Wake Up, Freak Out - Then Get a Grip

[bellyscratch]

A video for people to watch on climate change. I posted it on the Environmental Left group, but Butterfly told me to post it here too.

http://vimeo.com/1709110

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Stickied.

[al8]

Why is this stickied? As far as I can see this video advocates luddism. And it says "we" need to consume less not consume more smartly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why is this stickied? As far as I can see this video advocates luddism. And it says "we" need to consume less not consume more smartly.

Really? I was asked to make it a sticky, but since I can't view the video I had no idea of it's content and merely trusted their judgement. Perhaps I was wrong to do so.

Unstickied for now. butterfly, perhaps you'd like to explain yourself?

[Vanguard1917]

Pile of philistine eco-bullshit. The person who made the video should certainly consume less... less, for all our sakes, of that wacky backy or whatever it is that's making him spew out his/her nonsense.

Meanwhile, on planet earth, most people live in poverty as a result of serious underconsumption. In order to raise their living standards, and in order to make humanity less vulnerable to the destructive aspects of nature, we need a new social system that's going to bring about more economic development worldwide, not less as that silly video advocates.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I checked out the website (wakeupfreakout.org (http://www.wakeupfreakout.org/)), and was dismayed to learn that it's a bunch of alarmist nonsense.

Climate change will present challenges to all of us, but the wild-eyed claims that it will "almost certainly kill us all" is fear-mongering of the highest order. That certain environmentalists resort to scare tactics to get people to fall in line with their apocalyptic proclamations and misanthropic austerity measures is a surefire sign of their intellectual poverty.

[butterfly]

What!?, I wasn't aware that they were preaching apocalyptic scenarios.
It sum's up different aspects of the feedback cycle, gives a great analogy, talks about methane and they're saying we have to change the system, not simply decrease consumption.
I thought this was something S&E was lacking...a simple, visual explanation.
Terribly sorry if I was wrong...loading it now so I can see where these accusations are coming from.

[butterfly]

Ok, they display the consequences of the feedback cycle and then go on to say;
'Heres the good news none of this is inevitable yet. This is not the time to pannick or despair. This is the time to act while we still can'

On the matter of reducing consumption they say that this approach is 'out of the question in a society which is founded upon the ever increasing consumption of raw materials and energy. It is now very clear that in order to actually win the fight against climate change, making big changes in the way we each live our own lives is not going to be enough.
We're going to have to actively confront powerful invested interests, who will stop at nothing to prevent the changes we need, from taking place.

:confused: I don't see the problem, though I guess looking over it again there isn't enough emphasis on which sought of system it would be best replaced with, but that's what the rest of this site it for.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ok, they display the consequences of the feedback cycle and then go on to say;
'Heres the good news none of this is inevitable yet. This is not the time to pannick or despair. This is the time to act while we still can'

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but it's the threat of so-called "climate chaos" that envirofundies like to use as a rhetorical device, rather than it's inevitability. Like the old-time prophets preaching doom unless we change our ways.


On the matter of reducing consumption they say that this approach is 'out of the question in a society which is founded upon the ever increasing consumption of raw materials and energy. It is now very clear that in order to actually win the fight against climate change, making big changes in the way we each live our own lives is not going to be enough.
We're going to have to actively confront powerful invested interests, who will stop at nothing to prevent the changes we need, from taking place.It's all very brave and noble to say "confront the vested interests", but what does such a thing actually involve?


:confused: I don't see the problem, though I guess looking over it again there isn't enough emphasis on which sought of system it would be best replaced with, but that's what the rest of this site it for.The problem is that the video has been produced from a perspective that is entirely bound up within the borgeouis political system, something that becomes abundantly clear upon reading the comments.

[butterfly]

The rest of the clip is predominantly scientific concepts and processes, in the quotes above I was trying to address the conclusions made regarding consumption.


Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but it's the threat of so-called "climate chaos" that envirofundies like to use as a rhetorical device, rather than it's inevitability. Like the old-time prophets preaching doom unless we change our ways.

So you don't believe the effects will eventually lead to social issues if we fail to act?

[al8]

The clue is in the background when the narrator says "fight vested intrests" and incourages us to act and change our ways, there is an ongoing animation in the background of people, swathes of them, trampling down and dismantling a nuclear power plant and personal vehicles. That is, a luddite smashing of modern infrastructure.

[butterfly]

:lol::blushing: Yeah, I missed that, there goes any ounce of credibility I had.
Just to note, the smashing of modern infrastructure is bad mmkay.

[Yazman]

The clue is in the background when the narrator says "fight vested intrests" and incourages us to act and change our ways, there is an ongoing animation in the background of people, swathes of them, trampling down and dismantling a nuclear power plant and personal vehicles. That is, a luddite smashing of modern infrastructure.

You can make a pretty good argument against private ownership of cars without having to resort to neo-luddism.. it really is a waste of energy and resources to allocate a personal vehicle like a car to each individual person or family, especially when a well implemented mass transit system can easily replace private ownership.

But yeah, the video is ridiculous.

[al8]

You can make a pretty good argument against private ownership of cars without having to resort to neo-luddism.. it really is a waste of energy and resources to allocate a personal vehicle like a car to each individual person or family, especially when a well implemented mass transit system can easily replace private ownership.

Yes, but not eliminate it (as I found implied in the animation). I'm not against private transport as such. It has it's place, and can be made to be more efficient.

Some people want it, and could still want it, (but I suspect to a lesser extent) if there is an exellent public transit system in place.

[Dean]

Pile of philistine eco-bullshit. The person who made the video should certainly consume less... less, for all our sakes, of that wacky backy or whatever it is that's making him spew out his/her nonsense.

Meanwhile, on planet earth, most people live in poverty as a result of serious underconsumption. In order to raise their living standards, and in order to make humanity less vulnerable to the destructive aspects of nature, we need a new social system that's going to bring about more economic development worldwide, not less as that silly video advocates.

It's really an issue of prioritization and distribution. People who starve or receive little to no medical attention do so because it does not benefit the capitalist equation to provide thereof. I didn't watch the video, but "too little" economic development is not the reason for this disparity between populations - it is the aim and the kind of development that is the problem.