Climate: Il fait VRAIMENT CHAUD (fka un petit)

[TrueMetis]

3 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I really wish people could look at that act and ponder the desperation of young people doing this rather than decrying the optics. I think they're accepting the attention is going to be negative and are doing whatever they can to try draw attention. And yeah, sometimes it's going to be dumb because kids do plenty of dumb shit.

Given who that group is attached to (Climate Emergency Fund, bankrolled by an oil heiress) I'm not convinced these are some desperate kids acting out.

Though either way it's a bit weird to say not to decry the optics when this type of protest it literally just optics.

[karaddin]

43 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Given who that group is attached to (Climate Emergency Fund, bankrolled by an oil heiress) I'm not convinced these are some desperate kids acting out.

Though either way it's a bit weird to say not to decry the optics when this type of protest it literally just optics.

It's less about this specific one and more just the general reactions I'm used to seeing. If you don't like it, or if the group is a questionable one, then just ignore them. Decrying them just feels like it's doing the work of the deniers for them by focusing on the people not the issue.

It's a different story when there's more to criticise, like the one back in I think 2014 where they trespassed on the protection area around Nazca lines, but this one?

Of course the line the deniers have gone with that I've been seeing is complaining about how the soup could have fed a homeless person so perhaps you're not doing to play into their bullshit anyway lol

[Heartofice]

I can't think of the last climate protest that didn't seem completely counter productive and whose effect wasn't just to piss people off and bring them closer to the exact opposite opinion than the protestors wanted. Some of these people are so in their own bubble they have no idea of the optics of this shit. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I can't think of the last climate protest that didn't seem completely counter productive and whose effect wasn't just to piss people off and bring them closer to the exact opposite opinion than the protestors wanted. Some of these people are so in their own bubble they have no idea of the optics of this shit. 

Productive climate protests happen all the time. However, they don't get as much attention as two idiots throwing soup on a painting and gluing themselves to the wall. These are the times we live in.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Productive climate protests happen all the time. However, they don't get as much attention as two idiots throwing soup on a painting and gluing themselves to the wall. These are the times we live in.

If they aren’t getting attention then aren’t they less productive?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If they aren’t getting attention then aren’t they less productive?

Not if the attention is widely seen as negative. You know I'm a liberal and environmentalism is one of my core issues, but even I can look at that and groan.  

[polishgenius]

Yeah, and also, I guess it's hard to measure, but a protest that doesn't necessarily make international headlines but does cause some kind of change by catching the attention of a specific group is more productive than a protest that makes headlines but affects no direct change and mostly negative attention.
Like, just for an example on the specific issue of the cost of living - she didn't relate it to oil obviously, but Jack Monroe's Vimes Price Index got supermarkets (at least temporarily, though hopefully permanently) to re-expand their budget ranges and make sure they're carried in all stores. Most people probably don't even remember her doing anything if they ever even noticed. But it had a clear and definite effect.
 

 

[IFR]

21 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I can't think of the last climate protest that didn't seem completely counter productive and whose effect wasn't just to piss people off and bring them closer to the exact opposite opinion than the protestors wanted. Some of these people are so in their own bubble they have no idea of the optics of this shit. 

I anticipate that as things get more desperate, these groups will become more numerous and more extreme.

A fundamental issue is the totality of inertia world governments have in the face of an actual existential crisis. So many attempts to galvanize nations out of this inertia have failed. So of course antics like these will occur, because groups may perceive it as an avenue of potential success where less negative approaches have fallen flat.

It is unlikely to benefit their movement though. But then neither is publishing books on climate change, doing interviews, and making broad investment to fight climate change, if we observe the likes of Bill Gates and his efforts.

Ultimately, humans fancy themselves as the most clever species, but are choosing a very obvious and avoidable path of self-annihilation. 

I'd say that the anti-nuclear movement in Germany (even with the current state of affairs) is a more profound display of stupidity, and far more damaging to the cause of combatting climate change, than what some rogue group is doing for publicity.

[JGP]

Are you a Uranium Salesman

[IFR]

Just now, JGP said:

Are you a Uranium Salesman

I study Health Physics and have a pretty broad experience in the field of radiation and nuclear science.

