Extinction Rebellion

[Guest MattP]

9 hours ago, Strokes said:

If a guy stood on top of the train and shouted something racist or sexist, I bet most of the people decrying violence would have a different outlook. 

Very true.

 

On that point didn't this show diverse London at its best? In that people of all colours and presumably all religions worked to sort out the situation.

 

All coming together for the common cause to drag a hippie off a train. Makes you proud to be British.

[twoleftfeet]

 The needs to be a discussion on peoples rights it seems that the left wing mayor of London believed the protestors right to protest was more important than Londoners right to a peaceful life, Londoners took a different view. Any persons rights do not trump any other person's rights.

[Izzy]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

While this is true, at the same time we are not slaves to our evolutionary instincts and we do in fact have higher functions that can be utilised at any point given the will. Acting out of instinct should be in no way a justification for acting terribly.

 

Listening to the lizard brain makes species go extinct more often than it saves them.

I'm sure you're familiar with Daniel Goleman's seminal work on Emotional Intelligence, Mac. 

 

He describes the 'amygdala hijack' when we're placed in a situation of being under threat and the fact this disables our frontal lobes (higher functions) in these moments - so we absolutely can't utilize them at will in these moments.

 

There's no justification here, just an explanation that running high levels of adrenaline and cortisol while in a 'fight or flight' response means that even the most measured, calm and rational among us can sometimes act in 'inhuman' ways.

 

It's only after the threat passes that we return to our normal state. We may well be more civilized than our ancestors but that lizard (instinctive/survival) part of our brain is still there (and we still 100% rely on it to keep us safe) whether we like it or not.

[ozleicester]

[Innovindil]

19 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

You know it's not the establishment irritating people don't you? 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

I'm sure you're familiar with Daniel Goleman's seminal work on Emotional Intelligence, Mac. 

 

He describes the 'amygdala hijack' when we're placed in a situation of being under threat and the fact this disables our frontal lobes (higher functions) in these moments - so we absolutely can't utilize them at will in these moments.

 

There's no justification here, just an explanation that running high levels of adrenaline and cortisol while in a 'fight or flight' response means that even the most measured, calm and rational among us can sometimes act in 'inhuman' ways.

 

It's only after the threat passes that we return to our normal state. We may well be more civilized than our ancestors but that lizard (instinctive/survival) part of our brain is still there (and we still 100% rely on it to keep us safe) whether we like it or not.

As it happens, I am not - but I am perfectly happy to entertain expert opinion about the matter as it is and adjust my own view accordingly.

 

So allow me to moderate: there may well be times when the lizard brain takes over and I'm sure it has been vital in the past, but I will maintain that if we cannot subdue it, it will be more of a flaw than a benefit to humanity going forward.

[leicsmac]

Interwebs find - doesn't go the whole hog, but does go some way towards addressing the "hypocrisy" argument that some use:

 

"The fallacy of false choice is a technique whereby you reduce your opponents position from an argument in favour of changing something into an argument that intentionally eliminates logical options.

When you are doing this you are not making an argument - an argument requires a claim, reason, and most importantly evidence and support.

Let me give you some examples:

How is Greta getting to Alberta... I hope she is walking or riding a horse!
If we stop using all oil and gas today what are we going to use instead?
If you don't want to build a pipeline to Atlantic Canada you support terrorist oil!
If you are against pipelines then turn off the gas pipe to your home!

The problem with these evidence free, 'think-feels' that you are posting as 'arguments' is easily observed if you apply them to something that we have already changed:

If you don't want to use asbestos for insulation because it causes cancer I hope you are willing to freeze!

If you don't want to use CFCs because it destroys the ozone layer you better throw out your refrigerator!

If you are against acid rain I hope you sit at home in the dark!

These are all objectively nonsense 'think-feels' in favour of rigidity and stasis when any rational look at the course of human history is a near constant battle for progress, opportunity and innovation in the face of challenges or problems guarded by entrenched interests."

[Salisbury Fox]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Interwebs find - doesn't go the whole hog, but does go some way towards addressing the "hypocrisy" argument that some use:

 

"The fallacy of false choice is a technique whereby you reduce your opponents position from an argument in favour of changing something into an argument that intentionally eliminates logical options.

When you are doing this you are not making an argument - an argument requires a claim, reason, and most importantly evidence and support.

