Get ready for countries like the US to "take on the responsibility" of altering the world's climate and fucking it even further.
How anyone can think that our world will not severely fuck "geoengineering" the planet is insane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSu5sXmsur4
i tried searching and all I found that was anything close to an effortpost was this comment from banned user joshieecs:
"I used to really enjoy their videos, but early last year they decided to take down two of they most-watched and best videos for totally bullshit reasons. They thought it was too “political” because they extrapolated into criticisms of capitalism. They explained it in a “Can You Trust Kurzgesagt Videos?” and my takeaway was a resounding NO, not anymore.
One of the videos they took down was “Addiction”, which emphasized research that mice almost completely lost interesting in chugging down as much cocaine and opium water as they could get their paws on when they had a fun mouse playground other mice to play with. A little too close to some theory of alienation as a driving factor of social ills or even disease models. Couldn’t have that!
The other was an extremely tepid “refugees are actual human beings” take. European Refugee Crisis and Syria Explained. Nope, too political. Their videos have all been dogshit every since then. Though it could just be my bias because it kinda pissed me off. I used to even have notifications turned on for when a new video dropped. Now I am not even subbed to the channel."
If somebody has a link to this effortpost about this Kurzgesagt whatever channel, drop a link
damn joshieecs got banned from here? huh, surprised
and I remember that addiction video, it's why I thought Kurzgesagt were good for a while
research that mice almost completely lost interesting in chugging down as much cocaine and opium water as they could get their paws on when they had a fun mouse playground other mice to play with.
I might be remembering wrong but I think this research has not been replicated.
One of their earliest videos was a bullshit neoclassical analysis of banking, if I remember right.
After radicalized more I can really only watch their science stuff
Even their science stuff is biased (and science is never unbiased anyway).
Avoid them overall
It's been a while since I watched their videos, but I seem to recall a greater emphasis on using technology to solve our problems (like climate change or running out of fossil fuels, something about dyson spheres at one point), rather than considering the idea that technological progress might be to blame and should be scaled back.
That and also not making any clear statements about the irresponsibility of corporations.
Yeah I can see that. Its clear they're rooted in a liberal mindset. I try and divorce that from the info theyre bringing even if its a bit silly. Like the concept of Dyson spheres is interesting if not really possible or feasible, it was a big subject in scifi for awhile (guilty pleasure of mine). Or perhaps its something achievable in a post-scarcity Star Trek like civ where the social ills are already addressed.
But yes, there's a clear lack of pointing fingers at the root causes and more fixing problems within the existing system (not the best idea).
I like there videos on ants tho. Pretty neat.
Talking about geoengineering schemes is the advanced stage of climate denialism. Theyre all purely conceptual and if they ever are viable won't be available for decades at the earliest. Its all a bullshitting tactic to avoid talking about the extremely radical socio-economic measures actually necessary to avert catastrophe at this point. But those measures are completely at odds with the structural forces of capitalism and class interests of the bourgeoisie, and therefore even if our political leaders had the will to campaign for them they are literally incapable of contemplating them in the first place. Its literally unthinkable under a neoliberal ideological hegemony.
Much better worded summary of what I was thinking. Its literally outside the realm of understanding for the people on top. They have to entertain scifi solutions years off from now
I want to believe in things like this to avoid getting consumed by doomer thought. I believe miracle technology is more likely than systemic change so even though I know it's mostly fantasies, I want to believe in it to preserve my mental health.
yet, the west throws some chemicals into the atmosphere to stop global warming, but they are too good and flash freezes the world
im pretty sure the polar bear eats the kids, Bong Joon-ho like putting fake happy endings in his movies
For a hot minute I thought that was an interesting channel and then they came out with their latest global warming video that blames...you guessed it - the consooomers! Fuck that channel.
Because most of the damage could be avoided if people just stopped their mindless consumption. Consumption is the driving force behind climate change. Why do you want to lift all responsibility off of people? Does it help yourself?