I also am of the generation that will experience some of the more deleterious effects of climate change, so I have a vested interest in advocating for what I view as the best course to mitigate it.

There's such a profound and abundant ignorance among the public on the topics of nuclear power, even on this board. I think it's worthwhile to correct these misapprehensions when I can.

[Altherion]

I wonder if instead of the silly and mildly destructive stunts they could do something constructive like cleaning up a polluted area or planting trees or something of the sort. I think the main problem is not even so much that it's a lot more work, but way fewer people would pay attention than do to spilling soup on a famous painting or whatever.

[Luzifer's right hand]

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

I wonder if instead of the silly and mildly destructive stunts they could do something constructive like cleaning up a polluted area or planting trees or something of the sort. I think the main problem is not even so much that it's a lot more work, but way fewer people would pay attention than do to spilling soup on a famous painting or whatever.

People saw that reducing emissions on a large scale quickly is possible during 2020/21.  It is now clear to anyone interested that nothing with any real impact will be done.

Some people are obviously getting desperate because of that. Personally I recommend giving up and enjoying life as much as possible but that's not for everyone obviously.

It was also an insanely effective protest as it got far more media attention than any other climate related news in recent years. At least around here.

[The Anti-Targ]

12 hours ago, Altherion said:

I wonder if instead of the silly and mildly destructive stunts they could do something constructive like cleaning up a polluted area or planting trees or something of the sort. I think the main problem is not even so much that it's a lot more work, but way fewer people would pay attention than do to spilling soup on a famous painting or whatever.

Ultimately cleaning up a small area of pollution or planting a small grove of trees is also merely symbolic, only less headline grabbing than affronting protest. And planting trees is as useful as other CCS solutions, which is to say not very useful while CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere at a much greater rate than it can be sucked out of it. Planting trees for other environmental reasons is very useful, but it's not a solution to climate change.

Replacing your ICE car with an EV and using more public transport (preferably electrified if possible) is more meaningful, since converting to non-emitting transport can be done on a mass scale which has a meaningful effect on cutting emissions.

[Clueless Northman]

  

23 hours ago, karaddin said:

I really wish people could look at that act and ponder the desperation of young people doing this rather than decrying the optics. I think they're accepting the attention is going to be negative and are doing whatever they can to try draw attention. And yeah, sometimes it's going to be dumb because kids do plenty of dumb shit.

In this case, they're not desperate kids. They're just dumb kids, nothing less, nothing more.

 

22 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I can't think of the last climate protest that didn't seem completely counter productive and whose effect wasn't just to piss people off and bring them closer to the exact opposite opinion than the protestors wanted. Some of these people are so in their own bubble they have no idea of the optics of this shit. 

I'm at the point I'm seriously suspecting most of these shitty moves and organizations are manipulated by Big Oil, Coal and whatever else to ruin the reputation of environmentalism, because if that's not the first intent of the doofuses doing stupid shit, that's definitely the main consequence.

 

18 hours ago, IFR said:

I anticipate that as things get more desperate, these groups will become more numerous and more extreme.

A fundamental issue is the totality of inertia world governments have in the face of an actual existential crisis. So many attempts to galvanize nations out of this inertia have failed. So of course antics like these will occur, because groups may perceive it as an avenue of potential success where less negative approaches have fallen flat.

Obviously. But if you target random people, places or artefacts, you're a fucking moron. If you're desperate, target CEOs, target governments, target your Prime Minister or President.

 

5 hours ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

People saw that reducing emissions on a large scale quickly is possible during 2020/21.

Yup, and we also saw that it wasn't nearly enough, even with massive lockdowns - to an extent because said lockdowns were rolling across the world, and we never had China + Europe + America in full lockdown at the same time. Bottom line is: it'll take far more than what many advocate to be truly effective - but then, we're still at a point where any talk of population control or reduction is seen as peak Nazism.

 

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Replacing your ICE car with an EV and using more public transport (preferably electrified if possible) is more meaningful, since converting to non-emitting transport can be done on a mass scale which has a meaningful effect on cutting emissions.

