stabby_cicada

I mean, how many people fact check a book? Even at the most basic level of reading the citations, finding the sources the book cited, and making sure they say what the book claims they say?

In the vast majority of cases, when we read a book, we trust the editors to fact check.

AI has no editors and generates false statements all the time because it has no ability to tell true statements from false. Which is why letting an AI summarize sources, instead of reading those sources for yourself, introduces one very large procedurally generated point of failure.

But let's not pretend the average person fact checks anything. The average person decides who they trust and relies on their trust in that person or source rather than fact checking themselves.

Which is one of the many reasons why Trump won.

Oh fuuuuck no.

You're not good enough at controlling your thoughts to be less useful than the pornsick social media addicted ai drones with 10 second attention spans that would willingly participate in this.

I remember a fantasy novel from the Myth Adventures series where the good guys went undercover as conscripts in an enemy nation's army. They ended up assigned to logistics and decide they could effectively hamper the enemy army, while keeping their own cover, if they messed up ten percent of their supply orders. And they got medals for efficiency because a 90% success rate was so much better then every other logistics unit 😆

Anyway, that's what I think of when I hear your suggestion. The average competent human being reading this and recognizes how dystopian this bullshit is, even trying to fail, is going to give better data than the kind of fucking idiot who thinks this is a good idea and participates willingly.

But not the last.

Unfortunately, the world won't give a shit until Los Angeles or a similar "developed" city runs out of water Parable of the Sower style.

To put that sum in context, the article says €225 per month represents a 41% reduction in the monthly food bill.

In Western countries, a vegan diet is not just healthier but cheaper than a standard meat-heavy diet. And the difference is significant in both cases.

You know, when someone wastes hundreds of dollars a month to indulge a pleasurable habit that shortens their lives significantly - like, say, cigarettes or alcohol - we'd have no qualms calling that an addiction. But the slaughter lobby has prevented any studies on the addictive nature of animal flesh and the harm it does to public health. Gosh, I wonder why.

I agree. Biden's presidency was the biggest lost opportunity of my lifetime for exactly that reason.

FDR responded to a similar global challenge - the Great Depression - by transforming the American government to serve the needs of struggling Americans - and the American people rewarded his courage and vision with overwhelming support when he ran for his second term.

Biden? Barely tried to improve America. And everything he tried failed. He couldn't even reduce student loan payments. And when Harris had the opportunity to break with him and fight for her own vision of what America could be, she either had no vision of her own or was too afraid to fight for it.

The American "left" is terrified to promote anything more than a return to the Obama-era status quo. But if they don't find their vision and courage the United States is guaranteed one party Republican rule for another generation.

I cannot say I agree, and I think I recall that some indicators currently suggest we'd need about 3 planets to keep going at the same pace.

The back of the envelope calculation says if everybody on Earth lived like an average American we'd need the resources of about four Earths to cover it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712

That being said, from the same source, if everyone on Earth lived like an average Indian we'd only use half the Earth's resources and could support twice as many people.

So it's not about the number of people - it's about the standard of living those people have and the resources they use.

I think the most effective way forward is more efficient and sustainable lifeways - if the richest countries learn to consume less, if people around the world get access to better technology and better institutions to raise their standard of living without raising their resource consumption.

And it's interesting to note, the better off people are, the fewer children they tend to have. If we improve people's lives worldwide, a steadily declining population will be a natural side effect.

An incredibly difficult goal, of course, but worth pursuing.

In addition, I find it rather hilarious that someone seriously thinks humans procreate because of long term thinking 😅

I mean, kids are a lifetime investment. Most people think about whether they can afford to feed and educate their kids over the next few decades, and what kind of life the kids will have after that. In countries without social safety nets, children are often the only retirement plan. I think the decision to have kids (or not) is the longest term planning the average person will ever do.

I'm not saying it's necessarily good planning, but it's certainly thinking long term.

With that being said, I think this article isn't claiming not having kids is a problem in itself. It's a symptom of the real problem - despair for the future.

People choosing not to have kids for positive reasons? Because they have a vision of the future with a lower population and choose to live their values? Great! No problem there.

But when people choose not to have kids because they think the world is collapsing around them, that they can't give children a good life, that there's no hope for the future and it would be immoral to expose a child to the coming tribulations - those decisions are made because people give up on the future.

The despair is the problem - the decisions made out of despair are just the symptoms.

And it's hard to motivate people to work for a better world now when they have no hope for a better world in the future. If we're all doomed anyway, why not burn all the oil you want and let the fascists take over?

Of course it's satire. I'm kind of shocked how many people don't recognize it as satire.

It's like the Hobbit taught us: traveling is good, but coming home is better.

Most of the public opinion on this isn't former through personal conversations with climate activists. It's formed through mass consumption of the media, and the information environment currently maintained by the corporate media environment will never allow for that much context.

I agree. But this mass consumption trickles down. Alex Jones or whoever spews climate bullshit, and your conservative relatives internalize it, and then repeat it to other family members and spread it further.

If you're a climate activist, maybe you have a big enough platform to challenge media directly - the left has been absolute shit at mainstream social media and if they don't mount a successful challenge to alt right dominance of the Internet we're fucked.

But even as just an ordinary person who cares about climate, you're going to hear people in your family or community repeat the propaganda. And that's your chance to push back.

This is true for all conservative propaganda, not just climate.

But specifically regarding hypocrisy, I think the most effective response is to, in fact, engage in individual actions that live your climate values. Reduce your carbon footprint. Eat more plants. Take public transit instead of driving.