That does not remove you from personal responsibility. The most immediate action you can take is changing your own behaviour and then that of others.
when you can’t take your theory out of its individualistic pitfalls, you know you’re a liberal.
I am a lib because I advocate for less consumption? Ok, I guess I am a lib then.
You're advocating it under a liberal framework.
That does not remove you from personal responsibility.
Everyone on this website could go fully anprim and it would achieve fuckall in terms of fixing the problems. Thus, discussing "personal responsibility" in this context is utterly futile. The changes necessary must be systemic.
You’re advocating it under a liberal framework.
That everyone has a responsibility, to do what they can, to contribute to the improvement of our current situation, is not a "liberal framework".
Everyone on this website could go fully anprim and it would achieve fuckall in terms of fixing the problems.
Fortunately, the world does not end here.
Thus, discussing “personal responsibility” in this context is utterly futile.
Personal consumption (mostly in western countries) has caused it. That there are systemic reasons for it does not change that anyone still has a responsibility, and can bring immediate improvements, which is what we need.
The changes necessary must be systemic.
Did I ever say that it doesn't have to be systemic? No. In theory we could solve climate change by changing our way to live tomorrow, but that won't happen. Neither is soon enough systemic change realistic. That shouldn't stop us from fighting for either. But resigning and handing over all your responsibilities to large corporations, then getting mad them, is pathetic.
You might not have intended it, but the structure that upholds the argument that a group of individual actors could reduce their consumption and that would reduce production is rooted in the flawed liberal analysis that individual actors (even acting in groups) have power over the machinery of the global union between states and capital.
No, but they have control over their individual consumption and often choose to simply not care. Even if systemic issues are the driving force behind this behaviour, I don't agree with categorically relieving humans from their responsibilities. Not in any system.
The counter to that line of reasoning is that we simply cut off the production of greenhouse gasses at its source, the producers.
As I have said, that should be the goal and is key to having any chance of not reaching 5°C. But I also believe that not everyone is just a victim of capitalism but often choosing to participate to an unnecessary degree. They are aware of the damage they cause, yet tell themselves why it isn't so bad, why it is ok. A different mindset would have a significant impact on emissions. The capital would react to this is, if "necessary", but that also doesn't justify this kind of destructive behaviour.
If your argument is that under a socialist state the individual must uphold their commitment to reducing consumption that would also be stupid because if u have a socialist state why not just be like “uhh yall need to waste less fucking food smdh” like chynah is doing? at that point you arent asking individual yeoman farmers to make the logical conclusion that their patriotic duty is to do something, your just telling them.
Because this won't happen in capitalist governments, the individual actions are even more significant. That the state doesn't tell you to behave less shitty does not make shitty actions ok.
Okay, so you say that even though people have no control of an outcome through their individual actions it’s still wrong for them to make certain choices. Whatever, I guess?
Of course their actions have an effect, I am just saying that I am aware that capitalism will react to less consumption. That doesn't change that your consumption has an effect on production, and that consuming less, or at least consuming less problematic goods, is always positive. If you choose to take a train over a domestic flight, that is certainly the better choice.
Now people would buy plastics and feel like their individual acts of recycling a yogurt container was making a difference.
"Avoid plastic" is quite simple and a thing that everyone I have ever met is aware of. That companies try to trick people/help them at lying to themselves does not excuse people from willingly falling for this. Keep in mind, I never said that the system isn't the biggest problem.
What I do take issue with there is the idea that people are making some choice to live terrible lifestyles. If you really wanna get into it then go ahead and give me an example of that choice. It’s hard to argue about a straw man this nebulous.
For example, I currently live in a country were pretty much everyone is aware of how problematic meat consumption is (many for emotional, not environmental reasons), yet hardly anyone will change their ways. Most people you will talk to will tell you that they have decreased their meat consumption by a lot, because they are aware of (some of) the problems, and they will try to convince themselves of it, but they never actually change their consumption. They are aware, in a position to change something, yet tell themselves, secretly, that it isn't necessary, because it wouldn't matter.