Let me give you some examples:

How is Greta getting to Alberta... I hope she is walking or riding a horse!
If we stop using all oil and gas today what are we going to use instead?
If you don't want to build a pipeline to Atlantic Canada you support terrorist oil!
If you are against pipelines then turn off the gas pipe to your home!

The problem with these evidence free, 'think-feels' that you are posting as 'arguments' is easily observed if you apply them to something that we have already changed:

If you don't want to use asbestos for insulation because it causes cancer I hope you are willing to freeze!

If you don't want to use CFCs because it destroys the ozone layer you better throw out your refrigerator!

If you are against acid rain I hope you sit at home in the dark!

These are all objectively nonsense 'think-feels' in favour of rigidity and stasis when any rational look at the course of human history is a near constant battle for progress, opportunity and innovation in the face of challenges or problems guarded by entrenched interests."

Do as I say rather than I do is never going to be popular amongst the masses no matter how much you dress it up

[leicsmac]

Just now, Salisbury Fox said:

Do as I say rather than I do is never going to be popular amongst the masses no matter how much you dress it up

Thing is though, the whole idea that they are only saying "do as I say, not as I do" is by and large a straw man argument in itself anyway.

 

All this does is further highlight the lack of imagination and unwillingness to progress that a lot of folks who use such arguments possess, in addition to the straw man fallacy.

 

Should a fallacious and unimaginative argument really be entertained simply because it happens to be popular? Is that where we are as a society?

[Innovindil]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thing is though, the whole idea that they are only saying "do as I say, not as I do" is by and large a straw man argument in itself anyway.

 

All this does is further highlight the lack of imagination and unwillingness to progress that a lot of folks who use such arguments possess, in addition to the straw man fallacy.

 

Should a fallacious and unimaginative argument really be entertained simply because it happens to be popular? Is that where we are as a society?

I think it stopped being a strawman when the people preaching not doing came out themselves with a letter blaming their extravagances on anything but themselves. 

 

Spoiler, I don't make these rich folk use private jets to fly pets around the world. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

I think it stopped being a strawman when the people preaching not doing came out themselves with a letter blaming their extravagances on anything but themselves. 

 

Spoiler, I don't make these rich folk use private jets to fly pets around the world. 

Hence my careful use of the phrase "by and large".

 

Believe me, I have equally little time for the ones who want us to give up tech (rich and hypocritical or not) and the ones who think we have to rely on what we currently do in terms of energy generation, transportation and resource processing to maintain or improve our standard of living and that for whatever reason alternative advanced ideas will not work.

 

Either way leads to future disaster and that there seems to be solely a dichotomy between the two in the minds of many right now and *that* viewpoint is popular is dangerous stupidity of the highest order.

[MC Prussian]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Interwebs find - doesn't go the whole hog, but does go some way towards addressing the "hypocrisy" argument that some use:

 

"The fallacy of false choice is a technique whereby you reduce your opponents position from an argument in favour of changing something into an argument that intentionally eliminates logical options.

When you are doing this you are not making an argument - an argument requires a claim, reason, and most importantly evidence and support.

Let me give you some examples:

How is Greta getting to Alberta... I hope she is walking or riding a horse!
If we stop using all oil and gas today what are we going to use instead?
If you don't want to build a pipeline to Atlantic Canada you support terrorist oil!
If you are against pipelines then turn off the gas pipe to your home!

The problem with these evidence free, 'think-feels' that you are posting as 'arguments' is easily observed if you apply them to something that we have already changed:

If you don't want to use asbestos for insulation because it causes cancer I hope you are willing to freeze!

If you don't want to use CFCs because it destroys the ozone layer you better throw out your refrigerator!

If you are against acid rain I hope you sit at home in the dark!

These are all objectively nonsense 'think-feels' in favour of rigidity and stasis when any rational look at the course of human history is a near constant battle for progress, opportunity and innovation in the face of challenges or problems guarded by entrenched interests."

Whomever wrote this turgid piece probably never heard of the word "alternatives". Besides, these may not be arguments, they do remain valid, rational questions, though - questions whose answers are often either not given or the person asked diverts from the issue.

 

Still better than playing the emotion/armageddon card.

[Strokes]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Interwebs find - doesn't go the whole hog, but does go some way towards addressing the "hypocrisy" argument that some use:

 

"The fallacy of false choice is a technique whereby you reduce your opponents position from an argument in favour of changing something into an argument that intentionally eliminates logical options.

When you are doing this you are not making an argument - an argument requires a claim, reason, and most importantly evidence and support.

