What is the point?

[JSDD]

...one guy cant really change that much, changes must be done at government level FIRST, then you can think about "helping" in that sense, until then dont even think about solving a global problem...

If you live in a democratic country then you've got this rather back to front. A democratically elected government isn't likely to impose an unpopular change, like restricting what people can do in order to protect the environment, unless there is sufficient public support for it, because they won't want to lose an election over it. And there won't be public support for it unless people who understand and are passionate about the subject campaign to raise public awareness.

in a democracy, the only PURPOSE of a party is to give options to the public, like the green party (buendnis 90 gruene for example), if you vote for them, you'll likely endup with environmental policy that changes for the better, because thats thei main goal ...

if that party would surrender their "ideals" and just run after votes just to get more to say in parliament, the party isnt serving its purpose in the democracy ...

One person on their own doesn't make a difference. One person being being passionate about something and persuading 10 others, who each tell their friends what they've done and tip the balance with some of them who were considering the change to actually make that change, is the beginnings of a movement.

... more often than not it's popular movements that are the agents of social change, not governments.

but the "environmental" movement, hippies, "green" faschists exist since the 70's, since the much has happens in terms of protection of water, air, (some) resources, but if we take a look at oil / gas consumption (for transportation / autos / electricity / etc), the biggest problem stil needs to be solved ... and we arent even close to solving that.

movements can influence much, government influences more ... imagine a "meat tax", a "requirement to grow animals in a [humane? ] way" (more space, freedom, natural food , less medication, etc), limited number of animals per "factory", the impact would be:
-- a lot more expensive meat !!
-- people would "vote" with their dollar bill (or €) and choose to buy vegetarian food
-- AND we could live a bit more comfortable with ourselves by letting the animals we eat live decently

of course, the resistance to such big changes will be huge, but no change is coming without resistance ... and political parties should keep their promise!

... one guy cant really change that much, changes must be done at government level FIRST

Really? I'm sure the likes of Mahatma Ghandi or Nelson Mandela would be fascinated to hear that they were never able to change that much and that they should have waited until the government decided to change things.

what i meant is:
until the government it determined to solve a global problem, dont struggle with that problem yourself. but if the government is working against you (india, south africa), then you should start "arming and march"!
the government has much more leverage ... because it can control corporations besides people, if a movement chooses to "boykot" exxon mobile, the'll likely laugh about it, if the us government turn against them, theiy wont laugh anymore !

[greypanther]

Yes my son is a teenager, enough said on that matter, he is a pain, but less so than me when I was that age...

If you live in a democratic country then you've got this rather back to front. A democratically elected government isn't likely to impose an unpopular change, like restricting what people can do in order to protect the environment, unless there is sufficient public support for it, because they won't want to lose an election over it. And there won't be public support for it unless people who understand and are passionate about the subject campaign to raise public awareness.

One person on their own doesn't make a difference. One person being being passionate about something and persuading 10 others, who each tell their friends what they've done and tip the balance with some of them who were considering the change to actually make that change, is the beginnings of a movement. Sometimes a movement snowballs quickly; other times it fizzles out or takes a long, long time to get started and then surfaces as something significant a lot later. But regardless, more often than not it's popular movements that are the agents of social change, not governments.

Very well put, I agree 100 %; with PJK too. The core of the problem is everyone seems unable to take any responsibility, it is always someone else's fault. They do not need to do anything. I think it was Observe who talked about our actions causing ripples in the world and affecting others, a simple and wise thought.

We must always be pragmatic. I say this as a decades-long vegetarian myself. Always seek to do the least possible harm. Intention has a lot to do with it. Do you become overly concerned if a bug is killed by your windshield or crushed under you feet? Should we stop driving and walking? No. We take sensible measures to go out of our way to respect the sanctity of life.

Don't be too concerned about the medication. I understand your grief at ingesting an animal product. Say a silent prayer to honor the pig that helped you in your time of need. Ask for it's forgiveness if that helps. If you feel like being militant, perhaps lodge a complaint about animal products being used and distributed in the hospital. Usually there are alternatives.

Thank you. Well put.

Can you blame us for a sense of fatalism?

