People will use this to galvanize efforts against climate action, and it will work. If you want to seriously do something, go after the people causing the crisis.
Activists (try to) do that as well. But it’s much harder to get close to a rich person or their property, than it is to do something in public spaces. They, too, have to see what they can do with their limited resources.
Next, the media coverage is very unequal, as well as reader’s interest. You are much more likely to click on an article covering a potentially outrageous action, than you are to read about something which does not bother anyone. Although you can rest assured, these things are tried and done frequently.
So naturally, to the uninvolved reader, it may seem as if activists don’t do anything but stupid stunts. And naturally, each outsider seems to think they have a much better grasp of strategy and what actions might make sense than the people who are actually involved in these things.
Of course, a particular action can still be silly. I just want to draw attention to biases at play, in general.
And if you really have a much better idea how to do something about the climate crisis, then go ahead and shine as an example. Not only would you author an actually impactful action (which in itself should be reason enough), you could also show all these rookie activists how to get things done. If your example is convincing, you should see less media coverage about inferior actions.
It will inspire people to take more drastic action, and highlight the urgency of the cause in a way that targets those who are causing it. It’s also more likely to create sympathy, since the ones causing the problem are the ones being punished for it.
Policy is what drives the climate crisis, and policy is primarily controlled by the rich and powerful, especially in countries like the US where corporate lobbying reigns supreme. You could argue that it’s ultimately capitalist incentives that create this paradigm, but I would say that those incentives are upheld by the same powerful individuals who benefit from them.
tl;dr, the climate crisis is caused by certain individuals.
the whole “the climate crisis isn’t the fault of people” is an excuse for the religious and rich and stupid to continue with business as usual until the environment collapses and we are all dead
reasoning with them is like trying to de-program a cult member (the religious), get a drug addict to give up drugs (the rich and their avarice), or teach a windows user to learn linux (the stupid and learning new things that make sense)
the intelligent people need to stop trying to reason with these three tar pit groups and force them to adhere to our will
but the reality is that this should have happened 50 to 100 years ago and it’s probably too late. we’re sort of of at the “is it better to be in the blast zne or slightly outside the blast zne” phase of environmental collapse. the problem is mostly religion, which has doomed us.
It’s particularly funny because Stonehenge is almost entirely a reconstruction and not a partially destructive one at that. Iirc there are even legit photos of the henge stones in piles on the ground.
Ed: you can down vote but it’s true, it’s been continually knocked down and rebuilt throughout its history.
People will use this to galvanize efforts against climate action, and it will work. If you want to seriously do something, go after the people causing the crisis.
Activists (try to) do that as well. But it’s much harder to get close to a rich person or their property, than it is to do something in public spaces. They, too, have to see what they can do with their limited resources.
Next, the media coverage is very unequal, as well as reader’s interest. You are much more likely to click on an article covering a potentially outrageous action, than you are to read about something which does not bother anyone. Although you can rest assured, these things are tried and done frequently.
So naturally, to the uninvolved reader, it may seem as if activists don’t do anything but stupid stunts. And naturally, each outsider seems to think they have a much better grasp of strategy and what actions might make sense than the people who are actually involved in these things.
Of course, a particular action can still be silly. I just want to draw attention to biases at play, in general.
And if you really have a much better idea how to do something about the climate crisis, then go ahead and shine as an example. Not only would you author an actually impactful action (which in itself should be reason enough), you could also show all these rookie activists how to get things done. If your example is convincing, you should see less media coverage about inferior actions.
Cool. How?
Do crimes
How is that gonna help?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_flank_effect
It will inspire people to take more drastic action, and highlight the urgency of the cause in a way that targets those who are causing it. It’s also more likely to create sympathy, since the ones causing the problem are the ones being punished for it.
The climate crisis is not caused by certain individuals.
Policy is what drives the climate crisis, and policy is primarily controlled by the rich and powerful, especially in countries like the US where corporate lobbying reigns supreme. You could argue that it’s ultimately capitalist incentives that create this paradigm, but I would say that those incentives are upheld by the same powerful individuals who benefit from them.
tl;dr, the climate crisis is caused by certain individuals.
the whole “the climate crisis isn’t the fault of people” is an excuse for the religious and rich and stupid to continue with business as usual until the environment collapses and we are all dead
reasoning with them is like trying to de-program a cult member (the religious), get a drug addict to give up drugs (the rich and their avarice), or teach a windows user to learn linux (the stupid and learning new things that make sense)
the intelligent people need to stop trying to reason with these three tar pit groups and force them to adhere to our will
but the reality is that this should have happened 50 to 100 years ago and it’s probably too late. we’re sort of of at the “is it better to be in the blast zne or slightly outside the blast zne” phase of environmental collapse. the problem is mostly religion, which has doomed us.
It’s particularly funny because Stonehenge is almost entirely a reconstruction and not a partially destructive one at that. Iirc there are even legit photos of the henge stones in piles on the ground.
Ed: you can down vote but it’s true, it’s been continually knocked down and rebuilt throughout its history.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/excavation-restoration-stonehenge-1950s-60s/