I thought it is best to separately respond to some things from your post from yesterday. Sorry about this format oren.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,256.msg231734.html#msg231734--
Nanning - you set a high example, and you are certainly no loser. I do not see you as the enemy - on the contrary.
Thanks for your nice words and the respect for me oren
.
the system's inertia is simply too large
if all rich people would forgo of their wealth and live like poor people, the whole economy would collapse. The economic system is essentially dependent on rich people's behaviour for economic growth.
Economic system change, a collapse of the current system is absolutely necessary. Otherwise there will never be a new system. And when starting a new system it is optimal, it is best if everybody is poor like poor people are today (regarding accumulation and consumption). Limited, constrained, no affluence, a high level of equality and an unimaginably lower energy need. A good start.
If people stop buying things they don't really 'need' and use their body in stead of using technology for every task, we are potentially diverting our ways to a much more utopian society with
renewed respect for living nature by losing our supremacy madness and old dogma's. When the consumerist dream is gone and people finally wake up. That also goes for most poor people today who are also in the consumerist dream and are wanting. They need to lose the dream as well. Forgo of the wants.
For this to happen the policy can be to return to publicly owned TV channels. To revolutionise mass media by removing commerce and advertising, to remove the lies, temptations, passive entertainment insanity, manipulation, lust, accumulation status, celebrities etc. To make sane again.
Yes, the affluent lifestyle is addictive, and most people in it would not let go of it willingly, and most other people strive to reach it. That's human nature for you.
I disagree. The dream has been succesfully created through very effective and abundant advertising temptation of all sorts, branding and thus conditioning. Brains have been changed, that's what marketing and P.R. does. It is basically lying and manipulating.
But will they reduce by 10%-30%? Maybe.
There's no time. Incremental changes are insufficient. 20% (per decade?) is not remotely enough. Haven't you heard Greta saying that according to science we have only 8.5 years left for a 50% chance of staying below 1.5C. Not so nice future if you're 16.
Fear! And rightfully so. Don't you have enough empathy to do your outmost to minimize the negative effects of your current lifestyle for their future? To drastically change as I have done?
I couldn't live with the idea that I was contributing to this, that my actions damage and ruin their future and the future of all our children's children and the future of all other life on Earth.
Do you think the effects of 1.5C will be a 'little bit worse' than today? It is really a pity (understatement) that you don't see the need for extreme fast action and change. The U.N. and many science-based articles state that we have very little time left.
I have been observing many trends for years, and almost (not all; e.g. #MeToo is positive for women) all trends are accelerating towards catastrophy in my observations, there ARE bottom lines. Global severe weather and biocollapse effects are among the trends I follow. What a life to see the world collapse around you. My future is gone as well. I'm now just trying to communicate understanding and morality, show leadership and be kind to others. If I start to struggle to survive i will stop eating.
I think if enough set an example it can effectuate real change, fast change. Extinction rebellion for example migth pick up on our asif's example. Greta might show interest in our solutions for the transition-to-poor
. Forummembers are an intelligent bunch I think. The intelligent and just should lead. Not the shouters and liars.
Ask yourself with everything you do "Why am I doing this? Is this really really necessary? Can I change?". Try to educate the young humans that consumerism and all that stuff is wrong with their future in mind.
a lot of currently poor people are actively striving to live an affluent lifestyle, and a lot of them will reach that situation over the next 30 years, mainly in China and India but also in various other countries.
This means an explosion in consumption and an explosion of the consequences thereof. More strong reason to really hurry, to PANIC. NOW. Where is the survival instinct?
a lot of currently poor people are actively striving to live an affluent lifestyle, and a lot of them will reach that situation over the next 30 years, mainly in China and India but also in various other countries. These countries are still massively building new coal plants of all things, regardless of your or my ramblings on this forum. So anything that potentially idles these coal plants gets my cheers.
Do you mean that you like to stop those poor people from becoming consumerists like you? From becoming more affluent? From having your lifestyle?
What the currently poor people are contributing to our mess is a high birth rate
I am not responding to this because I probably would use some words that I don't want to use.
Of course you are right about the effect of more humans on Earth. If that's all you read in that sentence you don't understand me.
even if they all lived your lifestyle I am not sure if they could live sustainably on this Earth and in harmony with the rest of the biosphere, in fact I strongly doubt it.
Are you saying that there's no room for so many people on Earth? Even if they lived frugal like me?
That would mean that probably billions of people will have to die. But of course that doesn't mean you, because you are better shielded from the causes of the coming 'Big Killing'. No, it's the 'others' that will have to die, the 'others' will have to be sacrificed for sake of the shielded ones, for the sake of the minority of high consuming richer people. For you, the 'better' people (the rich who are driving AGW and are the metaphorical 'inertia') to have a viable future, to be safe.
Different words to describe this behaviour come to mind.