Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

So why is nothing being done? I think we both want something done, and yet here we are.

Democracy doesn't restrain people, really? The issues are numerous, but each person gets one vote for one party/person, effectively they are approving all of the subsequent decisions of the party they've voted for, when what they're really doing is accepting the aggregate of their promises.

Shun and withdraw support all you want, is that producing results, or not?

If your approach isn't producing results, am I crazy for suggesting we think more deeply about strategy?




> Democracy doesn't restrain people, really?

Not socially, not when it comes to the individual relations. I didn't mean convicing or voting are pointless, but it's not the end-all, be-all. It works for the lucky cases, but the bulk of the problem will require stepping on toes and deciding between mutually exclusive things.

Nobody who denies climate change actually wants to grow up in a refugee camp in 100 years and die at age 10, after 10 years of horror, to name just one of the consequences. Or in a society ravaged by Neonazis (unless they're Neonazis, then fuck what they want). So it's up to their betters to enforce their lack of consequence and intellectual integrity on them. They can't leave it at "failed to convince". Which, by definition, contains prior attempts to convince, just not an infinite number of them.

> If your approach isn't producing results, am I crazy for suggesting we think more deeply about strategy?

Who will "convince Trump", for example? You are simply are assuming good faith, functioning humans on the other hand without mental health defects, so what's your answer to where that isn't the case?


>> Democracy doesn't restrain people, really?

> Not socially, not when it comes to the individual relations.

My democracy has produced a very long list of laws that I must follow or they will put me in jail.

> I didn't mean convicing or voting are pointless, but it's not the end-all, be-all.

I absolutely agree with you on this. As I see it Democracy as it is is largely a fraud, when compared to how it is advertised to be.

> So it's up to their betters to enforce their lack of consequence and intellectual integrity on them. They can't leave it at "failed to convince".

Oh but they can leave it at "failed to convince", is that not more or less precisely where we are at, with little sign of a likelihood we'll be moving beyond it any time soon? This is the point I am trying to make, that no climate change enthusiast one seems willing to even consider. The irony of the situation is delicious.

> Who will "convince Trump", for example?

It's not Trump that needs convincing, it is the public. Understanding in detail why people voted for Trump in the first place would have yielded very valuable knowledge that could have been used towards persuading people to support fighting climate change, but instead we seem to have chosen to use our imaginations to decide why people voted for him. People who behave this way, which is mostly everyone I've encountered, are unintelligent in this respect, and the same style of thinking seems to be what is being deployed in the public relations campaign against climate change. I wish you luck, but it doesn't seem to be producing much change, so I will continue to advocate for improvements in strategy.

> You are simply are assuming good faith

Incorrect, I am assuming nothing, except where I have explicitly noted. You on the other hand, *seem to be assuming bad faith. You may be right, but I would recommend studying the matter to find out for sure.

> so what's your answer to where that isn't the case?

As always, I recommend studying the situation: find out the detailed reasons why people do not support climate change, study what the failures seem to be in why the current messaging is unsuccessful, make iterative changes to the strategy, and measure results as you go. If people thought of the situation more like playing a video game, perhaps that would diminish the sense of identity involved and result in the ability to think more clearly (for example, thinking of people as having mental health defects).


> for example, thinking of people as having mental health defects

I asked you how you would convince Trump, as an example of a specific individual we both "know". Your answer is to study someone else, to just assume I haven't thought or observed anything, and that I just declare people as evil or deficient because it's easier. I am not a "climate change enthusiast", my identity in this is zero. You might say I think I see the writing on the wall about forcing humanity through the eye of a needle into endless totalitarianism, and hey, I write a lot about that, but if all that just resolved itself, I would be so glad that I could just sing and hum and take nature photographs all day.

That not all of this is based on misunderstandings and able to be resolved peacefully is not a happy insight, but it's what my data points to, if you will. Just take the stories about (not always) elderly relatives being radicalized by some fake news on FB: these may be well meaning people, but they are in the clutches of not so benign people. Confront and overcome those, and then we'll see how much remaining confusion even exists.

Last but not least, if someone gives their child poison because they're either too ignorant or too evil to know better, do you a.) first try to convince them b.) take the child away by force, then explain to them why you did it? What if it is your child? Yes, it's not a clear cut imminent threat with climate change, but we'll get there. It's not just about the people who "have a right to arguments that are sweet to their gums to make them stop destroying our future voluntarily", it's also about the people after them.


(meta: holy smokes, I'm getting a particularly strict timeout for posting "too fast" today)

> I asked you how you would convince Trump, as an example of a specific individual we both "know". Your answer is to study someone else, to just assume I haven't thought or observed anything, and that I just declare people as evil or deficient because it's easier.

Ironically, you are assuming a fair amount of detail about my beliefs about you.

What I said was: "It's not Trump that needs convincing, it is the public." I mean, if you think energy should be invested in changing Trump's mind, knock yourself out, but that seems like an incredibly ambitious task, and he might be out of office soon, replaced by someone else who may pay a lot of lip service to climate change, but continue kicking the can down the road when it comes to action.

I do recommend studying public opinion in depth though, I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with this idea or not. Hopefully not.

> That not all of this is based on misunderstandings and able to be resolved peacefully is not a happy insight, but it's what my data points to, if you will.

My data (to be fair, little more than paying very close attention to the nature and content of individual conversations) suggests that a massive misunderstanding (particularly: the perceptions individuals have for the thoughts, motivations, and desires of other people) is at the core of the gridlock. It's not everything, but it's a key component.

> Just take the stories about (not always) elderly relatives being radicalized by some fake news on FB: these may be well meaning people, but they are in the clutches of not so benign people. Confront and overcome those, and then we'll see how much remaining confusion even exists.

An excellent point. I wonder though, how "radicalized" are these people, really, as opposed to just frustrated, confused, and illogically angry in general about a complicated mixture of this and that? If it was me, I'd put some effort into finding answers to questions like these, rather than guessing (which typically takes the form of assuming the worst).

> Last but not least, if someone gives their child poison

I would advocate for taking the child away. If it was my child, depending on the circumstances that person may suffer extremely negative consequences that may not be proportional to the harm they inflicted.

On the scale of the population of the planet, or at least the individual citizens within democratic countries, you can't just take these people away or execute them, you have to persuade them, within the incredibly flawed framework of governance that we call Democracy. I am simply saying that the current approach doesn't seem to be successful, and we should expend some effort in figuring out why. That this idea seems so offensive to so many people to me seems more like a symptom of the problem I'm describing, rather than a problem with my idea. I believe there is a strong but unrecognized element or tribalism at play in this debate, on both sides, that is holding back progress. On the right, this manifests as people saying utterly idiotic things about climate change, and on the left this manifests as things like getting angry at or downvoting someone for suggesting we stop mistaking our perceptions of reality for reality itself, and think and study the issue more deeply.

But of course, all of this is just my personal opinion based on observations, it's completely possible I'm wrong. But it seems worthy of some thought and investigation, considering the gravity of the situation and the current state of gridlock.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: