This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I saw this tweet by Palmer Luckey the other day:
"The real secret of of global warming is that the climate can be whatever humanity wants it to be. Two dozen nations could each single-handedly send us all into an ice age."
He's right. It wouldn't be that hard to prevent climate change via geoengineering. In fact we did some geoengineering by mistake last year. New regulations limited the amount of sulfur that oceangoing ships could emit. This caused an increase in the global temperature.
So, if climate change is such a threat, why don't we do something about it?
Because, let's be honest, our current climate change mitigation strategies are doomed to fail and will only make us poor.
Even if the United States and Europe cut 100% of carbon emissions tomorrow, the climate is going to get hotter. China already emits about 3 times as much carbon as the United States. In the developing world, new coal plants are being built every day. 2024 will set a record for coal production, and 2025 will be greater still. And there is hundreds of years of coal left to be consumed.
Getting people to downsize their SUV to a Prius isn't going to fix the problem. Renewables are not the answer either, being both unreliable and requiring constant upgrades. We are using huge amounts of resources to build solar and wind capacity, but the lifetime of these projects is just a couple of decades. So we need more metals and more concrete, which will result in more emissions, not to mention the associated ecological destruction from strip mines.
Did you know that 8% of global carbon emissions come from the production of concrete, the same amount produced by all private passenger automobiles? Fantasies about electric cars solving global warming are just that.
To fully fix global warming, we need to reduce global carbon emissions by at least 90%, more likely 99%. Carbon in the atmosphere has been increasing since before 1800 AD.
So why are we spending trillions trying to nibble at the edges when we could spend billions and achieve much better results. We can cool the climate to an acceptable level while we wait for the carbon removal technology that is the only way to fully solve the problem.
Because the point of 'climate advocacy' isn't controlling the weather. It's demanding every left wing idea under the sun get enacted, and spending trillions to do it. See also: nuclear energy.
I don't think you're completely wrong here, but I feel like pointing out that climate change is actually happening and taking place. It is a real and serious problem, and if you have lived in a coastal area long enough to see the changes they're not really deniable anymore. There really is something happening and it really is causing big problems for the environment and the future. The idea that we can simply make one intervention and "fix" the climate without any second-order consequences strikes me as a bit short-sighted to boot.
That doesn't mean there aren't an army of scammers and grifters out to use that problem for their own advantage - Goldman Sachs is not being selfless when they advocate for a complicated carbon credit scheme which would let them make millions of dollars for no work at all. Plenty of prominent climate "activists" have the carbon footprint of entire cities in the third world (private air travel being one of the biggest contributors) and do nothing except make the position they're advocating less credible. But the fact that people are using the situation to grift and profiteer doesn't mean the problem isn't real. A snake-oil salesman selling you a miracle cure isn't providing an actual treatment for your condition, but the fact that a snake oil salesman is trying to sell to you isn't an argument against your condition existing.
My point was less that 'climate change is not real' or 'climate change is not a problem' and more 'the number of climate activists who are aiming principally at counteracting or reducing the effects of climate change is quite literally zero. The number of them who are primarily concerned with some other agenda is 100% not due to rounding but in a totally literal sense. The watermelon meme is generally accurate-ish and environmentalists are usually just generic left wing activists greenwashing their agenda'.
If you disagree with me, name some counterexamples. Elon Musk is not really an activist for environmental issues, so don't start there.
Sure - me. I support some left wing policies but my stance on climate activism has little to do with those, and I'm not a communist (I'm open about my political ideology - distributism). Though in the interests of full disclosure, I think that many of the current sources of climate pollution are terrible for everyone involved and should be stopped, but for some of those cases concerns about the climate aren't the only factor. The Iraq War had a massive carbon footprint, but I'm not going to lie and claim that my opposition to it revolved around environmental concerns.
If that's not good enough, there's a local political party which takes the climate seriously and isn't interested in simply applying left-wing policies (notably being against massive amounts of immigration) - the Sustainable Australia party. I'd throw John Michael Greer onto the list as a conservative, but he isn't really a climate change activist - he thinks that it is already baked into the cake and the only thing that people can really do is make better and more sustainable choices in their personal lives.
Would you accept a rollback on trans issues, gun control, immigration, and other right-wing issues in order to get allies against climate change? Because that's the problem. Climate change is urgent when it comes to "you have to give up something" but is suddenly not so urgent when it comes to "we have to give up something".
I said that I support some leftist policies, not that I actually am left-wing. The specific issues you listed are ones that I don't actually care about - trans issues are just not something I think are particularly relevant, but I support gun rights and I'm also against immigration (because it damages labour and the environment both). So you're essentially asking me to agree to a bunch of policies I actually support - in which case the answer is hell yes.
This is actually one of the main reasons that the climate change movement failed - people saw that a lot of the most prominent activists wanted to preserve their own carbon consumption habits while shoving the costs onto others (especially people in the wage class). I personally walk my talk and do my best to minimise my own carbon footprint, and there's no way I could look someone in the eyes and tell them it was important if I wasn't willing to make my own sacrifices.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link