Hacker News Reader

I think one of the issues is the sheer overwhelming nature of the challenges we face. We hear so much about so many different things that it is almost paralyzing. Icebergs melting, bees dying, jellyfish taking over, etc. While some of the issues share the same root cause, it can be too much to contemplate for many.

There is also a lack of connectedness to these issues for many, who are simply trying to subsist or are otherwise entrenched in our endless culture of distraction. It's the same reason that we can engage in a war for over a decade, killing and maiming many of our own, as well as (some estimate) hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, yet be largely consumed in our own personal lives. We compartmentalize, which is in part a human survival tactic. It is also because we literally do not connect our own actions with the problems or solutions, and we have a broken politics which makes many of us feel largely powerless.

To this mix, you add countervailing interests, who know that they need only use media and various other tactics to sow the slightest bit of confusion over an issue to freeze any meaningful mass action.

But, with all of this, there still seems to come a time for some things, wherein a critical mass or tipping point is reached. People mobilize and a new zeitgeist takes hold. Then it becomes comfortable, convenient, and important to be part of the solution. I think having enough people personally affected by an issue is one impetus, and another is what forces or other voices can be galvanized to participate (even if their own motives for doing so are selfish). See the Breast Cancer Awareness Movement.

"It seems fairly clear at this point that as a race we're facing some fairly substantial problems that need to be addressed if we want to avoid major catastrophe"

I understand why this line of thinking is attractive but isn't it based on a fiction? That being; if it weren't for interference from intelligent life, humans, the earth would go on being in perfect environmental equilibrium for all time. In reality the earth's environment has always been changing. Those changes have been taking place since the beginning and many of them were the result of the effects of various living organisms humans included.

So isn't the desire of humans to preserve 'our' environment, in it's present state, in some sense a selfish desire to curtail the inevitable march of environmental change which might threaten the species but would almost certainly happen with or without us?

Change would happen, but not the same changes as we're causing.

But you're right, there is a large component of self interest in preserving the environment, an environment that works prett well for humans.

Well, sure, but that's so reductive as to be meaningless. There's a strong element of self-interest in preserving an environment that we're well adapted to, and as some of the changes threatening that environment are anthropogenic, changing our behavior is a perfectly rational thing to do.

> Nobody is willing to accept responsibility for the problems and everybody believes they will somehow be resolved without their personal intervention.

But not without reason. Making a difference requires coordination. Coordination at such a large level requires government action (companies/NGO's/charities/etc. can't do it). And for climate/environment-related things, often action on the part of several/many/all governments.

But the fact is, the way democracies are built, they tend to be bad at this, and there's lots of research to back that up. People don't vote on candidates based on unproven consequencies that are decades from now, period. And non-democracies aren't going to worry about this stuff too much either.

Things change for reasons, which involve clear incentives. "Accepting responsibility" on a personal level doesn't really have a lot to do with it, I'm afraid, unless you're a world leader, and even as a world leader, you're awfully constrained in what you do.

The only way out of this climate problem is going to be a technological solution. I wish environmentalist and politicians would acknowledge this. It could be a unifying threat but noooooo, they like the smell of money especially when it comes to burning oil, methane, and such.

Creating nearly free energy via thorium reactors or other nuclear options could could take a load of over fishing off the oceans by way of desalination and creating more agriculture.

I would prefer a bunch of messy waste the size of a football field rather than an ocean depleted of fish and mammals

> The only way out of this climate problem is going to be a technological solution.

The Ozone problem was successfully solved with the Montreal Protocol without adding more tec into the mix for which no one understands the impact completely nor the harm done to the environment.

If you insist on a technical solution invent or use one to reduce your personal CO2 emissions to 1 metric ton per year. Some exist already, e.g. bikes.

You lost me at "only solution". How about we humans stop overfishing the oceans? We eat way too much meat in an unnecessary, gluttonous way, and seafood is included. The terrestrial manifestation is lower quality food, poorer diets, extra greenhouse gases, and pollution runoff in inland waters. The jellyfish problem is the oceanic manifestation. A systemic problem requires a systemic change. I doubt humans throughout history have proportionally eaten as much meat as Americans eat today. But these days, for the first time, we have too many humans to safely ignore the consequences.

