> Most people, also very intelligent people, who believe that carbon dioxide emissions are our most serious environmental problem believe so because they have heard that statement being repeated over and over again. Not because they have investigated the issue themselves. Not because they have scrutinized the proof. They believe it because "everybody" is saying it.
Aw, be fair! Imagine how awful it would be to live in a world where people genuinely needed to do this. The only reason they would is if most people were deluded or untrustworthy. Not just a few cranks, but *most* people.
Imagine having to sigh, go to a university library, pore over www.googlescholar.com, and spend hours researching every little thing that people told you. Imagine that most people - *most* people - were wrong about such basic, foundational facts as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the importance of school, the threat of psilocybin mushrooms, the risks of fast travel and open borders, or heck, even UFOs.
The kind of person who starts to think everyone around him is confused, untrustworthy, and unrelatable is the kind of person who starts to go to sleep thinking about Dream Saw https://thingstoread.substack.com/i/135128377/dream-saw . (Warning to anyone who isn't Tove, this is what it sounds like)
>>Imagine having to sigh, go to a university library, pore over www.googlescholar.com, and spend hours researching every little thing that people told you.
Ah, you mean there can be better things to do with all that free time.
Going to sleep processes are indeed interesting. People should write more about that. I can reassure sensitive readers that I have successfully spent one night without feeling upset over Apple Pie's dream saw concept (only thinking a little of it). Not invented here!
I can see no solution to the conundrum that you and Apple Pie are debating but Religion is the right word for the man-made climate change 'consensus'.
It's a huge downside of our age of mass communication (not saying there aren't huge upsides too) that it is so easy now to 'have an opinion' about something without investing any thought or research or even INTEREST in it.
That clip reminded me of why writing is so much better than speaking on camera. Thinking about it, a long time ago (maybe 12 years ago, about the date of that video), I read a book by Zizek where he pointed out that the ads saying buy this and make a good deed imply that those who don't buy will be guilty of no good deeds being done.
Personally, I would like to consume a product called the food package burka. I imagine it as a fitted hood to place over the most common types of food packages. It would effectively hide all that virtue-signaling from us hungry people who want to eat without being told what to think. Zizek says that capitalism has invented products aimed at people with an anti-consumerist ethic. The food package burka would take that development one step further: The anti-anti-consumerist product.
I find that his speaking style grows on you, at least as a native English speaker. When you listen to his actual voice and see his actual face and body, after a while you realize that he is engaged in an extreme form of philosophical peacocking. There are literally no human beings on earth that say and write things sufficiently compelling that I could tolerate them from someone who looks and sounds like him, except for Zizek himself. Unfortunately, before I became consciously aware of this, I had already been experiencing a kind of sunk cost in listening to him. It's a bit like slowly sobering up while continuing to flirt with someone less attractive than you initially had thought. At a certain point, you have to convince yourself that you must have been flirting with this person for some kind of reason and may even go through with it.
But the man is obviously reading from a paper! Why doesn't he just scan that paper and write a blog like the rest of us who speak English with an obvious accent and care little about looking good?
You mean that sounding and looking bad is actually a selling point, because it makes viewers feel that there must be something important behind that unkempt facade?
A fascinating and unexpected objection. I would have thought that the recognition of value in hearing an author read his own work aloud was universal and unquestioned.
I have always seen writing as the great equalizer. In real life we humans are such primates. Our instincts tell us to react to every superficial feature of people around us: Who is male, who is female, who is tall, who is short, who is young, who is old, who is handsome, who is ugly, who speaks like the ingroup and who speaks like the outgroup. All those primate-level concern takes attention away from intellectual pursuits. Writing allows thoughts to stand by themselves more than any other mode of communication.
Yes, but all these are pale when compared with the question "who is sincere?". Also the thing that is interesting about an author reading something is it gives a sense of his emphasis, and allows you (with enough exposure) to read his other works more in his voice.
Besides, who says thoughts can stand by themselves? We struggle to appropriately interpret what people say to us, and can project more easily when we have only the thin, low-res stream of information known as 'reading'. In-person is vastly better than video, of course. No argument there.
Quite true, but there's the counteracting factor that people have a very strong resistance toward taking expensive actions unless there's a really clear and immediate benefit to themselves, even if it is commanded by their religion. And that seems to be true in the case of climate change as well: https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/06/us-public-wants-climate-change-dealt-with-but-doesnt-like-the-options/ "US public wants climate change dealt with, but doesn’t like the options" but the headline should really be "US public wants climate change dealt with, but they don't want to pay for it". Despite the enormous amount of chatter and the cult-like promotion at times, the actual improvements the US has done in that area are ones where the cost was small, or even negative: Replacing coal power with cheaper natural gas, wind, or solar. And I've heard of no other country spending a substantial fraction of GDP to reduce its carbon emissions.
OTOH, it's *really* convenient that converting to zero-carbon-emissions power may turn out to be little-extra-cost if the technology development is heavily subsidized.
