Fruitful language aside, is he wrong? Maybe his wording makes you think he literally thinks people are being lined up for gas chambers. But many of the poorest people in the world have suffered horrendously, just so humans on the other side of the world can drive a car. The environmental effects will continue to worsen until whole countries are completely displaced. It’s as close to a genocide as it gets, it’s just in slow-motion.
Like I said. I don’t think their current strategy will work. People need to be the driving force behind the changed.
But this “disrupt MP’s” tripe is just that - tripe. The needle won’t move until the general public are prepared to put some skin in the game, and they won’t unless they are directly inconvenienced. Because like you say, they support someone doing something. Except not themselves. Let the government (pretend to) sort it out, they say. Total apathy. And that’s why you end up with groups like Just Stop Oil - they are sick of inaction and excuses.
Fruitful language aside, is he wrong? Maybe his wording makes you think he literally thinks people are being lined up for gas chambers
His intention is not wrong. And yeah you’ve got a point with the wording. If he wants me to take him seriously he should use words correctly and not in a hyperbolic fashion. If he means genocide then use that word (which he has). If he means that people around the world have been increasingly displaced because of man made climate disasters then say that. So yeah, you know what, it’s the way he chooses to go about winning support for his ideas. I don’t own a car so I’m confident I’ve not killed anyone on the other side of the world, but my neighbour has a car. I’m pretty sure he hasn’t killed anyone recently either.
Like I said. I don’t think their current strategy will work. People need to be the driving force behind the changed. The needle won’t move until the general public are prepared to put some skin in the game, and they won’t unless they are directly inconvenienced.
I fully agree with this. I’ve changed my own behaviour over the years to reduce my consumption and recycle as much as possible and encourage my friend and family to do the same. I’ve never owned a car and walk or cycle as much as it is possible where I live. And this was all before I had someone screaming in my ear that I was genociding the world because I don’t disrupt theatre performances.
Changing attitudes had always taken time. I fully appreciate time is at a premium in this context but I don’t think JSO or XR or Hallam’s tactics are productive.
I don’t own a car so I’m confident I’ve not killed anyone on the other side of the world, but my neighbour has a car. I’m pretty sure he hasn’t killed anyone recently either.
But your neighbour’s car consumes something for fuel, which does kill people. No, he hasn’t mowed someone down. But the system for producing that fuel is exploitative, has been the motivation for wars, and pollutes the atmosphere. You can’t claim to be innocent when the system exists to supply the demand.
You might not own a car, but you use electricity at least. Electricity comes from the grid that uses gasoline and coal at some percentage. Your computer and smartphone contain rare metals that are literally the product of mines owned and operated by warlords.
In short, there is no ethical way to stay like this. As time goes on more and more some people will become sick of the middle and upper class acting like they shoulder no responsibility. That’s why we are seeing more direct activism.
That’s not going to change with green energy though. If we live in a world with clean green energy… we’re still going to use all the other things that you listed. Smart phones are still going to need rare earth metals, coffee is still going to be drunk, people are still going to want Nutella.
I think what matters is the intent when you’re talking about “claiming to be innocent” and genocide. Otherwise pretty much everything we do in life has some negative consequence that affects someone else. We might as well stop living in a world like that.
That’s very much not saying that we shouldn’t try to do better. Yes of course we should, as should the companies and governments that enable this. And we should be doing it quicker. I just can’t agree with pointing at random people on the street and calling them complicit in genocide.
Fruitful language aside, is he wrong? Maybe his wording makes you think he literally thinks people are being lined up for gas chambers. But many of the poorest people in the world have suffered horrendously, just so humans on the other side of the world can drive a car. The environmental effects will continue to worsen until whole countries are completely displaced. It’s as close to a genocide as it gets, it’s just in slow-motion.
Like I said. I don’t think their current strategy will work. People need to be the driving force behind the changed.
But this “disrupt MP’s” tripe is just that - tripe. The needle won’t move until the general public are prepared to put some skin in the game, and they won’t unless they are directly inconvenienced. Because like you say, they support someone doing something. Except not themselves. Let the government (pretend to) sort it out, they say. Total apathy. And that’s why you end up with groups like Just Stop Oil - they are sick of inaction and excuses.
His intention is not wrong. And yeah you’ve got a point with the wording. If he wants me to take him seriously he should use words correctly and not in a hyperbolic fashion. If he means genocide then use that word (which he has). If he means that people around the world have been increasingly displaced because of man made climate disasters then say that. So yeah, you know what, it’s the way he chooses to go about winning support for his ideas. I don’t own a car so I’m confident I’ve not killed anyone on the other side of the world, but my neighbour has a car. I’m pretty sure he hasn’t killed anyone recently either.
I fully agree with this. I’ve changed my own behaviour over the years to reduce my consumption and recycle as much as possible and encourage my friend and family to do the same. I’ve never owned a car and walk or cycle as much as it is possible where I live. And this was all before I had someone screaming in my ear that I was genociding the world because I don’t disrupt theatre performances.
Changing attitudes had always taken time. I fully appreciate time is at a premium in this context but I don’t think JSO or XR or Hallam’s tactics are productive.
But your neighbour’s car consumes something for fuel, which does kill people. No, he hasn’t mowed someone down. But the system for producing that fuel is exploitative, has been the motivation for wars, and pollutes the atmosphere. You can’t claim to be innocent when the system exists to supply the demand.
You might not own a car, but you use electricity at least. Electricity comes from the grid that uses gasoline and coal at some percentage. Your computer and smartphone contain rare metals that are literally the product of mines owned and operated by warlords.
In short, there is no ethical way to stay like this. As time goes on more and more some people will become sick of the middle and upper class acting like they shoulder no responsibility. That’s why we are seeing more direct activism.
That’s not going to change with green energy though. If we live in a world with clean green energy… we’re still going to use all the other things that you listed. Smart phones are still going to need rare earth metals, coffee is still going to be drunk, people are still going to want Nutella.
I think what matters is the intent when you’re talking about “claiming to be innocent” and genocide. Otherwise pretty much everything we do in life has some negative consequence that affects someone else. We might as well stop living in a world like that.
That’s very much not saying that we shouldn’t try to do better. Yes of course we should, as should the companies and governments that enable this. And we should be doing it quicker. I just can’t agree with pointing at random people on the street and calling them complicit in genocide.