Let me give you some examples:

How is Greta getting to Alberta... I hope she is walking or riding a horse!
If we stop using all oil and gas today what are we going to use instead?
If you don't want to build a pipeline to Atlantic Canada you support terrorist oil!
If you are against pipelines then turn off the gas pipe to your home!

The problem with these evidence free, 'think-feels' that you are posting as 'arguments' is easily observed if you apply them to something that we have already changed:

If you don't want to use asbestos for insulation because it causes cancer I hope you are willing to freeze!

If you don't want to use CFCs because it destroys the ozone layer you better throw out your refrigerator!

If you are against acid rain I hope you sit at home in the dark!

These are all objectively nonsense 'think-feels' in favour of rigidity and stasis when any rational look at the course of human history is a near constant battle for progress, opportunity and innovation in the face of challenges or problems guarded by entrenched interests."

Hmmm, I’m guessing this is written by someone who is very vocal on climate change but is wary they are going to be exposed as a mass polluter. 
Is it Lewis Hamilton?

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Whomever wrote this turgid piece probably never heard of the word "alternatives". Besides, these may not be arguments, they do remain valid, rational questions, though - questions whose answers are often either not given or the person asked diverts from the issue.

 

Still better than playing the emotion/armageddon card.

No, they evidently had heard of "alternatives", because that's their point - the lack of imagination of those who don't see the possible development of alternatives and so try to block their way in the name of maintaining the status quo, deliberately ignoring that such alternatives are talked about as solutions all the time. Like the folks who simply cannot see beyond fossil fuels as an energy resource for the foreseeable future.

 

That's exactly why the poster thinks that these questions are often not rational and are often fallacious.

 

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

Hmmm, I’m guessing this is written by someone who is very vocal on climate change but is wary they are going to be exposed as a mass polluter. 
Is it Lewis Hamilton?

In my own take that's neither here nor there - as I said above, I have equally less time for both those who would advocate us regressing (hypocrites or not) and those who want us to stay where we are tech wise, and I'll happily go after both.

 

They're both equally culpable for any future problems from the climate we might face and both shouldn't be entertained nearly as much as they are in the public sphere IMO. Green tech development is the only way this all gets helped in a way that improves peoples standards of life around the world.

Edited 20 October 2019 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

So, what is Extinction Rebellion really about?

Quote

I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system of that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life. This was exacerbated when European ‘civilisation’ was spread around the globe through cruelty and violence (especially) over the last 600 years of colonialism, although the roots of the infections go much further back.

As Europeans spread their toxicity around the world, they brought torture, genocide, carnage and suffering to the ends of the earth. Their cultural myths justified the horrors, such as the idea that indigenous people were animals (not humans), and therefore God had given us dominion over them. This was used to justify a multi-continent-wide genocide of tens of millions of people. The coming of the scientific era saw this intensify, as the world around us was increasingly seen as ‘dead’ matter — just sitting there waiting for us to exploit it and use it up. We’re now using it up faster than ever.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-01-16/extinction-rebellion-isnt-about-the-climate/

 

Also explains why the movement is so racist - where are all the people of color?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/19/extinction-rebellion-white-faces-diversity

 

And where are all the protests outside of the UK/Europe, I wonder?

Edited 20 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[Jon the Hat]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

No, they evidently had heard of "alternatives", because that's their point - the lack of imagination of those who don't see the possible development of alternatives and so try to block their way in the name of maintaining the status quo, deliberately ignoring that such alternatives are talked about as solutions all the time. Like the folks who simply cannot see beyond fossil fuels as an energy resource for the foreseeable future.

 

That's exactly why the poster thinks that these questions are often not rational and are often fallacious.

 

In my own take that's neither here nor there - as I said above, I have equally less time for both those who would advocate us regressing (hypocrites or not) and those who want us to stay where we are tech wise, and I'll happily go after both.

 

They're both equally culpable for any future problems from the climate we might face and both shouldn't be entertained nearly as much as they are in the public sphere IMO. Green tech development is the only way this all gets helped in a way that improves peoples standards of life around the world.

I’m pretty sure we live in a world leader in addressing climate change, so I’m not sure why you apply this to us?  I’ve always held that the human race will find a way - it always does.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I’m pretty sure we live in a world leader in addressing climate change, so I’m not sure why you apply this to us?  I’ve always held that the human race will find a way - it always does.