Sometimes I wonder what "believing" something really means. I suspect it means different things for different people. For me and for a number of people I know it means making an assumption about the factual world. But this carbon talk and other things has made me suspect that for many people, beliefs have little to do with assumptions about reality. Instead, holding a belief seems to be more about pledging allegiance to a group. That is the best explanation I have found to why people are so unwilling to act on their beliefs and why so many people can sometimes hold such strange beliefs.
> Sometimes I wonder what "believing" something really means.
It's complicated. It isn't that "I believe X" doesn't mean I'm assuming X about the world. It's that, for neurotypicals, words have very rich emotional connotations, and the word *believe* is a reverent, starry-eyed expression that implies care, dedication, and confidence. When Don Williams sings "I believe in You:"
...he isn't just trying to not sound crazy for singing songs to people who don't exist. He's saying "I value you, I have confidence in you, I'll stand by you." Similarly, leftists and moderates who "believe in anthropogenic climate change" are often really saying "I believe in the environment, and in our shared moral quest to protect Mother Earth from Her ignorant, heartless enemies."
I'm an odd duck insofar as it goes. I really do care about climate change, probably far more than you or Anders, and it frustrates me that we're continuing to pump so much CO2 into the atmosphere - just not because I'm concerned about humans.
>>I really do care about climate change, probably far more than you or Anders, and it frustrates me that we're continuing to pump so much CO2 into the atmosphere - just not because I'm concerned about humans.
Living in Scandinavia might make us a bit partial. Temperatures here have increased more than in many other places. But summer temperatures have only increased a little, while winter temperatures have increased a lot more. When winters are mild and snow-free and summers continue being as cool and rainy as ever, it is difficult to feel very bad in the moment.
I remember back in the 1970s a friend talked about, or asked about, "Do you believe in UFOs?" Superficially, it was a question about what I thought the most likely assessment of the available evidence was. But I also realized that that sense of "do you believe" had something to do with adherence to a sociopolitical movement and less to do with questions about factual reality; it's a style of speaking not applied to concrete questions.
Well that is a pretty good example that sounds more like what Tove was originally after. Who values, has confidence, and stands by the aliens? On the other hand, well, some people really do: https://thespiritnomad.com/blog/pleiadian-starseed/
Too bad Doomberg already coined Church of Carbon™
There's so much stuff on Substack I have never heard about. Well, they seem too successful to want me to read their articles anyway.
> Most people, also very intelligent people, who believe that carbon dioxide emissions are our most serious environmental problem believe so because they have heard that statement being repeated over and over again. Not because they have investigated the issue themselves. Not because they have scrutinized the proof. They believe it because "everybody" is saying it.
Aw, be fair! Imagine how awful it would be to live in a world where people genuinely needed to do this. The only reason they would is if most people were deluded or untrustworthy. Not just a few cranks, but *most* people.
Imagine having to sigh, go to a university library, pore over www.googlescholar.com, and spend hours researching every little thing that people told you. Imagine that most people - *most* people - were wrong about such basic, foundational facts as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the importance of school, the threat of psilocybin mushrooms, the risks of fast travel and open borders, or heck, even UFOs.
The kind of person who starts to think everyone around him is confused, untrustworthy, and unrelatable is the kind of person who starts to go to sleep thinking about Dream Saw https://thingstoread.substack.com/i/135128377/dream-saw . (Warning to anyone who isn't Tove, this is what it sounds like)
>>Imagine having to sigh, go to a university library, pore over www.googlescholar.com, and spend hours researching every little thing that people told you.
Ah, you mean there can be better things to do with all that free time.
Going to sleep processes are indeed interesting. People should write more about that. I can reassure sensitive readers that I have successfully spent one night without feeling upset over Apple Pie's dream saw concept (only thinking a little of it). Not invented here!
I can see no solution to the conundrum that you and Apple Pie are debating but Religion is the right word for the man-made climate change 'consensus'.
It's a huge downside of our age of mass communication (not saying there aren't huge upsides too) that it is so easy now to 'have an opinion' about something without investing any thought or research or even INTEREST in it.
"The technology to solve the problem exists, but the political will is lacking."
That should be the official motto of the United Nations, if they were being honest.
Good stuff and spot on. You might enjoy Slavoj Zizek's remarks on this topic. This clip is only four minutes but he says it very well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yzcfsq1_bt8
That clip reminded me of why writing is so much better than speaking on camera. Thinking about it, a long time ago (maybe 12 years ago, about the date of that video), I read a book by Zizek where he pointed out that the ads saying buy this and make a good deed imply that those who don't buy will be guilty of no good deeds being done.
Personally, I would like to consume a product called the food package burka. I imagine it as a fitted hood to place over the most common types of food packages. It would effectively hide all that virtue-signaling from us hungry people who want to eat without being told what to think. Zizek says that capitalism has invented products aimed at people with an anti-consumerist ethic. The food package burka would take that development one step further: The anti-anti-consumerist product.
