O/T:- Climate Change

[drillerpie]

The majority of that will be accounted for by the underlying, unifying principles that make up a person's worldview (or backyardview ; ) ). So it's not necessarily tribalism or propaganda. If someone's applying, say, compassion or fatalism on one issue, they're most likely to bring it to bear on all the others too.

Fair points, it could be that, but I'm not sure that explains it all. One poster has already stated he's zen about the extinction of the human race and life as we know it (climate change) but is at the same time very worried about the extinction of the human race and life as we know it (Russian nukes).

This doesn't make sense, yet I bet if you asked a large number of climate change sceptics, the vast majority would have the same position on Ukraine.

I think something more is happening here.

[the_anticlough]

Fair points, it could be that, but I'm not sure that explains it all. One poster has already stated he's zen about the extinction of the human race and life as we know it (climate change) but is at the same time very worried about the extinction of the human race and life as we know it (Russian nukes).

This doesn't make sense, yet I bet if you asked a large number of climate change sceptics, the vast majority would have the same position on Ukraine.

I think something more is happening here.

I actually think so too. My first post was just to qualify yours a bit.

Supporting a football club is one of the most tribal things you can do. Even so, I don't wallow in that. I tell myself it's conditional (although we know it's not )

But seeing grown adults approach other more serious subjects with the same reflex tribalism (including voting in general elections) is just so wrong. Falling into line with 'our side' as if it's like supporting a football club. It's not supposed to be like that of course, we should also be using our minds and consciences to figure difficult questions out for ourselves. So yes, there should be more variance in opinions across the range of subjects and 'taking sides' as such should be left for the sillier stuff like footy

[upthemaggies]

This discussion seems to have turned into a "Look how kind and caring I am" circle jerk.

How about a hypothetical choice of scenario's with a crystal ball to show the result 200 years from now....

Plan A (most countries signing up to an agreement) - Population is 3 billion in 2223, but everybody related to you are amongst the 5 billion plus that don't make it.
Plan B (Individual countries take matters into their own hands) - Only half a billion survive to 2223 but these include all of your offspring and relations' offspring.

Anybody who would pick Plan A is either a liar, has no kids or hates themselves.

On the Nuclear War v Climate Change question.
Nuclear war means we take everything out with us, the Earth may never recover and it's also going to be a horrific way to go out for most who won't die instantly. Climate change isn't going to happen overnight and other species will adapt. Can't believe I'm having to explain the difference with that one.

[drillerpie]

I don't think it is at all clear that the government deliberately falsified the data. There are plenty of cases where it's genuinely difficult to tell whether someone died of or with COVID, and when, in the middle of a global pandemic, the distinction doesn't matter a great deal. It's a medical records coding issue, and it seems an odd issue to focus on, when the overall number of deaths vs expected deaths tells a pretty clear story.

Two things I'd say about COVID and accusations about over-hyping. The first is that at the start, there was a lot that we (scientists, medics) didn't know about COVID. They knew about coronaviruses more generally. But they didn't know about levels of transmissibility - hence the early focus on surface washing, which proved later not to be so necessary. We also didn't know how best to treat patients. The second is that a lot of early predictions were based on not doing anything/taking no steps. But we did take steps to reduce the spread, and we did get better at treating people, and we were lucky in the way that the virus mutated so far. Or at least it could have been much worse.

More generally - there is an issue around the climate crisis, how it's reported, and how people campaign. This is true of absolutely every issue that everyone campaigns on. There's a dilemma - if you don't make it seem bad, people are less likely to respond. On the other hand, if you make it seem too bad/hopeless, people will regard it as a lost cause. There is some good news amidst all the bad news about the climate crisis and our response - much more power is generated through renewals, and we've had major culture changes towards recycling and minimising waste. These aren't nothing. We've also got some interesting technological interventions coming down the line that may help - carbon capture etc.

Problem is, some campaigners are resistant to reporting good/better news on climate (and perhaps COVID and other issues too) because they think it'll make people complacent. It was interesting reading what people said in the other thread about feeling hopeless and that nothing we could do could make a difference. We need to get the message - yes, there's a climate crisis. Yes, it's caused by human activity. No, we can't stop it, but yes, we can still reduce the damage.

I'm interested in this argument about government control. Genuine discussion to be had about how we share out the burdens of climate change fairly. But there's a paranoia in the air sometimes (not Slack Pie, I don't think, whose post is more nuanced) about everything being an excuse or pretext for government overreach or takeover. It's a very American argument... this idea that government is bad and will always overreach and will inevitably try to control everything. They also mistake trying to control what corporations do with controlling what citizens do. It's probably to do with their history and their national story of escaping colonial oppression, but our national story and relationship with our government is quite different.

There's no evidence for the idea of creeping totalitarianism. Yes, the government did take emergency powers during COVID, but then it relaxed them again. During WWII we had much greater restrictions on civil liberties, including rationing, which were all subsequently relaxed. And although we can all point to instances of police overreaction during COVID, generally policing was by consent and with a minimum of legal force.

Think it's fine to worry about what sacrifices people will have to make to avoid the worst of the climate crisis and about how that burden will be divided and how those decisions will be taken. But it's possible to do that without going down a paranoid rabbit hole.

I think you're right about it being a very American perspective. Their constitution was written in the late 1700s and is a snapshot of English political thought at the time, which was a reaction against the absolutism of the century before (the 1600s was the century of absolute rulers in France, the UK and elsewhere) so avoiding tyrannical government was very important at the time.

While it has been a constant in American politics, I think it has gone more into the mainstream in recent years, arguably with good reason on some levels. But I agree with you that people don't always take into account what small government means in practice.