....driven by the unshakeable faith that the Earth cannot defeat us? I wish I shared that faith, at least as where we are now in terms of progress.

 

The UK is certainly at the front line when it comes to addressing climate change at a policy-based level, but this thread alone as well as multiple conversations on here and out in the wider world show that there the people I refer to in the post exist and are active - and additionally, while the UK is a leader, the sobering truth is that the data shows that as a species we're not doing enough and this isn't just about the UK.

[ozleicester]

i just wonder anyone is opposed to improving the planet?

[Innovindil]

16 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

i just wonder anyone is opposed to improving the planet?

Can't remember seeing many, if any, people like that in this thread tbh. 

 

People are opposed to idiots blocking streets. Shouldn't come as a surprise. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Can't remember seeing many, if any, people like that in this thread tbh. 

 

People are opposed to idiots blocking streets. Shouldn't come as a surprise. 

Yes, it's a strawman to say that people aren't interested in improving the planet - can't think of anyone who directly says that, either.

 

What there are, however, both in this thread and out in the wider world, are those who believe the problem either not serious nor timely enough to require addressing in a way that might disrupt the status quo, because they fear they may lose something because of it.

 

It's not that they are opposed to improving the planet, it's that they feel it isn't necessary at this point in time. Which, of course, could well be a rather large mistake.

[MC Prussian]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yes, it's a strawman to say that people aren't interested in improving the planet - can't think of anyone who directly says that, either.

 

What there are, however, both in this thread and out in the wider world, are those who believe the problem either not serious nor timely enough to require addressing in a way that might disrupt the status quo, because they fear they may lose something because of it.

 

It's not that they are opposed to improving the planet, it's that they feel it isn't necessary at this point in time. Which, of course, could well be a rather large mistake.

Completely misrepresenting the opinion of the general public - and the general consensus on here.

 

Most people are concerned and active in their own way, they just couldn't give two flying fvcks about privileged white people putting on a convoluted show under the diguise of climate change, trying to impose their views onto the rest of the world.

[Strokes]

52 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

i just wonder anyone is opposed to improving the planet?

That depends on the methods for improving the planet. 
What are the boundaries to this point?

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Completely misrepresenting the opinion of the general public - and the general consensus on here.

 

Most people are concerned and active in their own way, they just couldn't give two flying fvcks about privileged white people putting on a convoluted show under the diguise of climate change, trying to impose their views onto the rest of the world.

Really?

 

Between people saying that it's all a hoax anyway, the people saying that it's happening but the human element is being overstated, the people who think it's happening but are afraid that they might lose out economically and the people who have power sharing all of these sentiments and therefore a lack of unified action being taken resulting in the temperature increases being recorded, I'd say there's rather a lot of people thinking other things are higher priority and thinking that the world is ok as it is - or if it isn't that we'll be able to deal with it when things become sufficiently visibly worse for them.

 

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That depends on the methods for improving the planet. 
What are the boundaries to this point?

Depends on how bad one thinks the problem could get, tbh. The worse the possible outcome and the more critical time is as a factor, the more radical the methods may need to be. Seeing as I think that what the Earth could do to human civilisation would make the greatest hits of Mao, Hitler and Stalin look like a pleasant day at the seaside, personally I'd think that anything short of a 1984-style dystopic hellhole would be better than that.

 

Of course, we're not nearly at any kind of radical point yet and I think it perfectly possible for the necessary solutions to be implemented through current government structures around the world without a significant impact on human quality of life.

 

For the time being.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Of course, we're not nearly at any kind of radical point yet and I think it perfectly possible for the necessary solutions to be implemented through current government structures around the world without a significant impact on human quality of life.

 

For the time being.

Sure, I agree we should act now. It seems like in this country we are, even if we still have a way to go.

The reason I’m questioning his post, is it’s very vague and needs clarity. 
To oppose a method, is not the same as opposing the end goal.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Sure, I agree we should act now. It seems like in this country we are, even if we still have a way to go.

The reason I’m questioning his post, is it’s very vague and needs clarity. 
To oppose a method, is not the same as opposing the end goal.

You're right there - and there does need to be better clarity of communication regarding what needs to be done in order to sort things out.

 

As I said a few pages back the whole thing really needs a great scientific communicator to come to the fore, point out the Drawdown solutions (to choose one example), explain how they will help in as easy terms as possible to as many people as possible, and then say "now you know, now lobby your government, and get them to lobby other governments, because only unified action will help here".