These are examples of possible actions, not specific mandates. If you can't take public transit for whatever reason, don't. But do something. And be prepared to talk about it.

You should do that so that if you are accused of hypocrisy you can push back and say "no, I live my moral values, and here's how." And climate activists should do the same, and publicize it, so when they are attacked by bad faith conservatives with false accusations of hypocrisy they can push back. And you can speak up in their defense when people around you attack them.

Even if they understand it, they certainly don't care about it enough to vote based on it.

One of the ugliest victories of modern conservatism is rooted in the fact that this is wrong.

Because Americans do care about hypocrisy and morality.

And conservative media has convinced half of America that all politicians are corrupt, and liberal politicians are more corrupt than conservative politicians, so that the left has no moral basis to accuse the right of corruption.

American conservatives ignore the left when the left accuses the right of corruption, because they've been convinced the left is thoroughly corrupt and it's hypocritical of them to call out corruption in others.

So when Trump is accused, rightfully, of nepotism and bribery and an overwhelming amount of obvious public corruption, American conservatives ignore it. Because American conservatives believe Trump is only doing, openly, what every politician has done secretly. I mean, how the fuck can Chuck Schumer accuse Trump of, say, insider training, for swinging the stock market with ridiculous tariff announcements and retractions, when Chuck has been insider trading on secret Senate information for decades?

And because American conservatives see left-wing politicians as corrupt and hypocritical and dishonest, they happily ignore every accusation they make her against Trump.

That's why Bernie and AOC are so popular right now, because they have reputations for living their values, so when they go out and flip their shit about economic injustice, people listen.

Harris, during her campaign, tried to publicize a coalition of "good billionaires" support her to challenge Trump's bad billionaires. Which, I'll admit, is Harris living her values. But her values are shit and she lost for it.

Anyway, yeah. It's because the American people care about hypocrisy that conservatives feel free to ignore criticism of Trump's corruption. They think the liberal politicians accusing Trump are just as corrupt, if not more.

And the only solution to this is restoring honor to the American political system - getting a left-wing politician, or a coalition of politicians, that are widely seen as trustworthy and incorruptible, to lead the American left, instead of the usual DNC corruption and fuckery. And after the shitshow that was 2024 I'm not sure where someone like that will come from.

Problem is that no matter what you do or excuses you give, critical trolls can always point to something you can do better.

Absolutely. People who don't argue in good faith won't argue in good faith. Responding to such people in public is not about convincing them - it's about swaying the audience listening to your conversation.

The people we want to convince are the people who want to argue in good faith, who care about understanding reality and doing the right thing, and who aren't climate experts themselves so have to choose what experts to trust.

Those people are actually swayed by those bad faith accusations of hypocrisy - and can be swayed back by proof that you (or whatever climate professional is under attack) is not a hypocrite and is making a good faith effort to do the right thing.

I think this article identifies a genuine problem but comes up with the exact wrong solution.

The problem is accusations of perceived hypocrisy. Climate opponents claim that climate professionals aren't living their values. They dictate rules for living to others that they don't follow themselves. This makes climate professionals look dishonest and untrustworthy, and is used not just to discredit individual advocates but call all of environmental science and policy into question.

The solution the article suggests is to stop accusing climate scientists of hypocrisy because we all have to live in a broken system. Which is absolutely true. We do.

However. The people who accuse climate advocates of hypocrisy aren't going to listen to that.

Here's the way I see it. In the conversation, we have climate supporters, who believe in the science and want good climate policy; climate opponents, who want to block good climate policy; and undecided people, who don't know about the science and/or don't have strong opinions on policy.

Accusations of hypocrisy against climate professionals come overwhelmingly from climate opponents. The purpose of these accusations is to sway undecided people, who don't know much about the science and who give more weight to the perceived trustworthiness of climate professionals, and their fellow climate opponents, to discourage them from listening to climate professionals and possibly changing their minds.

And then people who hear these accusations repeat them to their friends and neighbors and family. And if people have friends or neighbors or family who they personally know aren't living their purported climate values, those accusations start sounding even more credible.

Look. The average American is not an expert on climate science. The average American doesn't understand, in detail, the data and the sources behind the data. In order for the average American to believe in climate science, they need to trust climate scientists to be honest and provide truthful data.

The average American does understand hypocrisy and morality. And when climate professionals are credibly accused of behaving in ways inconsistent with their stated values, that harms Americans' trust in the climate science.

Telling climate opponents not to accuse climate professionals of hypocrisy is pointless. They do it because it works. They will keep doing it because it works. Because their goal is to block climate policy and they'll use whatever tools they have to do that.

Which is why, I think, it's important for climate supporters - especially climate advocates - to live their values as far as they can, and to be able to talk about how they live their values. And when they're not able to live their values - for instance, climate advocates needing to fly around the country for political rallies to build collective action - they should be able to explain why they're not living their values and how they're trying to make up for it in other areas.

So that when some friend or family member repeats a "gotcha" like "but you flew to Dublin for an environmental conference, lol" you can respond with "Yes, and I offset that consumption with x, y, and z, and I signed a petition to make next year's conference virtual, and" etc, etc, etc. Show that the environment matters to you morally and that you are trying to do the right thing. Not only does it deflect the accusation of hypocrisy but it makes you appear more credible on the science.

It may not seem like it in the current political climate, but honesty still matters. Consistency still matters. Honor still matters.

And whether you're Taylor Swift, burning enough jet fuel to heat a small country, or Joe Public the EPA paperwork drone, leaving your car running in the driveway for twenty minutes to warm it up before work, your personal consumption does matter. And the example you set to people who know you matters even more.