And replacing your car with an electric one only helps on the climate side of things; on any other environmental side of the issue, it's a total disaster with the current technology. You want to actually help the environment as a whole, you just ditch your car for good and go walking and using public transport (which is not something a lot of people relying on cars can actually do, so we're screwed for now).

[IFR]

1 hour ago, Clueless Northman said:

Obviously. But if you target random people, places or artefacts, you're a fucking moron. If you're desperate, target CEOs, target governments, target your Prime Minister or President.

Well, the protective shielding on van Gogh art seems to have been easier to access. It's worth pointing out that the painting was unharmed, and that was no doubt deliberate.

I wouldn't be shocked if somewhere down the future groups did attempt to kidnap/assassinate national leaders. We're not there yet. I think once massive regions of land become uninhabitable, and hundreds of millions are forced to migrate and millions of others start dying from starvation, we'll witness more extreme action.

Not that this will make a difference either.

One of the activists is quoted as saying:

“What is worth more, art or life? Is it worth more than food? More than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?"

Unfortunately, in their myopia, the answer for too many people is that the protection of art is more worthy than the protection of life, because they are incapable of fathoming the gravity of things. 

[Isalie]

I dont get why people doing nothing feel like they should critisize those doing something. Everyone claims to be aware that we are heading into total disaster, but noone is willing to make a change. 

[dog-days]

Found the choice of target absolutely baffling. Entry to the National Gallery is free. A hangover from the days when it was thought the arts and humanities were important for everyone, or at least everyone who could get to London. It belongs to the social and political tradition that people other than the rich matter, and not only due to their contribution to the country's productivity per capita stats. People matter more than art, but art matters because of people. Throwing soup at a painting seems mad and self-destructive. 

[Which Tyler]

I am going to be shot down for this, but...

The optical are only bad, due the kneejerk reaction of "they did what to a priceless work of art?"

As soon as you acknowledge that the art wasn't damaged, and was never at risk of being damaged, then the optics are absolutely fine, just a dumb stunt that took about 10 minuts to clean up, and inconvenienced no-one (other than the person who cleaned it up). The reporting of it, on the other hand, is just the same as the reporting on any protest that has any actual effect whatsoever, which is miuth-frothijg indignation, misrepresentation, and the castigation of those involved.

 

And yet a protest involving (one of) the world's most famous work of oil has been hitting front page headlines all over the world.

[Clueless Northman]

3 hours ago, Isalie said:

I dont get why people doing nothing feel like they should critisize those doing something. Everyone claims to be aware that we are heading into total disaster, but noone is willing to make a change. 

As I implied, if things are as dire as said by some, then radical actions is required. By that, I mean, go and kill some heads of state, go and bomb board meeting of Exxon, or whatever. And don't wait until half the planet is uninhabitable.

 

3 hours ago, IFR said:

One of the activists is quoted as saying:

“What is worth more, art or life? Is it worth more than food? More than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?"

Unfortunately, in their myopia, the answer for too many people is that the protection of art is more worthy than the protection of life, because they are incapable of fathoming the gravity of things. 

Well, art is way more important than any human life. Humans are one of the most renewable resources on Earth, nowadays - we're 8 bilions, after all. This is where these fools got their priorities totally wrong. Life as mere survival isn't worth it. Life without art isn't worth it. If you have to sacrifice art to save everyone on Earth, then is it really worth it, would we be a species actually worth saving, if we fucked up so much that it'd be the only way?

[IFR]

16 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

Well, art is way more important than any human life. Humans are one of the most renewable resources on Earth, nowadays - we're 8 bilions, after all. This is where these fools got their priorities totally wrong. Life as mere survival isn't worth it. Life without art isn't worth it. If you have to sacrifice art to save everyone on Earth, then is it really worth it, would we be a species actually worth saving, if we fucked up so much that it'd be the only way?

I guess it's easy enough to dismiss the lives of others. This is a common enough characteristic in human beings.

I do wonder if you would stand by these principles if it was your life on the line, or the lives of those you care about?

It would be an interesting hypothetical experiment. Gather up those who insist that art is essential, then give them options such as whether they would sacrifice their siblings/parents/children to preserve a van Gogh, or maybe a Jackson Pollock? Etc. I'm curious how many people would actually go for it.

Anyway, I appreciate your principles, but I disagree.