Absolutely and without a doubt. Take responsibility for you actions and effect on the world!

in a democracy, the only PURPOSE of a party is to give options to the public,

Sorry, but that is rubbish, ( allegedly! ) they are supposed to represent us! However we all do get the government we deserve I guess...

Finally for now, supply and demand, it is that simple, if everyone took responsibility and reduced their impact on the world, humanity may just survive...

(<Slaps self> for allowing fatalism into my mind! )

[CBJ]

in a democracy, the only PURPOSE of a party is to give options to the public, like the green party (buendnis 90 gruene for example), if you vote for them, you'll likely endup with environmental policy that changes for the better, because thats thei main goal ...

Wow, you really have got this the wrong way around! They are there to represent people with a particular set of beliefs, not to give them options. The reason they exist as a political party is because a bunch of people decided that a particular social movement was important enough to need representing at a political level.

if that party would surrender their "ideals" and just run after votes just to get more to say in parliament, the party isnt serving its purpose in the democracy ...

Welcome to how democracy really works. Parties such as the Greens are a representation of a social movement that has achieved quite a high level of acceptance, but by sticking to their principles they will only ever influence power, never achieve power on their own. Parties that want to actually run the country have to do so by being a lot more flexible about their "ideals", moving with the tide of popular opinion. Occasionally someone who sticks to their principles gets into power, usually carried along by a social movement that takes off in a massive way, but that usually doesn't last long when people realise that that movement is not the magic bullet that will solve all their country's problems.

but the "environmental" movement, hippies, "green" faschists exist since the 70's, since the much has happens in terms of protection of water, air, (some) resources, but if we take a look at oil / gas consumption (for transportation / autos / electricity / etc), the biggest problem stil needs to be solved ... and we arent even close to solving that.

And we're not going to get any closer to solving it unless those movements keep pushing, because it's much easier, and more lucrative, for people to just carry on as they are. I'd actually argue that you are wrong in your original statement though; in terms of practical progress we do still have a very long way to go, but in terms of public awareness things have changed a lot.

movements can influence much, government influences more ... imagine a "meat tax", a "requirement to grow animals in a [humane? ] way" (more space, freedom, natural food , less medication, etc), limited number of animals per "factory", the impact would be:
-- a lot more expensive meat !!
-- people would "vote" with their dollar bill (or €) and choose to buy vegetarian food
-- AND we could live a bit more comfortable with ourselves by letting the animals we eat live decently

of course, the resistance to such big changes will be huge, but no change is coming without resistance ... and political parties should keep their promise!

Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. How would a party promising such an unpopular policy ever get itself elected? It wouldn't, of course. The only way a party making such a promise might ever get the chance to put it into action would be for the tide of public opinion to change first, even if not to make it a majority opinion, then at least sufficiently to not make it a complete vote-killer as part of a package of other policies.

[Bishop149]

Very well put, I agree 100 %; with PJK too. The core of the problem is everyone seems unable to take any responsibility, it is always someone else's fault. They do not need to do anything. I think it was Observe who talked about our actions causing ripples in the world and affecting others, a simple and wise thought

I think its more that people might genuinely want to change things it just they also don't want to pay a personal cost for doing so. I was having such thoughts the other day about things:
- Its dreadful that Amazon and Uber pay no tax and exploit their workers, they should be made to be more socially responsible!
- Doing those things is how they provide their service, I supposed you'd be willing to wait longer for your package / taxi to effect the change you want?
- Steady on now! Can't I have both?

Personally I would quite happily see my National Insurance double if it meant state provision of high quality social care . . . . but I doubt many would agree.

[greypanther]

Personally I would quite happily see my National Insurance double if it meant state provision of high quality social care . . . . but I doubt many would agree.

Well, I for one would agree and even agree to paying more tax. I would also agree to taking a hit on services such as Uber and Amazon, and all the rest of them, to get them to pay their fair share. Not just for social care, but to properly support all the immigration that is coming, liked or not. Lots of other good reasons too.

[Rive]

So, what is the point?

Dunno. Really.

Since as a specie those 'meat' animals grown to be slaughtered still has a quite stable population and actually also has some better stats than their 'wild' variations.

Some species would even become exctinct not long after veggies take over the world.

So I really don't know. No idea.