Philosphers divide freedom into positive and negative freedom, which can be loosely translated as freedom from something (or everything) and freedom to (do something, or everything).

Small government (or almost no government, in the libertarian tradition) means freedom FROM pretty much everything, but it drastically reduces your freedom TO do things, because without a government giving you an education, health care, police protection, transport, you are unlikely to have the positive freedom to realise your potential in life.

[Newish Pie]

I think you're right about it being a very American perspective. Their constitution was written in the late 1700s and is a snapshot of English political thought at the time, which was a reaction against the absolutism of the century before (the 1600s was the century of absolute rulers in France, the UK and elsewhere) so avoiding tyrannical government was very important at the time.

While it has been a constant in American politics, I think it has gone more into the mainstream in recent years, arguably with good reason on some levels. But I agree with you that people don't always take into account what small government means in practice.

Philosphers divide freedom into positive and negative freedom, which can be loosely translated as freedom from something (or everything) and freedom to (do something, or everything).

Small government (or almost no government, in the libertarian tradition) means freedom FROM pretty much everything, but it drastically reduces your freedom TO do things, because without a government giving you an education, health care, police protection, transport, you are unlikely to have the positive freedom to realise your potential in life.

That's one more reference to Isaiah Berlin's 'Two Concepts' than I was expecting to read here today.

There's a line in the Simpsons... Homer says something about gun ownership being allowed for two reasons... killing dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. Something like that. Sums up the spirit of it.

I've got a theory that in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere in Europe) we gave the libertarian laissez-faire minimal government thing a go and decided that it didn't work. For anyone. Not for the minnows (obviously), but not for the pikes either.

We ended up with the famine in Ireland; slums and squalor and unspeakable poverty in the cities; and conditions and child labour in factories so appalling that it was too much even for the powers that be, who were compelled to intervene to try to stop the race to the bottom. You've also got the shock caused by the struggle to find enough fit men to sign up for the army during the Boer War. The realisation that industrialisation requires more engineers, and a global trade empire required administrators and clerks, and all that needs education.

Then you get governments bringing in regulations and inspectors and minimum standards, and the growth of trade unions fighting for workers' rights. Pre-WWI you get the first origins of the welfare state, and then after WWII the Beveridge Report and the welfare state proper.

I'm not quite sure why the American experience followed such a different path. Probably a more rural economy... slavery... shortages of labour keeping wages higher? The Federal system making government seem much more remote?

The other thing that puzzles me... let's assume for the sake of argument that someone had aspirations to run a totalitarian-style government, or at least a more totalitarian one in the UK. Does anyone seriously think that our governmental structures, civil service, police, intelligence services, would be in any way capable of it? I'm thinking less about competence (though that's part of it) and more about sheer capacity.

[drillerpie]

That's one more reference to Isaiah Berlin's 'Two Concepts' than I was expecting to read here today.

There's a line in the Simpsons... Homer says something about gun ownership being allowed for two reasons... killing dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. Something like that. Sums up the spirit of it.

I've got a theory that in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere in Europe) we gave the libertarian laissez-faire minimal government thing a go and decided that it didn't work. For anyone. Not for the minnows (obviously), but not for the pikes either.

We ended up with the famine in Ireland; slums and squalor and unspeakable poverty in the cities; and conditions and child labour in factories so appalling that it was too much even for the powers that be, who were compelled to intervene to try to stop the race to the bottom. You've also got the shock caused by the struggle to find enough fit men to sign up for the army during the Boer War. The realisation that industrialisation requires more engineers, and a global trade empire required administrators and clerks, and all that needs education.

Then you get governments bringing in regulations and inspectors and minimum standards, and the growth of trade unions fighting for workers' rights. Pre-WWI you get the first origins of the welfare state, and then after WWII the Beveridge Report and the welfare state proper.

I'm not quite sure why the American experience followed such a different path. Probably a more rural economy... slavery... shortages of labour keeping wages higher? The Federal system making government seem much more remote?

The other thing that puzzles me... let's assume for the sake of argument that someone had aspirations to run a totalitarian-style government, or at least a more totalitarian one in the UK. Does anyone seriously think that our governmental structures, civil service, police, intelligence services, would be in any way capable of it? I'm thinking less about competence (though that's part of it) and more about sheer capacity.

Good post, agree with all of it.

100 years ago or more we all had way more freedom from, but a lot less freedom to.

[upthemaggies]

How many posters here do not eat meat and do not drive?

I do neither and that's my personal choice, none of my business to tell anybody else what to do, but I'm seeing a lot of people talking themselves up on here as morally superior and I'm wondering if that's all it is. Talk.

[Elite_Pie]

How many posters here do not eat meat and do not drive?

I eat meat and I drive. I much prefer a chicken curry to a vegetarian curry, and my annual mileage is now down to around 3,000 miles. I use public transport when I can, but sometimes it's not available. I would like to see those in power recognise that climate change is real and take appropriate action. If my carnivorous instinct and petrol pollution costs me a bit more, I won't complain because I can see it's for the greater good.

Does that make me a hypocrite or not?

[upthemaggies]

I eat meat and I drive. I much prefer a chicken curry to a vegetarian curry, and my annual mileage is now down to around 3,000 miles. I use public transport when I can, but sometimes it's not available. I would like to see those in power recognise that climate change is real and take appropriate action. If my carnivorous instinct and petrol pollution costs me a bit more, I won't complain because I can see it's for the greater good.

Does that make me a hypocrite or not?

That's for you to decide. Who else has the authority to be judge and jury?

[Elite_Pie]

That's for you to decide. Who else has the authority to be judge and jury?

In that case, I'll sit on the fence.