I find that his speaking style grows on you, at least as a native English speaker. When you listen to his actual voice and see his actual face and body, after a while you realize that he is engaged in an extreme form of philosophical peacocking. There are literally no human beings on earth that say and write things sufficiently compelling that I could tolerate them from someone who looks and sounds like him, except for Zizek himself. Unfortunately, before I became consciously aware of this, I had already been experiencing a kind of sunk cost in listening to him. It's a bit like slowly sobering up while continuing to flirt with someone less attractive than you initially had thought. At a certain point, you have to convince yourself that you must have been flirting with this person for some kind of reason and may even go through with it.
But the man is obviously reading from a paper! Why doesn't he just scan that paper and write a blog like the rest of us who speak English with an obvious accent and care little about looking good?
You mean that sounding and looking bad is actually a selling point, because it makes viewers feel that there must be something important behind that unkempt facade?
A fascinating and unexpected objection. I would have thought that the recognition of value in hearing an author read his own work aloud was universal and unquestioned.
Ha ha, they must have forgotten to tell me that.
I have always seen writing as the great equalizer. In real life we humans are such primates. Our instincts tell us to react to every superficial feature of people around us: Who is male, who is female, who is tall, who is short, who is young, who is old, who is handsome, who is ugly, who speaks like the ingroup and who speaks like the outgroup. All those primate-level concern takes attention away from intellectual pursuits. Writing allows thoughts to stand by themselves more than any other mode of communication.
Yes, but all these are pale when compared with the question "who is sincere?". Also the thing that is interesting about an author reading something is it gives a sense of his emphasis, and allows you (with enough exposure) to read his other works more in his voice.
Besides, who says thoughts can stand by themselves? We struggle to appropriately interpret what people say to us, and can project more easily when we have only the thin, low-res stream of information known as 'reading'. In-person is vastly better than video, of course. No argument there.
Quite true, but there's the counteracting factor that people have a very strong resistance toward taking expensive actions unless there's a really clear and immediate benefit to themselves, even if it is commanded by their religion. And that seems to be true in the case of climate change as well: https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/06/us-public-wants-climate-change-dealt-with-but-doesnt-like-the-options/ "US public wants climate change dealt with, but doesn’t like the options" but the headline should really be "US public wants climate change dealt with, but they don't want to pay for it". Despite the enormous amount of chatter and the cult-like promotion at times, the actual improvements the US has done in that area are ones where the cost was small, or even negative: Replacing coal power with cheaper natural gas, wind, or solar. And I've heard of no other country spending a substantial fraction of GDP to reduce its carbon emissions.
OTOH, it's *really* convenient that converting to zero-carbon-emissions power may turn out to be little-extra-cost if the technology development is heavily subsidized.
Sometimes I wonder what "believing" something really means. I suspect it means different things for different people. For me and for a number of people I know it means making an assumption about the factual world. But this carbon talk and other things has made me suspect that for many people, beliefs have little to do with assumptions about reality. Instead, holding a belief seems to be more about pledging allegiance to a group. That is the best explanation I have found to why people are so unwilling to act on their beliefs and why so many people can sometimes hold such strange beliefs.
> Sometimes I wonder what "believing" something really means.
It's complicated. It isn't that "I believe X" doesn't mean I'm assuming X about the world. It's that, for neurotypicals, words have very rich emotional connotations, and the word *believe* is a reverent, starry-eyed expression that implies care, dedication, and confidence. When Don Williams sings "I believe in You:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xbqe_GajtQ
...he isn't just trying to not sound crazy for singing songs to people who don't exist. He's saying "I value you, I have confidence in you, I'll stand by you." Similarly, leftists and moderates who "believe in anthropogenic climate change" are often really saying "I believe in the environment, and in our shared moral quest to protect Mother Earth from Her ignorant, heartless enemies."
I'm an odd duck insofar as it goes. I really do care about climate change, probably far more than you or Anders, and it frustrates me that we're continuing to pump so much CO2 into the atmosphere - just not because I'm concerned about humans.
>>I really do care about climate change, probably far more than you or Anders, and it frustrates me that we're continuing to pump so much CO2 into the atmosphere - just not because I'm concerned about humans.
Living in Scandinavia might make us a bit partial. Temperatures here have increased more than in many other places. But summer temperatures have only increased a little, while winter temperatures have increased a lot more. When winters are mild and snow-free and summers continue being as cool and rainy as ever, it is difficult to feel very bad in the moment.
I remember back in the 1970s a friend talked about, or asked about, "Do you believe in UFOs?" Superficially, it was a question about what I thought the most likely assessment of the available evidence was. But I also realized that that sense of "do you believe" had something to do with adherence to a sociopolitical movement and less to do with questions about factual reality; it's a style of speaking not applied to concrete questions.
Well that is a pretty good example that sounds more like what Tove was originally after. Who values, has confidence, and stands by the aliens? On the other hand, well, some people really do: https://thespiritnomad.com/blog/pleiadian-starseed/