The same people are aware that a less wasteful car would be better, that ordering less crap would be better, but they always decide to let capitalism comfort them about making the right choices, never giving up on any luxury they are more than aware they could do without. Capitalism has created this situation, but it hasn't removed people from all autonomy over their individual actions. If I act as a selfish asshole within capitalism, my behaviour might be heavily influenced by the system I live under, but I would still be a selfish asshole. The same way I don't excuse the most evil and influential capitalist actors, even if the system has significantly shaped their behaviour, I will condemn wastefulness on an individual level (on a much smaller scale).
Where I live the surplus is shipped over the border or even overseas if there isn’t enough demand here.
Because there is more demand there, which is influenced by individual behaviour. As you have said, the production in ones country won't just end if enough people decide to limit their consumption, but this only applies if there is enough demand elsewhere, and the demand elsewhere depends on the consumption of the people living there. Their actions will decide how much will be exported to them, and they are as responsible as anyone else. This ignores that "other markets" likely have a poorer population, because most of the consumption is happening in western countries. One person reducing their consumption in the USA has a much larger effect than 10 people in Cuba doing the same. It isn't symmetrical, and therefore can't be that easily replaced. Either way, this applies to all people where possible anyway.
The overwhelming majority of consumer goods are shipped in across the pacific. So it’s not like we can stop the production by not buying them, the factories will just ship them to somewhere else and sell there.
Your argument seems inconsistent. You say that consumer behaviour affects export and demand, but also argue that it makes no difference because it would be shipped elsewhere. If individual behaviour can lead to goods being produced for another market instead, the people there have the same power. This logic only works if people elsewhere start consuming more because you are consuming less. What would happen if everyone consumes less? Exactly! Less production. Covid has shown that just this year.
Now on the subject of plastics I don’t know where you’re at but it’s not possible to walk into a grocery store on a budget and not come out with a cart full of plastic containers. When people have a fridge full of plastic it’s not because they dgaf about the earth, it’s because they can’t afford to buy the expensive stuff. Or that they live in the USA and everything is packaged in plastic and there isn’t another option.
In all my posts I have emphasised that this only applies if people choose to do so while having other options. I have lived in the US for a bit, and you can definitely get relatively cheap produce that isn't wrapped in plastic. There are valid reasons why you wouldn't be able to cook etc., but the vast majority of Americans could certainly consume less, lol. It doesn't stop at food. This is not even debatable. There is no other nation with as much mindless consumption.
Production does not go down due to small fluctuations
What I am talking about would lead to more than a small fluctuation. "My actions don't have any impact" is just learnt and accepted helplessness to be more comfortable with your own selfish actions. Which is funny, because this comes from the people who consume as much as 50 people in poorer countries.
But let’s say that wasn’t true. Someone who makes the decision to only buy locally grown grass fed biodynamic beef can’t be considered a 200iq rational actor who should be shamed for their decision to participate in climate change even a little bit as a treat because they’re affected by myriad influences to normalize that consumption.
Of course, that behaviour is even incentivised by bullshit "environmentalism". People live within a system that not only normalises this kind of consumption but actively encourages it. Maybe even add a few symbols on the packaging that make the buyer feel good about their purchase. But people are still able to make choices. If you are aware of the situation and choose to not care and tell yourself some excuses ("my actions don't matter", "everyone does it"), as is the case with almost everyone here, then I am not going to only blame the system which they act within.
Also here in the USA meat trade organizations have a history of astroturfing demand to justify increased production after the fact and to whitewash safety, ecological and health concerns.
Yes, they are evil. I never said they aren't the worst actors.
it’s why we can’t rely on individual choice to change production
Unfortunately we can't. If we could, we wouldn't be in the current situation. My argument was never that individual choices are the driving force behind climate change, but that individuals are to blame for their (conscious) actions that drive climate, and that individual choices have an impact. They are immediate actions that have a positive effect collectively. Telling people that their consumption does not matter, especially when most people here are Americans, living in the by far most wasteful nation, the biggest contributor to climate change, is just harmful, and false. Advocating for responsible consumption is good and important. It will have to happen anyway.
