top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 64 points 2 years ago (1 child)

It's dumber than that. We could do it if we cared about long term profits rather than next-quarter profits.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Good luck with that. Have you ever met humans?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    And yet, we managed to mostly abolish slavery and child labour in most countries.

    It's not going to be easy, but it can be done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Not to be defeatist, but...

    We didn't abolish slavery... we just replaced it with wage slavery. Sure, the workers are free to leave - and try to survive with no other job opportunities and no money. In fact, for the employers, this is actually preferable to real slavery, because there are lower upfront costs for your slaves, they don't try to run away or rebel, you don't have to pay for their healthcare or long term care, and in many places government tax dollars will subsidize their living expenses. Employers have it WAY better with wage slaves than real slaves.

    Child labour is still alive and well in many countries, and even there the ball is rolling on rolling THAT back in the US at least.

    I admire your positivity, but I'll believe it when I see it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Don't forget prison labor slavery, especially in the south. It was specifically added for that very reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    And also actual old-fashioned slavery. I've read there are more slaves in the world today than there were in the 1700s. Even modern western countries aren't immune, it's just more invisible .Sex trafficking is a good chunk of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you really think that wage slavery is comparable to being owned by a human, then you're delusional.

    Yes, slavery and child labour still exists. But if you think living in the US or China or India in 2024 is just as bad as 1850, then you are also delusional.

    Some countries like Afghanistan or North Korea might be objectively worse, but those are a minority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Okay, I can see how you got that from my post. I was a bit hyperbolic in my original post, and I apologize.

    I'm not REALLY making a moral equivalence argument or saying anything about comparing the horrors of slavery to work... I'm saying getting rid of slavery was easier to enact because there was an alternative system that happened to be ultimately profitable for the rich at the same time. Yes, wars have been fought to stop abolition, but at the end of the day, after slavery was abolished, the rich found a way to stay rich almost everywhere - abolition came at very little real change to the wealth structure of society. They had a supply of labor to exploit for profit during slavery, and they had one after. The fact is that the moral and financial interests both aligned on making abolition happen - it wasn't caused by pure strength of willpower. And yes, the system we have now is MUCH MUCH better than true slavery, but it's still a stretch to use the current system as a beacon of hope.

    On climate change the moral and financial interests are NOT aligned in a clear way. There are always still going to be financial incentives to screw the climate for extra money. By comparison, if slavery were somehow legal again TODAY, it's not clear it would be profitable for anybody to actually do it. That difference will make climate goals harder to enact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There will always be winners and losers with any change.

    Plantation owners definitely lost a lot of wealth due to the abolition of slavery, while the industrial tycoons gained a lot of wealth.

    Switching away from fossil fuels will similarly benefit those who invest in the energy sources and technologies of the future, while shrinking the fortune of those dependent on fossil fuels.

    Already, some forms of fossil energy are losing new investment.

    For example, the high profile Keystone XL pipeline was never built, even though Trump approved it, because investors doubted its profit potential. Biden revoking the permit was mostly symbolic.

    Now, I do otherwise agree with this more nuanced take of yours. Morality needs to be aligned with financial incentives in order to achieve change. That's just how our current world works and I don't see that basic mechanism changing.

    So it makes more sense to focus on making fossil fuels less profitable, e.g. through taxation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I agree with your conclusion, but I don't agree that it's feasible. Any tax solutions will involve legislation by a government owned by those same interests. And even if you managed it in major economies, you'd just force the climate issues into places with fewer qualms about their fuel usage. I'd love to see this problem solved, but my faith in our ability to resolve it is far less than yours.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Once the alternatives become more profitable, they will move to legislate in their favour.

    Here in Europe, we already have billions in subsidies for wind and solar energy.

    Will it go smoothly, or fast enough?

    No, I think 3 degrees warming is basically inevitable at this point.

    But it will happen, about five decades later than it should have happened.

    Guess we will see in the next two decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I agree, all the evils of yesteryear are still there and active, just either well-hidden or people simply don't care/pretend not to know (cfr football world championships in Qatar, ...).

