Hacker News Reader

Comment by tyfon | Hacker News Reader

Most people are not capable seeing longer than the tip of their nose as we say in Norway.

It is also very unpopular to tell people that they need to change.

> It is also very unpopular to tell people that they need to change.

Part of the problem is that the things a person can do are almost entirely negligible, compared to industry, or require systematic changes of how housing, cities, and jobs are structured, which isn't something an individual can really influence.

Another part of the problem is it means telling people to do the opposite of "keeping up with the Joneses".

This is why we need taboo-formation around environmentally damaging behaviors and nurture virtuous aspirations towards environmentally responsible spending.

That is, if it means riding your bike to work, or it is a shift in ostentatious spending, from e.g. square footage to bespoke furniture, keeping up with the joneses can actually be an excellent forcing function.

e.g. new england puritans were (are (?)) famously keeping up with the joneses by not buying flashy, wasteful things.

Similar mindsets - that are environmentally responsible - need to take hold (and can take hold. be that example.)

I disagree. The industry is a big emitter of co2 but they obly respond to demand from consumer. The oil industry would not pollute as much if nobody was driving a car or flying. The meat industry would not pollute as much if we weren't eating as much meat. It's a society problem but unfortunately unless you force people to change their habits I don't see this changing.

Lots of people are calling for WFH and legitimization of remoting. Alas, it seems to be a matter of monkey power, and the managers want you to burn tons of fuel to sit your butt in the chains they provide and smell his armpits from a distance.

shrug

Whatever a single person does is except for a few cases negligible. The problems arise when a lot of people buy manufactured goods without regard for the consequences. The problems arise when a lot of people consume meat and thus create a huge demand for it. Or think that their own house in some sprawling suburb was always their dream and now they require a car too, because of poor public transport.

People vote for all this with their life choices, by what they consume and literally at the ballot box. Saying otherwise is just a popular way to deny responsibility and the individual need to change.

Sadly, after seeing so many deny the threat of covid as it was killing hundreds of thousands, I’m not sure people are capable of seeing the tip of their nose.

People are not stupid but they also know that promises around benefits in the more distant future (50 to 100 years!) might never materialize. The physics don't even need to be in dispute for that. This all points to geoengineering at some point from a sociopolitical perspective.

Why people insist on minimizing the fact that modern hyper-industrialized society (which people rely on to survive) is founded on cheap energy? Trying to execute degrowth at a pace and intensity that would be necessary for climate change to reduce the impact of climate change to the most ideal IPCC model would quite literally kill tens of millions in a year. Europe can barely deal with electricity becoming slightly more expensive.

Even friends of mine who are otherwise very conscious about social issues ignore climate change or push it all the way down. People seem to think corporations need to change and anything to suggest they need to change their lifestyle is basically drowned in cognitive dissonance. There’s also a significant amount of e we h as whataboutism even here in HN. Meat & dairy, car culture, fast fashion, consumerism especially that of low quality goods, travel, …etc are all things that could change or adapt. I just don’t see that happening.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com