Empiricism boosted

When people such as don't want the based solutions to mitigate change because they're more interested in selling and using

Or when a politician doesn't believe in climate change or hasn't got a clue how to mitigate climate change or is another deceitful business person.

Or when people on social media actually seem to believe that buying an electric car is doing their "bit" for the climate.

It's time to consider people's

Not specifically "crazy", but what are they not thinking about and what is their morality?

Some unethical people will find this offensive 

Seriously, in the context of folk psychology & the environment they live in - the "lights" are on but nobody is "home"!

How can you educate (unethical) idiots without offending them?

There are people that even when you refer to the evidence that shows how to live an ecologically sustainable lifestyle, they ignore that evidence & say, to paraphrase, "we're screwed!".

Their personal idealogy does not align with living (a personal conflict of interest)

A person hears that burning fuel is harmful for people & planet. But, they choose to take part in recreational fuel burning activities, what are they?

Empiricism boosted

How to reinterpret emotions, pain, pleasure, etc.

Have you noticed that when you feel thirsty, drinking water instantly quenches your thirst. But, physiologically, it will take a while for that water to be absorbed into your bloodstream.

What's going on?

Making Sense with Sam Harris: #322 — Predicting Reality

Episode webpage: wakingup.libsyn.com/322-predic

Media file: traffic.libsyn.com/secure/waki

FYI, please contact Sam & ask him to talk about ecological as he's unusually quite about that subject

A common complaint is admin suspended someone's account without warning. So, people lose many of their online connections.

This is the biggest flaw with Mastodon & the in general (sure, it's much better than Twitter, etc....But?)

This problem could be solved by having our own unique (& anonymous if wanted) password protected fediverse ID.

So, adimin can kick you off their instance, but they can't delete your online conections.

So, online encrypted ID. Pros & cons?

Empiricism boosted

GETTING STUXED; when you lose a good chunk of your online connections because an instance admin chucked your instance into the suspension bin in a fit of rage, without warning or due process, and then reverses the decision less then 24 hours later, leaving you to clean up the mess, and try to reconnect.

How to use in a sentence;

“Hey, not heard from you in a while, turns out I wasn't following you any longer?! Weird.”
“Yeah, sorry, got stuxed a few weeks ago, no idea who else is still missing :(“

See also; pulling a Nathan.

We can never have too much nature!

We can (do) have too much technology! Too much quantity with a poor quality.

?

1st the plan. The path to success.

2nd the action. Start walking that path (step by step)

Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015: the essentials

Sustainable development is about improving the way that we can achieve our economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being

gov.wales/well-being-future-ge


Empiricism boosted

Call me old-fashioned, but if a car kills people at ten times the rate of other cars,
the company covers up the data,
and the CEO lies to the public and says the cars are safer…

I think that CEO should go to jail on fraud charges.
#Musk #fraud #DOJ #WhiteCollarCrimeSpiking
prospect.org/justice/06-13-202

When Chief Executive Officers, Corporations, Entrepreneurs and profit seekers in general, are not convinced that an open-source tech structure is the (private business) future of social networking, then we will have a social network that can't be corrupted by business-as-usual.


Only a battery made from non-mined & biodegradable material would be affordable (for the planet).

"Globally those in slavery, though small in absolute numbers (est. 40.2 million), contribute disproportionately to environmental destruction and carbon emissions. If modern slaves were a country, they would be the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, after China and the United States"

From forests to factories: How modern slavery deepens the crisis of climate change, Energy Research & Social Science doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.10.

Empiricism boosted
Empiricism boosted
Empiricism boosted

Still my favorite segment about why it's a bad idea to participate in bad-faith "debates" about science. They only result in further amplifying disinformation.

"People still think this issue is open to debate, because on TV it is. It's always one person for one person against. When you look at the screen, it's 50/50, which is inherently misleading."
@iamjohnoliver

preview

To quote the book "The revolutionary book, Beyond the Limits, argued that society had gone into overshoot – a state of being beyond limits without knowing it: ‘we are overshooting such crucial resources as food and water while overwhelming nature with pollutants like those causing global warming’, and ‘a sustainable future will require profound social and psychological readjustments in the developed and developing world’. I read this in 1998 and was confused. Of course, we knew this – that was what Rio was all about. But why hadn’t governments acted on the information – or did they not want to know? I was heartened by
her conclusion that there could be a peaceful restructuring of the
‘system’ to a sustainable society, but concerned that evidence and
data were ‘useful, necessary and not enough’. So what else was
needed? " janedavidson.wales/press-and-r

Empiricism boosted

Welcome to the first Wales Net Zero 2035 Challenge: How could Wales feed itself by 2035?

