596
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
596 points (97.9% liked)
The memes of the climate
1682 readers
596 users here now
The climate of the memes of the climate!
Planet is on fire!
mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.
rules:
-
no slurs, be polite
-
don't give an excuse to pollute
-
no climate denial
-
and of course: no racism, no homophobia, no antisemitism, no islamophobia, no transphobia
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure, individual changes will not make nearly enough of a statistical difference. Lack of change in response to reality is however, morally abhorrent. Don't be morally abhorrent ๐คท Maybe your actions will even have an affect on other people, who while also individually don't make a statistical difference, make more than just you, and also makes fewer people surrounding you less morally abhorrent. You don't need a bunch of policy makers to tell you what is right and wrong. You're an adult. Do the right thing.
It's not about that. It's about actually trying to solve the problem which we know from hundreds of years of history, almost always has to happen at the governmental level
Yeah, I still make choices in my personal life to try to live as sustainably as is practical, including major choices like career path. But the only solution that will ever actually work to our systemic issues is good policy. Not everyone has the comfort or privilege of being able to choose sustainable options where they can, and there are many cases where there simply is no sustainable option. Groceries at the store? I doubt a "regenerative agriculture" label even exists in the vast majority of places, so good luck choosing the sustainable option there. The alternative might be becoming a homesteader and growing all your own food, but obviously that's not a solution for 99% of the population. We need policy to make there even be sustainable options in the first place, and more policy to make those sustainable options the preferred choice or maybe even the only choice.
So you are concerned with climate change but would change nothing about your behavior to respond to it, unless you're forced to? But also, you probably hope someone does force you? Where's your agency? I don't know how to tell you this, but this isn't me telling you how to live your life, this is me explaining that you don't even live in accordance with your own values. You are not even being your authentic self. Are you sure you actually care? I'm unconvinced.
So basically, live and let destroy? You hold no one to any moral standard? I don't have any desire to hate anyone. What I do think however is that we've set the moral bar way, way too low in modern society. More importantly, even if I am a hateful person, that does not justify inaction. Your framing this issue around a superiority complex helps this cause zero percent if not negative. It's definitely less than individual choices.
Shame has value in discourse, especially at it relates to collective concerns for others. You know this. You demonstrated it slightly higher up in the comments by calling me out. You made a judgement yourself. I just think your 'live and let destroy' ideas are clearly worse than my 'you suck if you don't address climate change' ideas.
Edit: damn y'all, I guess I don't tolerate people who behave in a manner that is intolerant of all known conscious life. Me bad. ๐คทโโ๏ธ I should seek help ๐คทโโ๏ธ
We can all agree here that climate change need some immediate solutions, but you debating in bad faith and using so many manipulation tactics in just a few comments not only harms your credibility, but demonstrates that you don't actually care about climate change, but to just win an argument. Stop. Get some help
Why is it bad faith? What was manipulative? If you're making the claim, you should explain.
You have only an uninformed shot at me explaining what essentially you can also find on Google: appeal to morality, hasty generalization (especially on your little funny edit in your second to last comment), false dichotomy, begging the question (the "shame has value in discourse" is your worst example, trying to justify it by a "tu quoque" fallacy). And these are just from a surface level analysis, you don't want me to do a full one
I'm going to preface that just throwing around fallacies without any context actually doesn't explain anything, because now I'm left to assume where you're making the claim.
So you don't think changing behavior in relation to climate change is morally necessary? You don't arrive at that conclusion based on available scientific data and projections? You don't think it's self-evident?
Are you saying he didn't judge me as hateful? I don't think it's an error btw. I'm not accusing them of doing something wrong on the grounds that they did the same thing as me, they just applied judgement in a way that does less to cause one to take action on climate change. Assuming we hold the same concerns about the climate, and we want action, that's what makes the judgement objectionable.
Where
Perhaps I'll have to look back at my comments because I don't see this either. I clearly qualified that I'm aware a single individuals choices don't have enough effect to deter climate change.
Where's the circular reasoning?
If you're going to tell people to seek help, nah, you should actually explain.