In 1940, George Orwell famously lambasted those who refused to prepare for the
Second World War. Today we face a different war—on the climate crisis—a...
The article compares the years before WW2 to now. How England failed to properly judge the threat from Germany and didn’t get the army ready. As written in an essay by George Orwell. Compared to how we currently fail to realize the threat of climate change.
I don’t know, it doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course there are parallels, like inaction now means bigger problems in future. But that’s pretty much it. I don’t like to compare the climate crisis to war.
Nature isn’t fascist. Earth doesn’t arm up. Yes, disasters get stronger and more common. But this is no war. Nature isn’t expanding and invading neutral countries. We are not fighting and should not fight against our planet, instead we should learn how to live sustainable on it. The climate isn’t the aggressor, it’s simple reacting to our action. Nature doesn’t have ideals nor any agenda, it doesn’t have morality.
And again a very common thing: humanity should not be semantically separated from nature! The two aren’t opposing parties or something, we humans are part of environment, while being dependant on the environment. We can’t save or help environment, when we say so, we merely mean that we don’t harm it.
If we think nature is waging a war against us, we can only lose that war. We need to realize that we are a part of nature and that we harm nature and that we need to stop! We need to do the opposite than fighting, we need to stop destroying!
Obviously it isn’t “nature” nor is that implied by the article.
The climate catastrophe is human-made and the people primarily causing it are waging a kind of war against everyone else. Saying that humans are part of nature in that context is very bad faith arguing.
Yes, that could have been written. That there are some people who are readily throw humanity into the biggest crisis for their own profit.
The situation is very dire. There is hardly done anything to improve the situation and there are people who misinform and spread doubt. Scientists and activists get ridiculed and attacked.
That all can be written. I just don’t find the comparison to pre WW2 very matching.
The article is about the apologists that are maybe conscripts but not the main perpetrators. The kind of people that get upset about climate activists blocking roads and the politicians claiming that they can’t do anything because of such people. The analogy to British apologists and foot-draggers in the lead up to WW2 is not totally unreasonable IMHO.
The WW2 comparisons are about the size of threat and how much effort we should put into dealing with it. We need to adopt a mindset that a total war like effort is what we need to do here. That means all hands on deck. Everyone do what they reasonably can, even it if is just talking about it or eating a few less servings of beef in a year. If you are in a car dependent area, buy something efficient instead of a canyonero, and lobby local politicians to reduce car dependency.
The article compares the years before WW2 to now. How England failed to properly judge the threat from Germany and didn’t get the army ready. As written in an essay by George Orwell. Compared to how we currently fail to realize the threat of climate change.
I don’t know, it doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course there are parallels, like inaction now means bigger problems in future. But that’s pretty much it. I don’t like to compare the climate crisis to war.
Nature isn’t fascist. Earth doesn’t arm up. Yes, disasters get stronger and more common. But this is no war. Nature isn’t expanding and invading neutral countries. We are not fighting and should not fight against our planet, instead we should learn how to live sustainable on it. The climate isn’t the aggressor, it’s simple reacting to our action. Nature doesn’t have ideals nor any agenda, it doesn’t have morality.
And again a very common thing: humanity should not be semantically separated from nature! The two aren’t opposing parties or something, we humans are part of environment, while being dependant on the environment. We can’t save or help environment, when we say so, we merely mean that we don’t harm it.
If we think nature is waging a war against us, we can only lose that war. We need to realize that we are a part of nature and that we harm nature and that we need to stop! We need to do the opposite than fighting, we need to stop destroying!
Obviously it isn’t “nature” nor is that implied by the article.
The climate catastrophe is human-made and the people primarily causing it are waging a kind of war against everyone else. Saying that humans are part of nature in that context is very bad faith arguing.
Yes, that could have been written. That there are some people who are readily throw humanity into the biggest crisis for their own profit.
The situation is very dire. There is hardly done anything to improve the situation and there are people who misinform and spread doubt. Scientists and activists get ridiculed and attacked.
That all can be written. I just don’t find the comparison to pre WW2 very matching.
The article is about the apologists that are maybe conscripts but not the main perpetrators. The kind of people that get upset about climate activists blocking roads and the politicians claiming that they can’t do anything because of such people. The analogy to British apologists and foot-draggers in the lead up to WW2 is not totally unreasonable IMHO.
The WW2 comparisons are about the size of threat and how much effort we should put into dealing with it. We need to adopt a mindset that a total war like effort is what we need to do here. That means all hands on deck. Everyone do what they reasonably can, even it if is just talking about it or eating a few less servings of beef in a year. If you are in a car dependent area, buy something efficient instead of a canyonero, and lobby local politicians to reduce car dependency.