[Morkonan]

Well, I am not going to argue with you Morkonan, nor even judge you. This thread was started mostly as a sort of rant, as I stated. The vote was clearly intended as tongue in cheek, unless you think I am advocating cannibalism!

Self righteous, judgemental? Maybe so, but no more, than others on this forum, less than many. Anger and pain, don't be silly; irritation and annoyance at worst!

The point is that if you have a personal code, it's likely going to impact more than just you. And, if, as your appears to be, the code is one motivated by doing "good", then you will have to develop just as important rules for dealing with other people, people who may not follow this code.

What would a selfish person who was unconcerned about others and, instead held to such a code for reasons that aren't "good" do? Well, anyone who didn't follow that code would likely be dealt with harshly, but some others may be ignored or treated markedly differently. Such person would hold to their code, but it's incomplete.

"Codes" for people who interact with the rest of the social world have to include that world, too. I suppose a hermit doesn't need such additions, but if one interacts with other people, then one needs to figure out how to apply their code, beliefs, moral rules, to that part of their life, too.

It's not difficult, but it does require a bit of introspection and work. It's often harder than the original, personal, rules themselves.

I don't care if it's a joke, it still touches on something important.

[Morkonan]

... one guy cant really change that much, changes must be done at government level FIRST

Really? I'm sure the likes of Mahatma Ghandi or Nelson Mandela would be fascinated to hear that they were never able to change that much and that they should have waited until the government decided to change things.

^--- This.

One person may have only one vote in a democracy, but one person can truly make a difference, even in a democracy.

History is full of "one person making a difference." If each person here applied 100% of themselves towards "making a difference", hopefully a positive one, in the lives, society, or world around them, I bet the results would be astounding.

Obviously, it does take a certain amount of chutzpah to be that sort of person, right? Big brass chutzpahs that clank when they walk...

[theeclownbroze]

As long as the animal is killed painlessly and lived a comfortable life I have no issue with keeping my diet as diverse as possible.

[red assassin]

Can you blame us for a sense of fatalism?

Absolutely and without a doubt. Take responsibility for you actions and effect on the world!

Well, that's my point - when we're already doomed because of the actions of those older than us and their refusal to take responsibility, long before we get enough agency to make a difference, what's the point?

Don't get me wrong, I do what I can - I'm on a green energy tariff and live in an energy-efficient flat, I avoid driving as much as possible, I donate to environmental charities, I vote for parties with an actual commitment to doing something about the problem, etc. But I'm under no illusions that it's going to make a significant difference, because even if I wasn't just one person in billions it's already too late. Twenty years after the time to act and those with the power to do something significant still won't. On any given day you'll probably find me on one of the five stages of grief about the whole thing, and I'm not going to blame anyone of my generation for feeling the same.

[Morkonan]

To be completely honest with ourselves, we're already going to experience "very bad things" because of previous, if ignorant, environmental damage.

This is no different than what we find in the history of any human-caused environmental damage. It's not until much later, when the effects are known and demonstrated, that anyone acts to do anything about such issues. In many cases, instead of correcting the original problem, because the expense or inconvenience is deemed to great, we tend to just "move it" or change our behaviors or consumption habits to avoid having to deal with it, directly. Streams too polluted to drink from? Get your water from the lake. That's too polluted? Dig a well. That's too polluted? Build an aqueduct.

So, historically speaking, we're firmly on the path of having to experience the results, first-hand, before we truly act effectively to answer to the issue.

Except, in this case, we're talking about very large-spread effects over a period of generations. We will survive, of course, but some populations may be hard-pressed and we should expect various sorts of instabilities.

[Len5]

Vote for political parties that aren't pursuing growth. Oh wait, there aren't any.
They all want economical groth and you'll achieve that with more consumption and you'll achieve that with more consumers.
If you consume less, your government will have to import more consumers. So it doesn't really matter what you do.

[Santi]

It could have been a lot worst, much much worst, you could have been a vegetarian and a muslin. So bit of an oversight there by the Medical services.

[red assassin]

To be completely honest with ourselves, we're already going to experience "very bad things" because of previous, if ignorant, environmental damage.

