neanderthal

I wasn't aware of that. That is bleak.

actions influence thoughts!

Take a look at the podcast transcript from earlier. We have to believe in our own agency in order to act. E.g. if I don't think I can safely cross a river, I'm not going to attempt it, even if it is only waste deep.

literal idealism

What idealism is that? I'm more of a pragmatist.

My original point was engaging in doomerism isn't useful for combating the climate situation and all but guarantees the worst case scenario.

My reason is I'm extremely frustrated by liberals who think we can just debate our problems into submission. It requires blood and sweat.

Of course it is going to take some work. We also need debate and noise. For an example of people seeing results, Fox News has been very effective. Social media in particular has been used very effectively to influence behavior.

My objective is to hammer home that actions influence thoughts!

What is your reason for so strongly believing that you are right about this?

So what's your objective here? Are you trying to refute my point that thought influences action?

My objectives: 1. pull doomers out of giving up and into trying 2. Inspiring people to take any action at all 3. Hopefully getting some lukewarm fence sitters on board 4. The giant challenge of turning this thing around.

My reason: I'm a parent. I want my kids to inherit a world that isn't a climate apocalypse. Even if I lose, they know I cared enough enough to try.

Here is what frustrates me. Some actions save money, reduce GHG emissions, and are low effort.

The WW2 comparisons are about the size of threat and how much effort we should put into dealing with it. We need to adopt a mindset that a total war like effort is what we need to do here. That means all hands on deck. Everyone do what they reasonably can, even it if is just talking about it or eating a few less servings of beef in a year. If you are in a car dependent area, buy something efficient instead of a canyonero, and lobby local politicians to reduce car dependency.

As far as individual action:

By far the most effective thing form the least effort is don't waste food. I.e. eat your leftovers and meal plan to reduce waste. It saves time, money and GHG.

The other easy effective thing is eat less beef. It is as simple as getting chicken instead of beef at chipotle or getting a chicken sandwich instead of a cheeseburger at a drive thru. Order online ahead of time so you can save time, money,.and GHG emissions sitting in a drive thru.

I'm saying bad thinking guarantees defeat, and that this isn't over yet.

Look at the Kansas abortion ballot initiative debacle. I'd wager that the climate deniers and anti abortion people are largely the same group. That election shows that they can be beaten and probably have more people on our side than they do. I.e. we are the proverbial elephant tied up with a string.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

I really don't understand what you mean by this.

So are you giving up?

Let's stop to think about this. The US is farming water intensive crops in the desert. Iowa and surrounding states, some of the best farmland in the world, grows a shitload of corn to make ethanol to add to ICE engine fuel. The energy return on investment is minimal and ethanol trashes small engines that usually aren't designed to run on it.

We could stop farming in the desert and use our premier farm land to grow food instead of for making low quality ICE fuel. We should be phasing out ICE engines as much as possible anyway, so we can get a double whammy here.

Thinking things can't reform does prevent reform.

To quote a fictional character, Eleanor Shellstrop, "You've gotta try, man".

If you don't think you can, you won't act. If you don't act, you definitely won't reform anything.

I think this is a case for pragmatism:

https://www.philosophizethis.org/transcript/episode-154-transcript

That is a good episode idea. Their warp engine dies, so they have to send a shuttle to go get parts to fix it. In the mean time, they jury rig the remaining shuttles life support into the main ship and put as many crew members in medically induced comas as possible to reduce the load on it.

For that you need billions or better a few trillions to make it work and quite honestly, with that kind of money start a competitor with green technology and drive fossil fuels out of business.

Good point

They will kill to protect their money.

Good point. So in order to go the shareholder route, it would require finding them a way to bring in more profits than fossil fuels.