I disagree. "No longer" implies we were ever capable
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
135 points (89.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43897 readers
1078 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Good catch, and I agree.
We can but the solver won't come from the mainstream, it'll come from the edge. One of those insane weirdos that everybody knows is badwrong.
So be kind to weirdos.
The normies you can safely pound to paste tho.
I think it is still capable of solving the problems we currently have, but the biggest question is, will it?
Politics, nationalism, greed, and corporations are currently blocking attempts to solve the climate crisis.
Can we get them out of the way before it's too late? I guess we'll find out.
If something absolutely won't do something, it is not capable of doing that thing.
Won't =/= can't
I honestly think it's too late already. The world as we know it will cease to exist soon. We are already clearly seeing the effects of climate change, and there is much more to come based on the current level of co2. Not to mention that we keep pumping more of the stuff into our atmosphere.
Nope. There are problems that won't be solved because of the framework of the system, but there are things that will be solved because it falls within the framework. Hopefully it goes a good direction, so far it's been good for humans.
I'm the context of the story, yeah. But the premise is terrible so I'm reality, no.
If there was a time in the past that we were capable of solving our problems, why didnβt we do it then?
"Problems existing" is not the same as "never solving any problems." Old problems get solved, new ones arise, and no problem gets solved until it does. People in the middle of the process always point to the extant problems and go "welp, we've never solved that one, guess we're fucked"
Great point. Have we ever?
We're capable, we just have to stop relying on technology, hierarchies, and buck-passing to solve our societal problems for us.
When we rely on technology (in this case I mean "any human-made cosntruct to solve a problem" and not just "machines"), we start falling into the Golden Hammer bias. Think of a societal issue that you care about, no matter how general, look it up, and see some results are just "So-and-so has invented an app to combat [issue]." Then you look into the app and realize that it doesn't do anything to attack the root of the problem, and instead treats some symptoms while fitting into the existing framework that caused the problem in the first place. Incidentally, that's how society has become so full of middlemen.
E.g. insurance: health care becomes expensive enough to break the bank for everyone below a certain threshhold -> someome proposes a system where everyone pays so the people who need it can cash in -> the people who need it pay for this system, those who don't need it don't pay -> the system needs overhead, so it starts charging more and attempting to drive down costs -> the providers artificially increase prices to compensate for the costs being driven down -> more people need insurance. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Tons of ink has been spilled on the problems with hierarchy, but the simplest argument I can give on why it's bad at solving societal issues is: when you put your fate in someone else's hands, you give them the ability to make choices that negatively impact you with no recourse.
Every solution to this problem so far has either been "let's just add another person who sits above the people who sit above us" (which just adds a layer to the original problem) or "let's try to make our relationship more equal without removing their power over us" which cuts down on the benefits of entrusting that power to someone else AND provides none of the benefits of an equal (horizontal) relationship.
Finally, buck-passing is tempting, especially when the problems aren't our fault. But we've become a global society of people looking to point the finger at someone else, and pay another person to do the hard part for us.
Take climate change for example. One of the rallying cries of online activists has been "100 companies are responsible for 71% of GHG emissions." Great! Now what? What good did assigning blame do? What I've been told is that now we should get them to stop. Ok, how? The response i usually get is to elect officials who will enact sanctions for polluting and rewards for cutting down on pollution. And now we're passing the buck, adding a middleman, giving someone else power over us to control our fate, and completely relying on the demonstrably broken technology that is representative government.
What I want to know is what I can personally do today, starting now, to combat the problem. What change to my lifestyle can I make that won't destroy me or my future? I'm not saying we shouldn't support representatives who act in our interestsβwe absolutely, unequivocally should do that (unless it hampers our ability to enact a better solution)βbut I want a solution I can personally participate in, too.
Because, by and large, those solutions get a lot more good done quicker while relying less on "necessary" evils.
I can give you the only true answer to your question of "what can I do today to help fight climate change?" But you won't like it and this 'solution' does not preserve society in really any meaningful way, however it does help to address climate change and prevent the entire natural world from dying of heat stroke. So the question becomes, what do you want to save? You can't save everything and trying to do so will only result in you saving nothing.
The answer is large scale industrial sabotage. And when everything grinds to a halt and people start starving to death because of no industrialized food production and various other factors, you will regret the actions. As you and your own family fall victim to violence over food or land because everyone is panicking and trying to survive, you will likely regret it more. But then in 1000 years, there may still be people alive to call you a monster, if they remember you at all.
Or you could mandate that corporations, instead of being legally required to make the line go up at the expense of anyone they can exploit, are required to pursue less environmentally destructive practices. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of them already did research on this but found it impacted their bottom line and dismissed it.
You're right, I don't like this answer. But it's only partly for the reasons you assume. I'll let someone else argue ethics with you, since I'm not particularly well informed in that regard.
I also don't like this answer because it gives me a nebulous handwaving in the direction of mass action in lieu of actual advice. You may as well have said "revolution," it's only slightly less specific.
Which is... unhelpful, to say the least. Should I google "guide to industrial sabotage" or "how to start and run a global ecoterrorist movement"? Obviously not, that's a sure way to end up in prison before I've made any difference.
All the solutions in the world don't count for dog spit if they're not practical (in all definitions of the word). What can I personally do here and now?
I'm fucking laughing out loud reading this comment.
What I'm hearing you say is, we can solve our own problems, we just need human nature to be different. Which, well... Good luck.
To conflate the way of the crowd with human nature is a folly at best
Come on. The way humans behave in groups is certainly part of human nature. And when we're talking about solving problems of a society, it is the most relevant part.
Yes, but not all humans behave the same way in groups. That's why cultures are different, it's why the fields of sociology and anthropology exist, and it's why conflating "something a lot of people do" with "human nature" is pessimist bologna.
view more: next βΊ