Why Is Hollywood So Scared of Climate Change?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Specifically nature documentaries, when I watch recent productions I get the feeling that they aren't trying to show the results of studying nature, to educate about this or that: I get the feeling that they are packaged environmentalist manifestos (look at all these cute little animals that are going to die because you don't recycle) either made to shame/enlighten people who don't do the right thing or to boost the egos of people who do good.
It bothers me because it so often feels shoehorned in and off topic. I wouldn't mind at all if it were the topic, but injecting it into every topic is the problem.
Using art as a tool is complicated. When overdone it is unambiguously wrong, when done correctly it can be a powerful good force, and somewhere in the middle is a wide grey area which is difficult to navigate.
Don't forget that we just switched all our plastic straws to paper straws that are 1) less recyclable than plastic (or straight-up non-recyclable), 2) cost more in energy and carbon to produce, 3) cost more, and 4) are less effective.
All because some 9 year old conducted a survey...
Think about it.
I am beginning to have my doubts about the reasoning behind these feelings.
It is not that I deny that there are problems which have happened, are happening, and certainly will happen.
I'm starting to think most people thinking, talking, and feeling about it are being driven and biased by a shared sort of doomsday cult not in major but only subtle ways. "Everyone" just "knows" it.
There is loss, there is reason for concern, there is change in progress, and lots of reasons to feel about it. The feelings though don't seem like they are driven by fact, reason, analysis, and – well – science, but driven by shared feelings and ambiguous knowledge that things are bad.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/07/weight-of-th...
>She had been taking these sorts of research trips for two decades, and over recent years she had witnessed about 85 percent of the island’s reef system perish due to rising ocean temperatures. “I was diving with tears in my eyes,” she recalls.
http://theconversation.com/sadness-disgust-anger-fear-for-th...
> We found a large proportion of respondents, including Australians and overseas visitors, expressed forms of grief in response to loss and damage to the iconic ecosystem. Negative emotions associated with words given in short statements about “what the Great Barrier Reef means to you”, included sadness, disgust, anger and fear.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/12/greenland-resi...
> 76% claiming to have personally experienced global heating in their daily lives, from coping with dangerous sea ice journeys to having sled dogs euthanised for economic reasons tied to shorter winters.
Example: The recent mega-A-lister junket to Italy, where there was something like a 1-to-3 ratio of attendees to private jets.
I will readily listen to earnest spokespeople for almost any cause. I'd listen to Ralph Nader today. But a bunch of Hollywood Limosine liberals, flying in by private jet to hobnob about how to preach to the unwashed masses about climate change? Total turnoff.
Actually, as individual consumers, the best way one can lower one's carbon footprint is to not spend money. Don't buy the brand new cars product placed in films. Don't drive to the theater, wait until the movie can be streamed. And don't buy candy or soda or beer in theaters. Use as little resources as possible.
[0] https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-p... [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placin...
China is also building a ton of renewable energy. They're building a ton of everything and "India and China are doing X" isn't a reason for others to do nothing.
> Actually, as individual consumers, the best way one can lower one's carbon footprint is to not spend money.
I can't upvote this enough. This is the best way for individual consumers to make a difference.
Disagree strongly. Individuals cannot solve this on their own, it can only be solved at the national and international level. This means voting and ensuring that politicians know that your vote rides on their action: letter writing, protests, et cetera. And of course politicians won't do anything until such intentions are widespread, so this means grass-roots movements.
I was saying that the best way to make a difference as a consumer is to be less of a consumer. Most people in developed countries buy way too much shit. Changing that is a win for the individual (more money in your pocket) and the environment. And doing this does not preclude pressuring your elected representatives for broader change.
It's not Hollywood's job to get people over the line.
BAFTA could always create an incentive to make the kind of film they want to see. Maybe an award for best film featuring environmental issues.
What you see in Hollywood is nothing but a reflection of our own fears.
Also note that Thanos cutting the population in half isn't going to solve environmental problems. Humans reproduce at an exponential rate so cutting the population in half is ultimately futile.
So, what's your point?
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-rates
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-UN?tab...
Go to interactive mode. India and USA are already on sub-replacement. China is way under. Africa is the main reason world’s population is still growing.
I'm not sure how to go to interactive mode, but the chart you linked does not say that India and the USA are on sub-replacement. That's a graph of TFR, not population change, and it shows 2.35 children being born per woman in India as of 2015, so by itself the chart proves that India is increasing the world population. The rates are 1.87 for the US, which is sub-replacement, but the US also has increasing population due to immigration. Obviously that isn't a change to the world's population, but if you're counting immigration out of other countries in population change, you have to count immigration into the US.
To quote Wikipedia:
> From 2017 to 2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Uganda, and Indonesia, listed according to the expected size of their contribution to that projected population growth.
5 out of 9 of those countries are in Africa, but note that India is #1.
Note that if you look into where they are getting their data, both OWID and Wikipedia are citing the UN DESA.
Also note that a decline in population growth rate is not the same as a decline in population. Growth rates have been in decline worldwide since the 1950s, but are still positive, meaning population in those countries is still growing.
Why don't I just make this really simple for you: India's population will grow by 1.10% annually from 2015-2020 according to UN estimates from 2017.[1] If that's not recent enough for you, India is projected to grow 1.08% in 2019.[2] So however you want to argue this, India's population is growing. As I said and cited before, its absolute (not proportional) growth is greater than any other country in the world.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio...
[2] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-populat...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
Now you can go back up to my original post, and see what it was about (I was replying to someone claiming that halving world population won’t help as we are “reproducing exponentially”). I think you are trying to make some point I probably agree with (or correct something I’ve said but it’s unclear what)
That's true: the UN measuring the TFR being above replacement is what implies that the TFR is above replacement.
You just ignored half the post you responded to, so I'll say it again: How high is the child mortality rate? 4.1% as of 2016[1]. Even using your low number (2.2) that you didn't cite, 2.2 * (1 - 0.041) = 2.109, still above replacement.
> Now you can go back up to my original post, and see what it was about
My original point was that the TFR for developed nations is fairly irrelevant given the overall world population is still growing. But we're well past the point where you can maintain any credibility based on your original post anyway, because you've made a bunch of erroneous claims since then. All the following are wrong statements quoted from you:
* Most of the world is already on sub-replacement. The only worth mentioning exception is Africa.
* India and USA are already on sub-replacement.
* India's TFR is reported 2.2-2.3 for 2018. That is, for a developing country with high child mortality, the replacement rate.
Since you are now selectively reading the facts, my posts, and even your own posts, to try to draw attention away from where you're wrong, I don't think you're engaging in good-faith debate any more, so I'm done.
The common formula/approximation is inverse of product of probability of reaching mean fertility age and female ratio.
The female ratio in India is 0.482. The other factor I have no idea. If it’s ~94% then 2.2 is the replacement rate. I think that’s fairly high provided we start at 96.8% but who knows.
I don't think it's fear. People fantasize about the collapse of civilization. It doesn't matter whether it's due to zombies, meteors, or manmade ecological disaster.
I think there's something in the modern human psyche that longs for simpler times where success is measured by survival and all of the barriers we've built between ourselves and our biological needs vanish.
That might not be a smart fantasy but I think it's present in most of us.