Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

#21

Post by anoncake »

m0zg wrote: post #17
anoncake wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this accomplish? Calling people hypocrites for "crying" about climate change just makes them deny that their lifestyle is a problem in the first place. That is strictly worse than "hypocrisy": It reduces the prominence of climate change in public discourse and moves public opinion even further away from "let's not destroy our livelihoods" to "muh jobs". In addition, someone who does take their carbon footpr…

But they are in denial already. Calling them hypocrites is just stating the obvious. Hopefully it'll make them think, even if for a fleeting minute, and not buy that third Hawaiian vacation this year.

No, someone who denies the importance of protecting the climate by definition cannot be hypocritical for not protecting the climate. Also, making hypocrites think is pointless because their thoughts aren't the problem to begin with, their actions are.

They say you cannot make someone believe something when their salary depends on not believing it. Of course you can't if society deems it more important that your thoughts match your actions than that they match reality.

Re: Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

#22

Post by AstralStorm »

hos234 wrote: post #9

Elon is building starships, to shoot them off into space. Maybe that's a solution. That said, changing the minds and behavior of 42 million people doesn't actually seem that complicated. Marketing depts are constantly targeting this segment. We know what their weaknesses are. Just requires a bit of world wide coordination and planning.

Just calculate the impact of one launch in tons CO2. It's not a great picture, and half of it is in stratosphere.

Re: Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

#23

Post by AstralStorm »

atoav wrote: post #18
m0zg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not "solving problems" here. I'm just calling out the hypocrisy of the upper middle class who would like to, at the same time, have high carbon upper middle class lifestyle, and cry about climate change on Twitter. It's always got to be someone else who has to "sacrifice". As to me personally, I work from home, so I likely emit considerably less than most people. And most of my energy consumption is electricity (…

Well and I own a considerable amount of woods, don't own a car and do everything by bicycle including in the winter. My house is heated by a hydro-extracter and I live in a province where over 80% of the energy comes from water, so my personal carbon footprint is actually negative. But that isn't the point: comparing the individual carbon footprints of people to their mindset might be a jolly pastime for some, but th…

Who owns those corporations, and is in government? Who can afford lobbyists?

The answer is of course still super-rich.

Re: Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

#24

Post by AstralStorm »

m0zg wrote: post #16
sho wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's always got to be someone else who has to "sacrifice". No that is bullshit. I am personally willing to pay the price to reduce my carbon impact. Indeed I already do with flights, etc. I couldn't care less if my electricity price doubled or tripled to deal with the problem. The problem is NOT these upper middle classes as you say, but the lower classes who would be absolutely wiped out by these changes - not to…

But you can't "pay to reduce your carbon impact". That money, as a rule, does not reduce the amount of carbon you emit. It just makes you feel better. What would make a difference is not flying in the first place, not having a fancy car, not upgrading that phone every year, living in a smaller house, not having kids, not eating meat, not eating non-local fruit and produce, etc, etc. Not quite going back to the stone…

And the people who do have kids will prosper, and those who don't will die off.

This proposed policy is not sustainable.

Who pays for the marketing campaign on those new gadgets? Maybe they can change their mind and sell less breakable ones, even though it's worse for business?

You and me might resist the siren call of marketing, but most cannot.

Middle class cannot in general afford property, much less beachfront one. Maybe with a big mortgage. You're conflating rich and super rich with the middle class.

Re: Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

#25

Post by m0zg »

AstralStorm wrote: post #24
m0zg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can't "pay to reduce your carbon impact". That money, as a rule, does not reduce the amount of carbon you emit. It just makes you feel better. What would make a difference is not flying in the first place, not having a fancy car, not upgrading that phone every year, living in a smaller house, not having kids, not eating meat, not eating non-local fruit and produce, etc, etc. Not quite going back to the stone…

And the people who do have kids will prosper, and those who don't will die off. This proposed policy is not sustainable. Who pays for the marketing campaign on those new gadgets? Maybe they can change their mind and sell less breakable ones, even though it's worse for business? You and me might resist the siren call of marketing, but most cannot. Middle class cannot in general afford property, much less beachfront on…

>> And the people who do have kids will prosper, and those who don't will die off

It's interesting that you latched onto this rather than something more feasible for most people, like a smaller house or not having a car. This way you can dismiss my critique out of hand, and continue with your present lifestyle while pretending to care. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

>> Middle class cannot in general afford property,

That's why I'm talking about the _upper_ middle class here. If you make quarter of a million dollars a year, you can afford property.

