• lamlamlam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Voting matters, but unfortunately it appears to be an incredibly sub-optimal solution for dealing with climate change for the following reasons:

    • Just because you can vote, doesn’t mean that the option you need is even on the menu. It often isn’t.
    • Through hard work you can get the option on the menu, but that doesn’t mean your politician won’t do “deals” after they are in power.
    • Lobbyists get access to politicians 24/7 and have a lot of influence, you have one vote every 4 years;
    • Even if politicians do what you want, it is unlikely that your country by itself will make a difference, this is a global problem.

    Meanwhile we are all fucked. It is likely too late already for preventing severe climate change. Our only hope now is geoengineering. The USA and EU are already considering blocking the sun.

    The people who (rightly) have a sense of urgency about this are taking more radical action. They are blocking roads and throwing soup at famous paintings. These are desperate acts that seem rational in the face of the horror that we should strive to avoid, but the majority opinion of our species seems to be that these people are “too radical” and that common folks just trying to get by should not be inconvenienced, and that these radical eco-terrorists should be thrown in a cage.

    To be honest, I’m not sure that our species deserves to survive.

    • Mojojojo1993@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do. Others don’t. Unfortunately it will end only one way. We all know how.

      Real shame. Civilizations rose and fall. Ours was very fast

    • InternetTubes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Frankly, the biggest blame lies with Russia. They saw climate change coming, right after coming out of COVID-19, and they said “Y’know what would be a good idea? To go full conquest mode given our short-term advantage in the oncoming crisis’ and force the rest of the world to have to cut back on their climate change pledges to defend against our imperialism.”

      I mean, not that the climate pledges were doing much, but Russia went in the completely opposite direction and gave countries the perfect excuse to give them up. I’m definitely not claiming other countries have no blame, but even China and the US were at least posturing against climate change.

    • jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, they’re not rational in the face of anything. They’re stupid virtue-signalling that does nothing to reduce climate change. The only way they could possibly be rational is that they get people talking about them, but climate change is not some little-known issue. The entire world has been screaming about it for the past 20 years. If you haven’t been listening, some cunt with soup isn’t going to change that.

      • lamlamlam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Virtue-signaling” is just another though-terminating cliché of the current culture wars. It implies that the action has no cost to the person and provides some social credit. These people are risking their lives, violence, prison time, etc. Everyone hates them. Nobody knows their names. They keep doing it. Your hypothesis doesn’t hold. If we all decided that we don’t give a shit about this civilization-ending event, might as well through some soup at a van Gogh painting. Why not? It won’t matter anyway.

        Even if these people were horrible “virtue-signaling” vandals, it is a microscopic problem in comparison to the real one: clime change. And yet the media focus on the former. Why? You do the math.