The oceans are being acidified by absorbing CO2, which dissolves into the water. Does desalinating water solve that problem? Better yet, does it scale?? The amt of water humans need for drinking is nothing compared to the size of the ocean.

Nuclear fission is not a clean energy solution -- the waste lives on forever. Fusion is not an option at the moment, and we need to start on solutions now until/unless fusion energy happens.

> How about we humans stop overfishing the oceans?

I agree. Also, how about we stop driving personal cars and start using public transportation / bikes / hikes whenever possible, making it a priority in our lives to the point that a car trip makes us feeling guilty?

As I understand it, CO2 emissions from cars is one of the major reasons for the ocean acidification and, considering the immense magnitude and consequences of it, it's almost a crime not to care about it (as most of us do).

Come on, let's wisen up - most of us in the first world coutries live in cities with decent public transportation and other sustainable options. Let's use them!

I observe the same in people around me.

And I've come to the conclusion that that's what politics are for. Or, should I say "should be for"?

I think there are two ways to get a critical mass of people to move a certain way: through a massive ad campaign, or through laws.

Unfortunately, both ways are not guaranteed to work. For instance, women's rights were greatly improved in the 20th century through a massive campaign, the feminist movement. It lead to women's right becoming a focal topic, in the media and then in society, and by raising awareness and being persistent, slowly things started improving. Today, however, my impression is that by and large women's rights are on the decline again. Intuitively, it seems to me that if there's someone with an agenda pushing against certain topics, such as for instance some global corporations against environmental actions, it becomes and arms race between those who benefit from the status quo and campaign members. If the latter fail to create a new status quo in a certain window of time, the campaign will eventually lose steam. Not that the topic will disappear completely, but it will be harder and harder to motivate others for the cause because the novelty has worn off.

Therefore if people cannot be convinced - and of course it's always more comfortable for people not to have to change - an alternative could be to force changes by law. Again, if we look at environmental issues, a lot of improvements have been made that way, but how many more have been missed?

The goal of a politician is not to change, it is to be re-elected. So s/he has to be convinced that doing a certain thing will get her/him closer to that goal. Again, we're looking at an arms race, this time it's the lobbying race. The campaigning discussed above plays into that as well because if the public opinion can be influenced that will definitely be heard by politicians as well. It doesn't automatically mean that the public's will is going to be put into law, but the more pressure from outside the better.

I've given up trying to get people to even read up on environmental issues let alone change their behavior. And believe me, I've tried. I've given up because it's too frustrating. I think people have to be forced (through laws), they won't change by themselves.

Yup, and there's been success with legislation. Take the clean air and clean water acts. My parents say these have had a profound effect in a relatively short time.

"Nobody is willing to accept responsibility for the problems and everybody believes they will somehow be resolved without their personal intervention."

When I look at my surroundings, majority of the people are struggling to make ends meet. Food, healthcare, jobs - this is what bothers them. Expecting them to take actions with not-so-visible outcome and be concerned about something which will happen sometime in future with unforeseen circumstances is a bit un-realistic.

This holds true for a huuge part of world's population so I guess 'adapting' is the only way now.

There is lit about what organizers — what you're discussing — face. It's not easy, when this requires you to be in antagonism with others. Many of us are obviously concerned about the threats to their species, but there's powerful antagonistic forces.

Take Graeber's recent book "The Democracy Project". It's quite an entertaining first-person view on what that entails. (http://gawker.com/5994421/a-discussion-with-anarchist-activi...)

In contrast, elite-led environmental efforts often fall for the dismal traps Naomi Klein mentions: (http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/nao...).

>Even as somebody who is genuinely concerned and willing to accept responsibility, there seems to be nothing of worth that I can actually do to help.

One of the issues she mentions is overfishing. You can vote with your dollars and take care with what you buy, and contribute to non-profit funds working to secure wildlife preservations, many found at the link below. Don't stop to make a change in your own life because everyone else isn't doing it.

http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/organizations_issue...