthlings? If techno-industrial activity pollutes our planet, mustn't we draw the line somewhere? Should those now producing much of the emissions be allowed, or prevented from, economic growth and causing this damage to the future?
Yes, the world's poor, with their high birth rates, do want to gain "economic prosperity" and be "pulled out of poverty", get educated, have indoor toilets and proper healthcare, inhabit a technological and modern society - precisely the kind place where people are medicated to continue, paying to exercise under fluorescent lighting, going crazy and being so unhappy as to be suicidal - and not having children. They see our luxurious lifestyle but not the many problems it has also delivered to us: obesity and depression, addictions and ennui, loss of traditions, breakage of family/small-group bonds. The biological impulse and the deep traditions of those poor, "economically developing" people toward parenthood are no match for the conforming ability of technology to deter people from parenthood. If the technological system can benefit from (or tolerate) only a small human population (if any at all), then human breeding will be discouraged and effectively deterred - yet another deprivation of our nature, one more outrage against human autonomy and dignity.