My counter argument here is that there are a few historical cases of societies en masse choosing to lower their collective standard of living in favour of some other goal. Quebecois laws on French language driving out the finance industry is a great example, arguably brexit also.
The Moriori choosing collective extinction over giving up pacifism is also a very striking example, though it’s hard to know exactly what the social dynamics were like there given lack of records.
*however* in each of the cases I can think of it was in favour of something pretty core to societal self image. And honestly being wealthy and eating steak is pretty core to the American self image
I am only just now reading about the Moriori genocide on Wikipedia, and at the risk of making a poorly informed and insensitive comment, I would say this also seems to argue against a "community moral imperative" solution to climate change, because it's a global game of iterated prisoners dilemma. The Moriori followed their moral and cultural frameworks, and were killed by the Maori, because the Maori were not constrained by it. If country A unilaterally decides to stop using fossil fuels, countries B, C, and D will ramp up their use of them, because the price will drop, and B, C and D are not constrained by that moral calculus. See, e.g.:
The question isn't whether some subset of people can and will take some sort of action in search of a greater moral good: the question is whether we can expect global change to come about as a result of it, and I think the answer is actually quite the opposite.
"Fundamentally, the reason I believe in technology as a tool for improving the lives of others and averting the climate crisis is because I don’t believe in people. Specifically, I do not believe it is a good idea to bet on appealing to people to consume less, or to lower their standard of living so someone else in a different country with a different skin color can have a higher standard of living, or to cease to love their families more than they love their neighbors, and to love their neighbors more than they love their countrymen, and to love their countrymen more than they love foreigners. Even in the face of disaster."
True words. I add that I don’t believe in the power of political systems that are driven by short term electoral concerns to make the hard choices as a body politic.
My own diving into climate tech came from realizing that finding a high-leverage sub-problem to solve was the best use of effort if what you care about is actually making a difference.
“ I don’t believe in the power of political systems that are driven by short term electoral concerns” sounds a tad fascistic. The government reflects the will of the people, who are not willing to take action until they’re personally affected.
My counter argument here is that there are a few historical cases of societies en masse choosing to lower their collective standard of living in favour of some other goal. Quebecois laws on French language driving out the finance industry is a great example, arguably brexit also.
The Moriori choosing collective extinction over giving up pacifism is also a very striking example, though it’s hard to know exactly what the social dynamics were like there given lack of records.
*however* in each of the cases I can think of it was in favour of something pretty core to societal self image. And honestly being wealthy and eating steak is pretty core to the American self image
Brexit I think is a great example of racists standing up for their right to remain racists, which is exactly the dynamic that I'm pointing to.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0214-5
I am only just now reading about the Moriori genocide on Wikipedia, and at the risk of making a poorly informed and insensitive comment, I would say this also seems to argue against a "community moral imperative" solution to climate change, because it's a global game of iterated prisoners dilemma. The Moriori followed their moral and cultural frameworks, and were killed by the Maori, because the Maori were not constrained by it. If country A unilaterally decides to stop using fossil fuels, countries B, C, and D will ramp up their use of them, because the price will drop, and B, C and D are not constrained by that moral calculus. See, e.g.:
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
The question isn't whether some subset of people can and will take some sort of action in search of a greater moral good: the question is whether we can expect global change to come about as a result of it, and I think the answer is actually quite the opposite.
"Fundamentally, the reason I believe in technology as a tool for improving the lives of others and averting the climate crisis is because I don’t believe in people. Specifically, I do not believe it is a good idea to bet on appealing to people to consume less, or to lower their standard of living so someone else in a different country with a different skin color can have a higher standard of living, or to cease to love their families more than they love their neighbors, and to love their neighbors more than they love their countrymen, and to love their countrymen more than they love foreigners. Even in the face of disaster."
True words. I add that I don’t believe in the power of political systems that are driven by short term electoral concerns to make the hard choices as a body politic.
My own diving into climate tech came from realizing that finding a high-leverage sub-problem to solve was the best use of effort if what you care about is actually making a difference.
(Which is why I'm chasing methane every day)
“ I don’t believe in the power of political systems that are driven by short term electoral concerns” sounds a tad fascistic. The government reflects the will of the people, who are not willing to take action until they’re personally affected.