Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

> drive an agenda (which might be climate change for example).

Calling climate change an agenda is like calling gravity a political position. If you don’t believe in climate change, there is no value in a discussion. If you’re driving a studio apartment on wheels around town, some sacrifice might be required. The future is unlikely to look like the past.

“About a quarter of Americans (23%) think they’ll have to make major sacrifices in their everyday lives because of climate change. A larger share (48%) expects to make minor sacrifices because of climate impacts and 28% of Americans expect to make no sacrifices at all.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima...

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/25/1208016669/heres-how-american...

View on HN

> If you don’t believe in climate change, there is no value in a discussion.

it's not the belief that's in question. It's the actions required.

I, and many others (whether they admit it or not), do not wish to make personal sacrifices to fix climate change, if others are not willing to make the same level of sacrifices (such that relative positioning within society does not change).

Americans would say, if offered the choice between losing Florida to the sea or cheaper gas prices, "so what's the downside?"

I would totally understand if Floridians got really mad at the people who are unwilling to change their lightbulbs to LED ones in order to save their land.

This is a fundamental dynamic of human behaviour. To deny this is detrimental to the goal of reducing climate change and improving the environment we live in.

This is why i think we need global policy changes and regulation to achieve the commonly beneficial goals.

If we wish our species to survive long-term we might need to educate ourselves so that we behave in less selfish ways. I don’t live in Florida, but I am doing my part in saving it (I love my friends who live there).

That is naive. Humans are selfish, we need to accept this and adapt our poicies accordingly - as we have historically.

We can give up, of course, and always assume the worst out of everyone, including us, or we can use whatever tools are within reach to, at least, try to make better humans.

While I agree we aren't the nicest species of primate (that title goes to our cousins, the Bonobos), I also believe a lot of our nastiness can be attributed to nurture rather than nature.

My point is that as individuals we are not OK with making individual sacrifices if the neighbour does not have to. If everyone makes the same sacrifice we are OK with it, see GP's point.

My feeling is that any individual is OK with sacrifice as long as they are not unfairly disadvantaged relavitely to their society/neighbours.

For example: i would not be willing to pay more income tax unless this applied for everyone; even if i wanted higher income taxes.

What you say is that most people are uncomfortable to lead by example. I still think it's nurture, rather than nature, that makes us like that.

A good couple Americans living in coastal areas might end up sacrificing living in coastal areas because of climate change. Others who are subject to increasingly frequent extreme weather events might end up sacrificing their current homes in favor of underground bunkers.

The world is changing fast and the Earth does not wait for its population to be ready.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com