The comment I replied to was about a kurzgesagt video btw. The user said that they were arguing that the consumers are at fault. This shows the tunnel-vision so many people here have. The video said that what anyone can do, immediately, is to be less wasteful. Afterwards the video talked about taxing emissions etc.
Read a book you fucking lib and preferably not one written by that sucdem, manhole cover collecting loser and capitulator you named your account after
I have bought "Fire and Fury" and try to finish it by the end of the year.
it’s the means by which you think less consumption will occur that makes you a lib, individual reduction of consumption isn’t going to take place when there is systemic incentivization of perpetually increasing consumption.
If people made their own decisions on their own then companies wouldn't invest so much money into marketing and advertising. Take away the ads and show me the rabid consumers, then I'll give your point some merit.
Yes, consciousness choices would do immeasurable (the bad kind of immeasurable) benefit to the planet, but the system of capitalism will kill to uphold the consumptive system. Until consumer choices include the option to choose to abolish capitalism, the climate cannot be saved
Until consumer choices include the option to choose to abolish capitalism, the climate cannot be saved
The choice is to consume significantly less.
The pollution happens during production, not consumption, you fucking idiot.
If you think you can shift supply by changing individual demand, you don't fucking understand capitalism. And you've just fully deep throated bourgeois propaganda.
The entire point of it is to control production. They're not going to stop because you don't want their stuff. Literally entire wars are started solely to "open up markets" to push products onto. Entire infrastructure systems have been destroyed solely to bolster the need to consume products.
They're currently running airline flights that are fucking empty, one of the most polluting things we do, just to make sure the routes still work.
If we all magically stopped consuming, then a hyper consumer class would gobble to the rest. Or they'd force you to at gunpoint, basically.
The idea that you have individual choice in capitalism is just part of its hegemony. Without completely restructuring the entire global economy, your "individual responsibility" means dick.
They’re not going to stop because you don’t want their stuff.
No, they won't, but that isn't an excuse for unsustainable consumption. If you make the decision to be more wasteful than you could be, then you are to blame too. Most people in the west could easily reduce their consumption and many choose not to. I don't know why you want to defend selfishness.
Without completely restructuring the entire global economy
That should be the goal.
There are different degrees of exploitation. This was about luxuries and wastefulness though.
you aren’t being more wasteful than you need to be if you buy a ticket for a plane that would’ve ran empty either way. you aren’t increasing pollution in anyway by participating in the plane trip bc it would took place with or without passengers as we have seen in corona
Unpopular and not lucrative routes get cut all the time. Covid is an exception because of governments bailing out airlines and rules that required airlines to have some flights to keep their spots.
Those were few flights, the overall flights dropped more than ever before: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104036/novel-coronavirus-weekly-flights-change-airlines-region/
on how many fronts are you defending this individualist, reactionary take now? last night when i started this sub-thread it was just contra-me. but now comrades too have stepped in to help and you still can’t see the err in your theory.
on how many fronts are you defending this individualist, reactionary take now?
Only two right now. And it is as individualist as saying that murdering (done by an individual) is bad and deserves blame.
but now comrades too have stepped in to help and you still can’t see the err in your theory.
You making an argument based on wrong numbers, while the reality proves me right, is not helping. One person wasting less is one person wasting less. Because of overproduction it would make no difference, but my argument is that this does not justify participation in absurd consumerism. That is literal all I have said. I want all the regulations and governments seriously fighting the destruction of the planet over, or in addition to, individual action. We only differ in that I put blame on individuals as I see them as more as victims of capitalism and advertisement.
you put blame on individuals because you see them as victims of capitalism? do you put blame on rape victims too?
perhaps put the blame on not the victim but the attacker
Just when I start to feel bad about how much of a lib I am some dipshit like you comes along and really brightens my day up.