    We've made enormous progress technologically, but humans are still the exact same as 2000 or 5000 years ago. We've changed exceedingly little in that time, and the few things that have changed could be reverted very quickly if shove comes to push concerning climate collapse etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Humans are wonderful. Not always good, not always reasonable, but wonderful.

    We are rich, nuanced, vibrant beings. A small portion of us are defectors but by and large we are community focused and willing to give when we feel we are not being taken advantage of.

    Unless you think all your friends, yourself, and your family are garbage it is inconsistent to assume a random sampling of humans would not display the same prosocial traits you find in them.

    The one thing we are incapable of doing though is handling power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    All these claims are simply taking a look at a different angle.

    It's like saying "cars pollute" and you reply with "but have you seen the beautiful colours they come in and how much faster than mules they are"

    You are not wrong but neither are the people claiming humans are, as a herd, fairly dumb and incredibly selfish

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    neither are the people claiming humans are, as a herd, fairly dumb and incredibly selfish

    wtf? by what standard?

    Humans frequently band together during disaster, humans care for their young and old, humans don't typically engage in cannibalism of the weak, humans rarely fight to the death or even serious injury, we live in cities of millions with astonishingly low rates of violence etc etc

    where is this terrible selfish stupid behaviour? what standard are you comparing the species to? we're more violent than orangutans but they've never set up water sanitation so I think we can call ourselves smart and we're less violent than chimps or gorillas... are you comparing us to fictitious ideal beings or what?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    wtf? by what standard?

    if the climate change inaction (or worse, sabotage) did not convince you, I am certain the COVID behaviour should have

    Humans frequently band together during disaster

    If they are directly affected sure... otherwise people may throw some money (which is usually promptly embezzled) and move on

    humans care for their young and old

    Their own young, sure let's say that is the common majority. Their own old? a lot more questionable. Other people's LOL... can't tell you how many people complain about their taxes feeding other people's children. But this is not an argument against what I claimed... what I said was basically echoing what Tommy Lee Jones beautifully said in MIB, in a nutshell: a human (as an individual) can be AMAZING, but humans (as a herd) tend to default to he lowest common denominator and that sucks!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkCwFkOZoOY

    humans don’t typically engage in cannibalism of the weak

    what do you think capitalism is?

    humans rarely fight to the death or even serious injury

    Ok, now you are joking... no matter how old you are, I know with 100% accuracy that you have never lived in a world where, somewhere, there was a military conflict and people were being slaughtered... I know because we have not had such a time since 1816 (and that may just have been an absence of records)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago

    The title reads: "we can solve the climate crisis, but we won't"

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago

    So we're doomed then

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "trump" in this context has lost all of its former meaning.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The whole world: We need cheap EVs for the regular people.

    China: I got you fam.

    The world: Tarifs.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The solution requires a new ideological paradigm, but transitioning into the right paradigm would be extremely difficult and it would likely take a very long time.

    I think the US is already in the process of transitioning to a new paradigm, away from neoliberalism, which was the dominant paradigm over the past half century or so, to something else. However, I'm not sure we are transitioning into the "right" paradigm. I think the paradigm we are transitioning into is more protectionist than neoliberalism. We are moving away from globalization and towards something more like the cold war era, where the world was divided along ideological lines into a "first world" and a "second world." I expect the new paradigm we are shifting into to be more antagonistic toward "unfriendly" nations. I wouldn't be surprised if this were to lead to some kind of major conflict.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    Of course we're to that: the US is doing very little to slow climate change at all, is anything it is accelerating it. The natural result of this will not be food insecurity in the USA: it will be famine in South and Central America. Climate migration will see tens of millions of immigrants at our borders.

    And the government has 0 intention of helping them. It military will directly cause a mass casualty event at the border before the turn of the century.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    Best I can do is a token effort as long as it doesn't upset the shareholders.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Too bad I associate the word trump these day with stupid.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Soooo.... Unsolvable....

    ... Riiiiight.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    don't look up

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    The hard part morally is whether future human rights trump present ones. But we can't even get to those issues since they're all trumped by maximum short term profits all the time.

  • source
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
    [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    End of the world party it is

  • source
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago
    load more comments
    view more: next ›