This is no different than what we find in the history of any human-caused environmental damage. It's not until much later, when the effects are known and demonstrated, that anyone acts to do anything about such issues. In many cases, instead of correcting the original problem, because the expense or inconvenience is deemed to great, we tend to just "move it" or change our behaviors or consumption habits to avoid having to deal with it, directly. Streams too polluted to drink from? Get your water from the lake. That's too polluted? Dig a well. That's too polluted? Build an aqueduct.

So, historically speaking, we're firmly on the path of having to experience the results, first-hand, before we truly act effectively to answer to the issue.

Except, in this case, we're talking about very large-spread effects over a period of generations. We will survive, of course, but some populations may be hard-pressed and we should expect various sorts of instabilities.

I don't buy that it's ignorance this time. We knew damn well what was happening early enough to do something about it this time around and we chose not to. This is an active choice, made with more than enough knowledge of the consequences, to screw over the future for the sake of some short-term gains.

[Mightysword]

I'm not that doom and gloom about it to be honest. I won't disagree human are pretty sinful creatures, shortsighted and all that. But I think human tend to match our idiocy with ingenuity. Yes, it would be nice if we don't wait until our arse is on fire to do something, but I say we're pretty good at putting it out, and slap on a new better arse.

[Morkonan]

I don't buy that it's ignorance this time. We knew damn well what was happening early enough to do something about it this time around and we chose not to. This is an active choice, made with more than enough knowledge of the consequences, to screw over the future for the sake of some short-term gains.

I'd be hesitant to apply such a motivation. People don't make the conscious choice to dump their cigarette butts into the ocean because they want to choke turtles to death. They do it because they're too darn lazy or feel too inconvenienced to dispose of them properly.

And, that's the issue, here.

However, as far as "knowledge" goes, the whole "climate change" issue has been on a roller-coaster for a very long time. It wasn't until someone finally decided to gather the data and truly examine it that our impact has come to light. We went from a "the Earth will enter a new ice-age", from a very badly interpreted news article in a popular magazine (Time, People? Can't remember atm) to an "anthropogenic climate change" paper with, again, controversially misinterpreted, by wingnuts, "hockey stick models" and a huge pushback from very selfish commercial and government powers.

If you want to blame someone for purposefully trying to obfuscate the problem and who have purposefully worked against solutions, look no further than certain media sources, certain large industrial concerns, certain fossil-fuels production and distribution chains who's livelihood would be significantly impacted. At least, that's what they thought.

Oh, and don't forget that certain people who desperately tried to warn the public actually lied, themselves, to try to shock people. (Al Gore, "An Inconvenient Truth", who admitted he lied and would lie again, because his cause was "noble", if not the means.) All that did was further confuse the issue.

There have also been plenty of ignorant people who are, unfortunately, in a position of influence that have weighed in on the facts and have interpreted them in precisely the wrong way... They're too ignorant to understand what's being said, but argue loudly about it, anyway. This runs both ways, with people blaming localized droughts on "climate change" while others point at thunderstorms and snowy weather as proof there is no such thing... And, the crazy thing is that they could both be right at the same time, but they don't know why the could be right.

There's plenty of blame to go around, we don't have to beat up on some little old lady in Saskatchewan that just doesn't know any better and has always gotten her newsworthy information from the local coal-miner's union. She doesn't have any such selfish, destructive, concerns, does she? (I don't really know any little old ladies in Saskatchewan... If you do, then ask them. )

People generally don't pay attention to things that happen outside of their own yards. However, because of the nature of this problem, it all will happen outside of their yards and likely won't ever effect them very much. This is precisely the most dangerous type of problem and it's why problems of this nature are so difficult to deal with - People generally don't respond in a proactive way to problems that they are not effected by.

[red assassin]

Little old ladies in Saskatchewan didn't doom the planet, and I don't blame people like her for not knowing. But politicians, major companies, the media, and so forth have both the resources and the responsibility to understand - it's been in the news recently, for example, that Exxon's researchers knew by the early 80s and it was never reflected in their external communications or policies. I don't dispute we didn't start with a modern level of detail, but by the 90s it was clear what was happening. I usually point to the Kyoto agreement as the point at which we had the information and the opportunity to act, it was still early enough, and we did next to nothing. That we're still denying and half-assing it twenty years later is just laughable.

