8 Comments

I've watched a few of your videos, and I like that you're solution oriented. You keep asking, 'what can be done'. Most people do that, but more often than not, their solution is technically sound, but totally impracticable.

I'm afraid that while most of the stuff your today's guest suggests would work wonders, most of it would also be rejected by the populace, at least in its current state of mind. For what matters is what the mainstream does; I think Bill Rees mentioned that in one of your podcasts.

The underlying problem is that just about nobody wants this wild party of the current historical era, which is now coming to an end, to be over. On the contrary, people want more of the unprecedented luxury, and if anything, they feel that they're not getting enough. Or that they're getting the short end of the stick, which is actually true for most within the existing context, especially in view of the growing gap between the wealthy and the rest. Cognitive dissonance prevents people from acknowledging the biological, physical, ecological predicaments. Plus, the dangers are not exactly visible or imminent, and, let's face it, probably impossible to understand to most, even if they were willing to listen. At the same time, consumerism spins the wheels of the world and is promoted, exacerbating the status quo by solidifying consumption as the raison d'etre in people's skulls.

Would a top-down solution work? Perhaps some draconian totalitarian measures would, but people would feel wronged and deprived of what they perceive is a right to luxury.

Hence, change must come from within. From the mind of every individual. People have to find the meaning of life in something other than consumption, accumulation of material stuff. That doesn't make anyone any happier anyway.

In other words, I think it's wrong to focus on society as a whole. Focus must concentrate on the individual. An ideology, vision, way of life needs to be proposed to people - hand in hand with everything else.

How to go about it? A good question!

Expand full comment

Your summary of the underlying problem is spot on in my opinion and one of the most succinct I’ve read. Until this prevailing attitude shifts, we don’t have a chance of moving even slightly towards the solutions required to slow climate change.

Expand full comment

As I was mentioning below, I don't think anything can be done about climate change, other than getting adapted to whatever is coming. Climate change as an issue has been largely discredited and people won't listen.

Come to think about it, I think that the best strategy to get people's attention would be hitting them in the face with the hard facts, as presented by a guy like Simon Micheaux (who is charismatic on top of that!). Like, listen everybody we're about to fall off a cliff.

I mean the message would have to come from the top official levels. Maybe people could start bombarding politicians with stiff like Nate Hagens's simplification. Maybe some of it will stick and some of them might find the balls in them to start promoting this issue and eventually get it on the agenda.

Expand full comment

Perhaps Rachel and Naomi may not know that the abolition of slavery in Great Britain was followed by the indentured servitude of South Asians in remote colonies. Following the abolition of slavery, engineered famines were used to induce South Asians to migrate to distant lands as indentured laborers. Over 60 million of my ancestors died from hunger related causes during the 25 famines between 1857 to 1947, the days of the British Raj. This legacy is still felt in the increased incidence of diabetes (and heart disease) among modern South Asians as this Guardian investigation showed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Qv7zZBxq8

Likewise, the abolition of slavery in the United States was followed by the 13th amendment and its use for supplying prison labor in the US even today, as Ava Duvernay has documented here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8

The bottom line is that power has never conceded. This is evidenced by the fact that the power structures of the world are still highly unequal and skewed towards a few white males of European descent, who are well versed in the art of deception. However, as Ben MacIntyre wrote, "Deceit can only succeed if the deceived party is willing, in some way, to be deceived."

This is true in the climate situation as well. Here's a legal brief that I submitted for a constitutional case in Peru:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xkwg9-uKbHLFFLzN7qC04aV6Ai1x0X9J/view?usp=drive_link

It is a case brought by students against their University for not providing healthy Vegan meals on campus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1poWqBQVoizwIc92if6sZ91-X9ldb58HV/view?usp=drivesdk

Therefore, there is no substitute for a whole systems transformation.

Expand full comment

Oreskes completely discredited herself with her comments about anti-vaxxers (the term now includes those opposed to coercion into medical procedures as a condition of employment). Until she can provide some scientific evidence that the experimental mRNA injectables or vaccines in general are worthwhile and not just a cash cow for Big Pharma (and the revolving door with shareholders in regulation) I'm not interested in anything else she has to say.https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/dear-climate-scientists

Expand full comment

What needs to be realized that the powers that be use 1000+1 ways to atomize society into smithereens, divide and rule tactics are extreme. There is vastly more issues any two people will disagree on, most of them being inconsequential, than vice versa. That prevents people from joining forces and fighting for mutual interests.

So, we must, as much as possible, try to avoid issues where we disagree, so that we can join forces to work on stuff where we agree.

Gotta try to agree to disagree. Not always easy, yes, but that's the only way.

Expand full comment

Hiya, Yes TPsTB are absolutely doing this and the 'health freedom movement' has been fed much nonsense about climate to divide them from environmentalists, very successfully.

I come to this debate from a scientific perspective not a political one (though of course everything is political) and have written to all the climate scientists on youtube and substack that i follow who are completely wrong about the science of 'infectious' disease who I can only assume haven't actually read the literature.

No one will engage with me, hence my frustration and not being prepared to listen to or trust climate scientists on other subjects.

https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/those-linking-climate-misinformation

It is as much their failure to debate the issues and their labelling of dissenters as purveyors of misinformation than it is the fact that we disagree.

I do not agree to not debate.

Expand full comment

The way I see it is that the most important issue is the human overindulgence instigated by fossil fuels. The modus operandi based on the ever-accelerating extraction - processing - consumption - waste cycle. The perception etched in the human mind that this is what existence is and this the way forward.

Climate change is a secondary issue. Whether or not, or insofar as, it is caused by human activity, it can't be stopped, and people will have to adapt. Plus, this issue has been to quite an extent discredited, and people simply reject it.

For an effort to make people receptive to be successful, it will have to rely on something else.

As to infectious diseases, I've been closely involved with all sorts of initiatives. It's a disaster overall. They all doggedly maintain their view and refuse to come together to form some sort of shared platform. I stay away from all that now, too much frustration.

Expand full comment