Re: Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

#26

Post by smsm42 »

anoncake wrote: post #15
m0zg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not "solving problems" here. I'm just calling out the hypocrisy of the upper middle class who would like to, at the same time, have high carbon upper middle class lifestyle, and cry about climate change on Twitter. It's always got to be someone else who has to "sacrifice". As to me personally, I work from home, so I likely emit considerably less than most people. And most of my energy consumption is electricity (…

What does this accomplish? Calling people hypocrites for "crying" about climate change just makes them deny that their lifestyle is a problem in the first place. That is strictly worse than "hypocrisy": It reduces the prominence of climate change in public discourse and moves public opinion even further away from "let's not destroy our livelihoods" to "muh jobs". In addition, someone who does take their carbon footpr…

Avoiding being a hypocrite is not ignoring anything. It's if you think carbon emissions are bad, maybe you shouldn't hop on a private plane every week to tell people about it on another continent. Maybe you could do it using such modern marvels as video and internet, or at least use commercial air travel which would spend almost the same amount of energy to carry 300 people as was previously spent carrying just you and your personal chef (you can't propose one could travel without personal chef, right?!).

I get when some TV talking head is worried about environment. Good for them. But before lecturing my on my carbon footprint, maybe they could take at least some effort to deal with theirs, which is probably like 100x bigger than mine, and unlike me giving up my car (which would make me almost unemployable and unable to get food or basic goods in many places in US) reducing it to 50x would not cost them anything but a slight inconvenience. After they do that, maybe I will believe they are serious and not just fashionably posturing.

Re: Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

#27

Post by sho »

m0zg wrote: post #25
AstralStorm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the people who do have kids will prosper, and those who don't will die off. This proposed policy is not sustainable. Who pays for the marketing campaign on those new gadgets? Maybe they can change their mind and sell less breakable ones, even though it's worse for business? You and me might resist the siren call of marketing, but most cannot. Middle class cannot in general afford property, much less beachfront on…

>> And the people who do have kids will prosper, and those who don't will die off It's interesting that you latched onto this rather than something more feasible for most people, like a smaller house or not having a car. This way you can dismiss my critique out of hand, and continue with your present lifestyle while pretending to care. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. >> Middle class cannot in general afford…

I do not appreciate you passing off opposing arguments as "cognitive dissonance". The basic fact that subspecies X will outbreed subspecies Y is inarguable, no matter how much dirt you attempt to throw.

No-one is willing to have this conversation; I thought we might until you ruined it with this very disappointing behaviour. Stop it.

Re: Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

#28

Post by sho »

whiteflame7000 wrote: post #20
sho wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for clarifying. It's an unknown, basically. I too feel in this category about the 42M, although I suspect i'm on the offending side of the line. I have no clue about "march madness", all I know is it's some kind of american sports thing. I did not go through your past comments, jesus. Anyone who did - stop it.

It was a poor assumption to think everyone would know that term outside of America, my apologies. Almost every major university in America has a men's basketball program so it would be hard not to come upon the term while at 4 year college here in the states.

Just so you know, north of 95% of people are "outside of America". We have no idea, or desire to know, about your school basketball programs. Just FYI

Re: Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

#29

Post by DoreenMichele »

sho wrote: post #28
whiteflame7000 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a poor assumption to think everyone would know that term outside of America, my apologies. Almost every major university in America has a men's basketball program so it would be hard not to come upon the term while at 4 year college here in the states.

Just so you know, north of 95% of people are "outside of America". We have no idea, or desire to know, about your school basketball programs. Just FYI

I'm American, born and raised. I've heard of March Madness (though I don't actually know what it means).

I had no idea what bubble team meant whatsoever. It was wholly unfamiliar to me.

Re: Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich

#30

Post by m0zg »

sho wrote: post #27
m0zg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> And the people who do have kids will prosper, and those who don't will die off It's interesting that you latched onto this rather than something more feasible for most people, like a smaller house or not having a car. This way you can dismiss my critique out of hand, and continue with your present lifestyle while pretending to care. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. >> Middle class cannot in general afford…

I do not appreciate you passing off opposing arguments as "cognitive dissonance". The basic fact that subspecies X will outbreed subspecies Y is inarguable, no matter how much dirt you attempt to throw. No-one is willing to have this conversation; I thought we might until you ruined it with this very disappointing behaviour. Stop it.

>> No-one is willing to have this conversation

And that, my dear friend, is exactly my point. Think about this thread next time you pay for your "carbon offsets".

Post reply on HN