[CBJ]

You may be right about the timeline (though I'd say it was debatable whether the 80s would have been sufficiently early to reverse the trend) and I agree with your final conclusion, but I see a bit of a disconnect between your statements about who knew what and when, and the implication that one whole generation can blame another whole generation for its own fatalistic attitude to the problem. If the little old lady in Saskatchewan isn't to blame, then how can the young man in, um, Peckham just shrug his shoulders and blame the whole of the previous generation? Remember also that the next generation will blame yours if it turns out there was something that could have been done now, and you didn't do it, especially since you clearly don't have the excuse of ignorance!

[greypanther]

Very well said CBJ.

I would also further argue that such types of excuses have gone on for generations: It is always someone else's fault. I mean a quick example comes to mind, when the French led the way with Rance Tidal Power Station. It is well proven technology now, which produces cheap; clean; reliable; low maintenance energy, yet it was largely ignored until 2011, when the South Koreans built something similar. I would say that ignoring such simple, effective technology, borders on the criminal. Especially here in the UK which has huge tidal ranges. Even more so when you consider the alternatives that were chosen. You cannot even use the set up cost as an excuse, because just look at the cost of nuclear power, as we in the UK are finding out just now, especially when you consider all the new nuclear plants here, will need replacing in a few decades. Unlike the Rance tidal power station, which with minimal maintenance, will still be around in a hundred years or much longer.

Well, that's my point - when we're already doomed because of the actions of those older than us and their refusal to take responsibility, long before we get enough agency to make a difference, what's the point?

Well, that helps me understand your point of view; useful. However it just sounds like an exercise in avoidance to me: Someone else's fault, so no concern to me. Sorry. Especially considering such thoughts are at the core of why I started this thread, because I needed help with the guilt.

I suspect that an older generation is often been blamed for present problems, indeed probably been the case for very many years; generations.

Do you own any plastic clothes Red? ( Polyester etc. ) That is nothing to do with previous generations is it, it was/is your choice. I refer people to the platics thread, rather than rehashing it here. What you going to do about it, if you do own any?

There has been plenty about it in the media, but as has been said, it takes effort and people do not want that.

One example is this article, from Countryfile, from July. Or how about this article, specifically about microplastics, originating from our washing machines? These articles have been in many papers, even on TV, for years. Someone else's problem? Someone else caused it, so no concern?

Even Prince Charles, was on TV and in the papers yesterday, not the first time he has raised such issues, but he has tended to be dismissed as a crank and a hippy.

Forgive me Red if you think I am picking on you, I am not, we all bear responsibility and need to deal with it. Problem is I cannot see the point, because of the ever increasing number of consumers being produced out there in the world., most of them with more pressing issues on their mind: like simple survival.

Never mind the individuals closer to home, refusing to accept any responsibility, or caring about the consequences. The next generation can sort it.

( Don't even get me started about all the BS spouted by the petrochemical industry, or their suppression of the fuel cell. Especially considering the fuss about electric cars and all the new infrastructure, we will need for that! The future is here, though it has been for many years! )

[Morkonan]

Little old ladies in Saskatchewan didn't doom the planet, and I don't blame people like her for not knowing. But politicians, major companies, the media, and so forth have both the resources and the responsibility to understand - it's been in the news recently, for example, that Exxon's researchers knew by the early 80s and it was never reflected in their external communications or policies. I don't dispute we didn't start with a modern level of detail, but by the 90s it was clear what was happening. I usually point to the Kyoto agreement as the point at which we had the information and the opportunity to act, it was still early enough, and we did next to nothing. That we're still denying and half-assing it twenty years later is just laughable.

I agree, though I'd have to be hesitant on claims of "knowing" until after the I.P.C.C.'s comprehensive study. After that, with followups and new studies specifically targeting the subject (IPCC Report was a historical review of previous, unconnected, reports), it became "fact" fairly soon, within a couple of years.

"Denial" is something that is mumbled, these days, rather than shouted as it used to be just a few years ago. And, typically, it's from politicians seeking to hold onto that last bit of base that still sees the whole thing as a conspiracy theory.

Change is coming, but I think it's more of expanding new markets to take advantage of the whole "saving the planet" sort of theme rather than a conscious and knowing effort to reduce our carbon footprint. I don't care about the motivation, either way, so long as progress is made.