A blog on collapse and crisis themes, covering civilization risks, COVID precautions, academia, and why people fail to react to danger.
HN commenters give little praise here; one calls a response tied to it emotional rhetoric posing as reasoned argument.
I think this response is wrong-headed on multiple counts. It is emotional rhetoric, pretending to be a reasoned argument.
> This is basically correct
Why is it correct? Says who?
> and it is the thing that every climate activist does not seem to understand.
I think it is you that does not understand how and why people are reacting.
> then you have entered into the realm of political economy.
False assertion.
"You like having an economy: in general, having money and trade. If you do not do these things, nobody will have money."
... is not a political statement. To say it is, is to say that a statement such as:
"Watch out, there's a car coming!"
... is a manifesto about transport issues.
> Except to do that, we have to end almost all transportation, reduce electricity usage substantially, stop using all concrete, stop flying airplanes, stop eating beef, stop using petrochemical fertilizers, etc.
That sounds largely correct.
But then:
> It is not an exaggeration to say that billions of people would die within 12 months.
Yes, it is. Stopping personal ICE vehicle transport, stopping non-essential flights, stopping all meat eating, stop using all petrochemicals...
That does not spell doom for billions.
Yours is the emotional exaggeration here.
> if it's your position that the most important thing right now is to stop emitting carbon [...] then your position is utterly insane
This is a standard, if very strange to me, right-wing political tactic: take what you…