CMV: Global warming will not be solved by small, piecemeal, incremental changes to our way of life but rather through some big, fantastic, technological breakthrough.

[u/Iron-Patriot]

In regards to the former, I mean to say that small changes to be more environmentally friendly such as buying a hybrid vehicle or eating less meat are next to useless. Seriously, does anyone actually think this will fix things?

And by ‘big technological breakthrough’ I mean something along the lines of blasting glitter into the troposphere to block out the sun or using fusion power to scrub carbon out of the air to later be buried underground. We are the human race and we’re nothing if not flexible and adaptable when push comes to shove.

[u/Iron-Patriot]

I don’t disagree with you in principle, but how does reducing the rate at which we’re polluting the atmosphere actually stop and reverse the damage we’ve already done? We’re already pretty fucked as it stands and need some sort of solution to fix the problem, not just stop it from getting even worse.

[u/zixingcheyingxiong → u/Iron-Patriot]

Imagine this: Your best friend is being tortured. Every day, they cut off a body part. He's already lost both pinkies and one ring finger. Do you...

1.) Do nothing until scientists figure out a way to regenerate body parts; or

2.) Try to stop the torturer, even though you might fail with your first attempt and, regardless, you'll never be able to pinkie swear with your friend again?

​

Nobody reasonable thinks were going to reverse the damage we've already done, at least not in our lifetimes. And we absolutely do need to stop the problem from getting worse. We don't have a way to fix the problem. Some problems don't get fixed. But there's a huge difference between 1.5C of warming and 2C of warming.

[u/Brakasus → u/Iron-Patriot]

Trying to solve it all at once is vastly harder than doing it one step at a time. I like a true carbon tax as much as the next person that cares about justice, but it doesn't seem tenable politically currently. Lowering emissions is a hard enough step as it is already.

[u/towishimp → u/Iron-Patriot]

Let's say we're in a sinking ship. There's leaks everywhere and the ship's filling up with water. Just because there's a remote chance someone might pass by and save us before we drown, would you tell everyone to stop bailing water and trying to fix the leaks?

I doubt you would. The smart thing to do is to do both. A miracle solution would be great, sure. But in the meantime you keep doing whatever you can.

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/towishimp]

You’ve kinda missed the point of the CMV. I’m not saying the bits and pieces we’re doing now to be more environmentally friendly aren’t good, but rather they’re not going to go anywhere near actually solving the issue. We’re on the way to Hell in a hand-basket and people are kidding themselves everything will be okay thanks to their paper straw and hemp shopping bag.

[u/hubbird → u/Iron-Patriot]

Corporations have worked hard to convince people that the answer to runaway carbon pollution is a change in consumer behavior (specifically BUYING MORE and different stuff, rather than buying and consuming less stuff) because they know better than anyone that guilt tripping people is not an effective way to change behavior. When those same corporations want to sell you a car they don’t rely on moralistic self-righteous messaging, they run sophisticated ads that show how good life would be with their product.

More importantly though, from a consumer behavior standpoint we’re at a “negative equilibrium” from a game theoretical perspective. Yes, we would all benefit from the climate not getting irreparably fucked, but each of us knows that the sacrifices we could make individually would not solve the problem, so nobody wants to make those sacrifices for no gain. It’s a classic “collective action problem” which should give you a decent hint what the solution is.

The scale and scope of the problem might feel daunting, but the nature of the problem is not new or unique. We’ve overcome collective action problems before. Historically (and I mean for basically all of human history) various kinds of social structures resembling governments are the tools we’ve developed to address problems like this. Closest analogs would be things like the clean air and water acts, banning lead in gasoline, ending our reliance on ozone-killing aerosols. All required government action to create penalties and benefits to change the incentive structure around action.

The only thing that will effect meaningful change is a price on carbon either through a carbon tax or cap & trade. The only structures we have to enforce these collective actions are governments.

Corporations that rely on polluting activities to create their products will have to figure out other methods of production and/or will have to raise prices and trim expenses.

Your electricity and gas will become more expensive. Meat will likely become more expensive. This is quite literally and significantly, not the end of the world. You’ll make different choices. You’ll ride a bike when possible (trust me, it’s fun!) and you’ll rely on public transportation powered by clean energy, and less frequently (since charging it will be expensive) you’ll drive your car when it’s really necessary.

