The issue with the global warming advocates is that they seem to believe that in order to solve global warming we need to make everyone's life worse. That was already a non-starter. It's just terrible marketing.

You say it's for the benefit of "decrepit old men," but the fact is that more and more of the globe is being lifted out of poverty and living more comfortably than ever before. The unfortunate fact is that global warming is an unstoppable force now, humans would have to go extinct for it to waiver.

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I am saying that your framing is exactly why no one listens to global warming advocacy. We are powerless against it, not because of governments, but because people are living better and no one is going to sacrifice that; and even if they did the math doesn't add up to reverse course. The people that say we should all be sacrificing are often the richest among us that don't even know what sacrifice entails, contrary to your point.

▲

collingreen 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Your framing, that no collective action can ever include reduction or sacrifice, implies this is an inevitable and fatal path we cannot come back from.

I hope you are wrong that nothing requiring sacrifice can ever be accomplished.

▲

senordevnyc 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The only time I can think of that democratic populations have made large and sweeping sacrifices have been when they’re actively engaged in total war. And even then, it usually has to be mandated and enforced pretty ruthlessly by the government.

We simply did not evolve as a species to make large personal individual sacrifices today in order to benefit billions of strangers decades in the future. Never going to happen.

The options here are technology saving us, or eco-totalitarian governments controlling a huge portion of the world’s population. Nothing else will work.

▲

partiallypro 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This sacrifice involves putting millions back in poverty. I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

	▲	iamnothere 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Western activists are ok with this because (a) they don’t imagine that they will be greatly affected and will live a solarpunk luxury lifestyle and (b) they glorify third world poverty and consume media that presents it as a desirable, more authentic way of life, when the truth is that most of those people are desperately trying to claw their way into affluence. None of the above implies that everyone can achieve a current day Western lifestyle or that current Western lifestyles are sustainable. But average people are going to continue seeking it out, it’s just human nature. Activists who expect people to “just” give up that search are not being realistic.

▲

zerot_ 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> to solve global warming we need to make everyone's life worse

This is ignoring that _not_ solving global warming will make everyone's life worse regardless.

	▲	partiallypro 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not ignoring that at all, but I challenge you to go back to the person in China or India that suddenly has amenities and tell him they all have to go away, and everything they worked for over 20 years is gone for "the greater good." You're probably only viewing this from a Western view (already wealthy.)