I’m saying bad thinking guarantees defeat, and that this isn’t over yet.
Look at the Kansas abortion ballot initiative debacle. I’d wager that the climate deniers and anti abortion people are largely the same group. That election shows that they can be beaten and probably have more people on our side than they do. I.e. we are the proverbial elephant tied up with a string.
So what’s your objective here? Are you trying to refute my point that thought influences action?
My objectives: 1. pull doomers out of giving up and into trying 2. Inspiring people to take any action at all 3. Hopefully getting some lukewarm fence sitters on board 4. The giant challenge of turning this thing around.
My reason: I’m a parent. I want my kids to inherit a world that isn’t a climate apocalypse. Even if I lose, they know I cared enough enough to try.
Here is what frustrates me. Some actions save money, reduce GHG emissions, and are low effort.
My objective is to hammer home that actions influence thoughts! There’s a fundamental material underpinning to all politics that you’re ignoring in favor of literal idealism (i.e. the theory that politics springs fully formed from people’s minds). You’ll get more fence sitters on your side with actions than you will with words, because people need to see results to believe change is possible.
My reason is I’m extremely frustrated by liberals who think we can just debate our problems into submission. It requires blood and sweat.
Take a look at the podcast transcript from earlier. We have to believe in our own agency in order to act. E.g. if I don’t think I can safely cross a river, I’m not going to attempt it, even if it is only waste deep.
literal idealism
What idealism is that? I’m more of a pragmatist.
My original point was engaging in doomerism isn’t useful for combating the climate situation and all but guarantees the worst case scenario.
My reason is I’m extremely frustrated by liberals who think we can just debate our problems into submission. It requires blood and sweat.
Of course it is going to take some work. We also need debate and noise. For an example of people seeing results, Fox News has been very effective. Social media in particular has been used very effectively to influence behavior.
My objective is to hammer home that actions influence thoughts!
What is your reason for so strongly believing that you are right about this?
I’m saying bad thinking guarantees defeat, and that this isn’t over yet.
Look at the Kansas abortion ballot initiative debacle. I’d wager that the climate deniers and anti abortion people are largely the same group. That election shows that they can be beaten and probably have more people on our side than they do. I.e. we are the proverbial elephant tied up with a string.
That election shows they can be beaten, it doesn’t show the power of positive thinking. That’s still putting the cart before the horse.
So what’s your objective here? Are you trying to refute my point that thought influences action?
My objectives: 1. pull doomers out of giving up and into trying 2. Inspiring people to take any action at all 3. Hopefully getting some lukewarm fence sitters on board 4. The giant challenge of turning this thing around.
My reason: I’m a parent. I want my kids to inherit a world that isn’t a climate apocalypse. Even if I lose, they know I cared enough enough to try.
Here is what frustrates me. Some actions save money, reduce GHG emissions, and are low effort.
My objective is to hammer home that actions influence thoughts! There’s a fundamental material underpinning to all politics that you’re ignoring in favor of literal idealism (i.e. the theory that politics springs fully formed from people’s minds). You’ll get more fence sitters on your side with actions than you will with words, because people need to see results to believe change is possible.
My reason is I’m extremely frustrated by liberals who think we can just debate our problems into submission. It requires blood and sweat.
Take a look at the podcast transcript from earlier. We have to believe in our own agency in order to act. E.g. if I don’t think I can safely cross a river, I’m not going to attempt it, even if it is only waste deep.
What idealism is that? I’m more of a pragmatist.
My original point was engaging in doomerism isn’t useful for combating the climate situation and all but guarantees the worst case scenario.
Of course it is going to take some work. We also need debate and noise. For an example of people seeing results, Fox News has been very effective. Social media in particular has been used very effectively to influence behavior.
What is your reason for so strongly believing that you are right about this?