Taking all the fossil fuel companies and attributing all fuel consumption to them, as if they pump up oil for fun. From now on, I will blame the companies that produced the goods I consume.
yeah bc it is in thru the process of production that one pollution takes place and two that you are even able to consume it. if they didn’t produce it, there would be no pollution at all from that product. whereas if you didn’t consume it, someone else would.
you’re solution of lowering consumption globally is literally an imposition of global individual austerity and that would take a totalitarian global government to enforce within the timeframes necessary to defeat climate change. if this is your solution how do you materialistically propose we reach the global state of control needed to ensure consumption is lowered individually?
it seems it would take a lot more work to make sure everyone isn’t eating more than a certain amount of beef than it would to ensure only a certain amount of beef gets produced.
whereas if you didn’t consume it, someone else would.
There is more than one person on the planet. There is more than one person acting responsibly. It adds up. "Someone else would do this bad thing I am about to do, so it is okay" is also a very weak defense.
you’re solution of lowering consumption globally
Where did I say that this is the solution? It is an easy and effective immediate action people can take. Or they can spend their time telling themselves that they are alone and nothing matters. You are advocating for the second option.
it seems it would take a lot more work to make sure everyone isn’t eating more than a certain amount of beef than it would to ensure only a certain amount of beef gets produced.
What is the argument here? Work != emissions. And I never said that an authority should control individual consumption. I said that individuals living unnecessarily wasteful lives are part of the problem and take some responsibility. But you go so far to even try to legitimise taking as many flights as you want, so this discussion is pointless anyway.
you argue in such anti-materialistic ways that to have any further argument would necessitate my attacking the very idealistic foundations upon which your thought rests. i simply don’t have the time. read marx’s capital maybe then you’ll get the point we are making
It's also known by the euphemism "solar radiation management". Planning to spray particulates at high altitudes to block out the sun.
What could possibly go wrong? /s
More info: https://www.airclim.org/acidnews/solar-radiation-management-srm-and-geoengineering-are-not-needed
Apparently Bill Gates is very interested in funding this. (With absolutely no consent from the public ofc; he's rich so is allowed to do whatever he wants) https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/bill-gates-funded-solar-geoengineering-could-help-stop-global-warming.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7350713/Bill-Gates-wants-spray-millions-tonnes-dust-stratosphere-stop-global-warming.html
Counterpoint: isn't this how we get snowpiercer? Trains > hospitible climate
Counter-counterpoint: Literally any other food > Black roach protein bars
Reminded me of that Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns blocks out the sun and is shot.
Well we rely on plants for oxygen and plants rely on light for photosynethesis so a complete and total collapse of the entire ecosytem.
I like the giant mirrors idea.
What could possibly go wrong? /s
Explained in the video. The whole second half is about the dangers.
Planning to spray particulates at high altitudes to block out the sun.
That sounds like nuclear winter, the thing that scientists have been warning us is a BAD IDEA, but on purpose.
That channel made one video about the climate, realized the doomer truth in its research, then at the end just pulled a coping "UUUHHH I UMMMM GREEN TECH WILL FIX ALL OF IT" out of its ass.
That's not the same as filling the sky with suspended particles to block the sun.
They planted trees in desertified land, allowing rain to be stored and refreshing the microclimates of the area.
There is nothing about that that can backfire like temporarily blocking the sun for 5 years.
It’s probably smarter than nuking the sun, which someone actually proposed
Isn't this what happened to the world of The Matrix? Except we aren't trying to stop robots that rely on solar power.
Boomers, as a parting gift, will make their early long-term lead poisoning look like baby shit
I'd think I'd hate [insert means of death] the most when I start feeling it
The US has provided significant funding to space exploration, it just got sucked up by the shuttle program/STS and defence contractors.
Centuries is very optimistic tbh.
Remember that Hubble is just a keyhole satellite modified for science use, there are at least a dozen others like it up there pointing down
Haha well the military budget makes everything else look quite insignificant.
Plane dumping green gas certainly DOES give me faith that jets would help the world... Thank you so much Youtube image for that hell image.