Can you help us?
netzero2035.wales

#WNZ2035 #Wales #netzero #futuregen

Walking the right path towards a sustainable culture.

Over the last ten years or so, since the information that human activities are changing the climate went more mainstream, I've noticed virtually no sign that the people I see locally are doing anything to change their activities.

The local farmers: continue to burn piles of wood on their land (CO2 emissions). The local sheep farmers continue to transport sheep using diesel vehicles (CO2 emissions). The local landscape continues to be in a deforested and sheep-wrecked ecological condition (legacy CO2 emissions. Present & future CH₄ [methane] emission). The local farmers continue to be offended if their sheep farming lifestyles are called into question (i.e., they're not changing for anyone or anything).

The people I observe locally continue to drive combustion engine vehicles (CO2 emissions). The tourists continue to pull their caravans or drive the, often increasing in size, campervans (CO2 emissions). And of course, the fossil fuel industries continue to extract and sell more fossil fuels. The logging industries continue to sell wood fuel for power stations or people's wood stoves. The national government continues to try and open a new coal mine locally. The local people continue to have coal, gas, or kerosene delivered by diesel trucks to their homes.

Generally, only over the last 10 years since environmental protestors made the mainstream pay attention to the science of climate change, nothing has generally changed locally that would mitigate climate change. The general businesses want to continue as usual, the average consumer wants to continue as usual.

What also has not changed over the previous ten years is that greenhouse gas emissions keep on rising ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-

However, there have been some noticeable changes locally over the previous ten years. There have been more frequent floods from autumn to winter and longer drier periods during summer.

I can't speak for the world. However, it's self-evident what the future is going to be for the people in my local community (they're not mitigating climate change. They're not adapting to be more climate resilient). Eventually, climate change is going to regulate their lifestyles in the most severe way. Of course, if the world (human population in general) acted to mitigate climate change (reduce their greenhouse gas emissions & restore their local ecosystems. i.e., natural habitats), my local communities' climate inaction, apathy, and virtue signaling wouldn't be so much of a problem. But, the world isn't mitigating climate change. Climate change is mitigating the world.

There is an ecologically and economically viable solution to living a low-impact lifestyle qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

However, a sustainable lifestyle requires a change of lifestyle (for the majority). And as with all animals, (most) humans behave as if they're creatures of habit (& belief).

The path to ecological sustainability is walking the path (not only talking about it & or not only protesting about it).

"want" is how we make a reality. More people have to truly want to mitigate climate change. More than they want, for example, to drive cars with combustion engines or electric motors, or to want to fly on jets or eat red meat.

Some people, so many people, believe they're honestly wanting to mitigate climate change (a story they tell themselves). But, many people don't change their own lifestyles so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., they don't quit eating red meat or flying on jets). Perhaps they're assuming that someone else will mitigate climate change (e.g., the politicians & industries) or that some future technology will mean they can simply, for example, buy an electric car and everything will be fine.

Some people, so many people, are not honestly wanting to mitigate climate change. But they tell other people a different story. In other words, climate virtue signaling is a very common form of social greenwashing. Maybe they think sincere people are stupid. Like we can't see that their words don't align with their behaviors (activities).

Who is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if most people don't try to reduce their activities that are causing greenhouse gas emissions?

Sincere people that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will want to live an ecologically low-impact lifestyle qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

"want" is how we make a reality.

It's not ethical to wait until more people want to mitigate climate change. Therefore, we must nurture that want. And mitigate the merchants of doubt that try to make people feel that mitigating climate change is difficult or hard.

It's evidently not hard to develop political policies that promote a more self-sufficient, low ecological impact lifestyle within a more local economic context. qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

The don't want people - make it hard because they promote & hang onto unsustainable ways of life

doesn't care about their BS!

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.