If unified national and international commitment could achieve monumental progress during crises like the world wars, a similar level of coordinated mobilization is required today. A wartime economic restructuring transitions society at emergency speed off fossil fuels through massive investments, just transition programs, and an enduring rationing of carbon pollution. Government mandates modernize infrastructure, transportation, manufacturing and agriculture along renewable lines while stimulating sustainable jobs and industries.

International cooperation leverages strengths and resources, from research collaborations to emissions pacts holding all nations accountable. Wealthy emitters aid economic transition of frontline nations suffering first from weather extremes. A progressive carbon fee program funds mitigation efforts while incentivizing structural economic changes. Grants assist vulnerable communities relocating from rising seas and intensifying natural disasters.

Prioritizing collectivity and justice transforms sacrifices into liberating progress for all humankind. With science as the commanding general, nonviolent civil disobedience compels stubborn political systems to catalyze transformations long stalled by obstructionism and misinformation. But societal will aligned behind solutions offers hope where bleakness once prevailed.

The problem being, of course, that conservatives and capitalism are ruining everything. Just look at how we fared at COVID. If we can’t get the entire population to stay at home and wear masks to protect themselves against a global pandemic, how the heck are we supposed to get them to stay at home and wear masks to protect themselves against climate change?

  • @[email protected]
    2•1 year ago

    I wish I had your experience. We also had unprecedented storms these last few months (I was caught once in the thick of it when I was outside, I almost drowned in the rain since it poured so hard, never have I seen such storms), and people started blaming HAARP. Funnily enough, I started reading Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” after writing that comment and literally in the first chapter he says:

    [12] Nevertheless, Rhetoric is useful, because the true and the just are naturally superior to their opposites, so that, if decisions are improperly made, they must owe their defeat to their own advocates; which is reprehensible. Further, in dealing with certain persons, even if we possessed the most accurate scientific knowledge, we should not find it easy to persuade them by the employment of such knowledge. For scientific discourse is concerned with instruction [demonstration, logical proof], but in the case of such persons instruction is impossible; our proofs and arguments must rest on generally accepted principles, as we said in the Topics when speaking of converse with the multitude.

    Another translation says that instructing “masses of people” is impossible, but in any case, the point stands: demonstrating the truth with facts is not the same as convincing someone that something is true, and as Nathan J. Robinson said in his excellent article The Intellectual We Deserve:

    Another part of it, though, is that academics have been cloistered and unhelpful, and the left has failed to offer people a coherent political alternative. Jordan Peterson is right that people are adrift and in need of meaning. Many of them lap up his lectures because he offers something resembling insight, and promises the secrets to a good life. It’s not actually insight, of course; it’s stuff everybody already knows, dressed up in gobbledegook. But it feels like something. Tabatha Southey was cruel to call Jordan Peterson “the stupid man’s smart person.” He is the desperate man’s smart person, he feeds on angst and confusion. Who else has a serious alternative? Where are the other professors with accessible and compelling YouTube channels, with books of helpful advice and long Q&A sessions with the public? No wonder Peterson is so popular: he comes along and offers rules and guidance in a world of, well, chaos. Just leave it to Dad, everything will be alright.

    • @Slwh47696
      3•1 year ago

      Yeah I was impressed he actually did change his opinion. He’s weird like that though, like he’s definitely a bit of the old school boomer racist when he talks about black people, Asians, Arabs etc. but, his last job before he retired he worked with a bunch of people of all different races. And he would come home saying like “Oh yeah I worked with a bunch of Koreans today, they are all such great guys!” Or he’d tell me about how helpful and nice some Indian guy was to him, or how some black guy was so nice and such a hard worker.

      But then he would go right back to blaming immigrants for everything, or thinking that black people are coming to torch their neighbourhood. He’s not actually racist to the people he meets in real life, just the theoretical shit he hears on the news.

    • @[email protected]
      2•1 year ago

      Tabatha wasn’t being cruel, she was being observant. Because that’s exactly what Jordan Peterson is: a failed psychologist who became a book writer and pseudo intellectual. He has no original thought and his ideas don’t hold any weight.

      • @[email protected]
        1•1 year ago

        Well, that’s exactly what the quote says. The fact that so many people turn to people like him, despite them having nothing to do with reality, shows us that real scientists and thinkers are evidently not reaching out to people in a receptive way. Thus, getting people to realize the dangers of man made climate change cannot be done solely with information and scienetific clout, because those who deny it are not in denial due to factual reasons.

        Peterson is just a great example of that: if millions of people are more inclined to listen to a confused man (to put it mildly) ramble incoherently about everything and anything, rather than people who are specialized and know what they’re talking about, we’re going about it the wrong way. If we’re ever going to get the vast majority to realize what climate change is, we need a new approach, and the discovery of that approach could stem from understanding why someone who has nothing of value to say can become so influential.

        Whether these people that follow them are desperate, stupid, confused, angry or something else is worth asking only insofar as we can derermine why they feel that their problems are addressed by clowns like Peterson. Because, at least in my experience, people who deny climate change get outright angry when you try to convince them otherwise. Even if you mind your own business, some people get triggered by the fact that I carry empty plastic bottles to a recycling container rather than throwing them in the general garbadge bin. It’s obviousy not a factual disagreement, but an emotional one. That’s why they were addressed as “desperate”, and not “stupid”.