Cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/12956314
"I push back on doomism because I don’t think it’s justified by the science, and I think it potentially leads us down a path of inaction,” said Mann during a talk last Thursday at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
“And there are bad actors today who are fanning the flames of climate doomism because they understand that it takes those who are most likely to be on the front lines, advocating for change, and pushes them to the sidelines, which is where polluters and petrostates want them.”
The greatest barrier to reducing climate change is the ultra wealth financing denialism of climate change and the tight grip they have on what the average person thinks is real through immense lobbying, owning media outlets and controlling what they publish, and unlimited disinformation campaigns. Maybe it’s frowned upon to talk about those things at such a rich university, but if you’re not talking about those things are you really helping the situation or are you maintaining the delusional status quo of “we can get to it when we get to it”
The average person isn’t so gullible. We know its an issue, and we know the causes But most od these big polluting countries are not democracies. That’s clear because the parties in power are not doing what the people want them to do.
We do live in plutocracies - I agree with you there.
I don’t think the problem with the average person is gullibility per se, I think it’s 1) how much strain/overhwhelm they face make a nice life for themselves (with the accelerated cost of living, lack of safety nets, impending climate change) and how marginalized rational concern about the climate change and growing wealth inequality is compared to how loudly trumpeted the lies used to maintain the status quo are that serve the billionaires.
For many, (and this example is a big issue in my country of Canada at the moment) it’s easier to direct anger towards a tax meant to curb climate change than it is to face reality and anger at larger and more influential factors like neoliberalism.
Anger lends itself to simplified reasoning. Billionaires and conservatives know this very well. If we want to open the average person’s eyes we need to be very strategic in our messaging, otherwise it won’t stick as well as the earworm crap the right uses.
As soon as wildfires start up in Canada again this season, the rise of ‘clean fossil fuel’ ads (i.e, propaganda saying “nothing to be concerned about, keep consuming”) will happen again. It is still possible to hear about Greta Thurnberg on the news or online - to use an example. That type of content might only be available on the dark web in a couple decades
Idk, I think less people are watching the TVs with such ads. Those people are dying off
Hot take to call the US and Europe autocracies. I don’t exactly disagree, but still a hot take.
Plutocracy. Its not a hot take.