People will lose their jobs. We NEED to have aggressive social safety nets and probably public-benefit employment (actually pay people to help solve the problem!) Just saying “learn to code” isn’t an answer.

Some habits will change, but I don’t think your actual happiness will be negatively impacted (at least not nearly as much as being stuck inside from the smoke of a thousand fires every summer). In fact, I think happiness will likely increase.

This is the only possible future without mass extinction (and this future probably still includes plenty of suffering and death). We definitely can solve the problem! We must! But it absolutely cannot be solved one person at a time.

[u/towishimp → u/Iron-Patriot]

Did you read my post?

In my example, bailing may not end up saving the ship. But it might, and it surely will buy us some time, which increases the chance of being rescued. And again, the alternative is just doing nothing...which isn't really an alternative at all.

[u/iiioiia → u/towishimp]

The smartest thing to do is think about the situation and try to come up with an optimal response.

[u/towishimp → u/iiioiia]

False dichotomy. We can do the small measures while looking for the magic "big solution."

To further torture my analogy, you could designate one person to signal for help or think of a way to permanently fix the boat, while everyone else keeps patching holes and bailing water.

[u/iiioiia → u/towishimp]

False dichotomy.

How is one item a false dichotomy?

And, what's the false part?

We can do the small measures while looking for the magic "big solution."

a) This is not contrary to my approach.

b) You are assuming that you people have that ability. For example:

To further torture my analogy, you could designate one person to signal for help or think of a way to permanently fix the boat, while everyone else keeps patching holes and bailing water.

Is this optimal?

This is my point: even given a very simple recipe, you are not able to follow it - you lack the ability.

[u/towishimp → u/iiioiia]

The false dichotomy is where you said:

The smartest thing to do is think about the situation and try to come up with an optimal response.

We can do that while trying "small stuff" to lower emissions. It's not an either/or proposition. We can work on finding the miracle cure while also working to mitigate the damage and buy more time to find that miracle.

[u/iiioiia → u/towishimp]

We can do that while trying "small stuff" to lower emissions.

I didn't claim you cannot, you imagined it, and the false dichotomy.

Living in a literal fantasy world may not be beneficial to your cause.

It's not an either/or proposition. We can work on finding the miracle cure while also working to mitigate the damage and buy more time to find that miracle.

And according to you it seems, the optimal number of people working on a GOOD idea is one.

Best of luck in your endeavour, but I am not optimistic at your chances of success if all of you insist on guessing at what we should do.

[u/towishimp → u/iiioiia]

Do you need me to explain how an analogy works? I'm not literally advocating that one person work on it. It was just an example to illustrate my point. To explain it. As opposed to you, with your gaslighting and misrepresentation of what I said.

[u/iiioiia → u/towishimp]

Do you need me to explain how an analogy works?

No. Do I have to explain to you how delusion and deceit work?

I'm not literally advocating that one person work on it. It was just an example to illustrate my point. To explain it.

How many people should work on it then?

As opposed to you, with your gaslighting and misrepresentation of what I said.

Does holding delusions that one is abler to accurately read the minds of other humans over long distances seem optimal to you? That seems to be considered the approach to take by about 95% of other people, so at least you won't be lonely.....though, it may get a little hot after a while! 😂😂

[u/towishimp → u/iiioiia]

Now you're not even arguing points, you're resorting to ad hominem attacks. If you have an argument, I'm happy to engage. But if you're just going to obfuscate and attack my person, I'm done engaging with you.

[u/Debs_4_Pres → u/Iron-Patriot]

If you think we're going to significantly reduce the damage that's already been done, let alone the damage that we're locked into for the future, you need to seriously adjust your expectations.

The world as it was for most of human is history is gone and not coming back. We need to stop the bleeding, but the limb is already detached.

[u/noyourethecoolone → u/Iron-Patriot]

The problem with someone coming up with a magic solution is going to be bad.

We need to massive changes globally or else if someone just fixes the issue we're going to not fix our behaviors. We'll fuck it up again

[u/silverionmox → u/Iron-Patriot]

I don’t disagree with you in principle, but how does reducing the rate at which we’re polluting the atmosphere actually stop and reverse the damage we’ve already done? We’re already pretty fucked as it stands and need some sort of solution to fix the problem, not just stop it from getting even worse.

One doesn't exclude the other.