Finding workable solutions to climate change means rethinking our ideas of progress and what constitutes a good life.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Part of the problem is framing climate change as something that needs to be ‘solved’. This choice of words has an important effect in that it entrenches the belief that mankind is separate from its environment and has the distinct capability to manage and ‘solve’ it. The reality is the environment (and/or the climate) is finely tuned as a system. Apart from external shocks or black swan events, any changes happen at a very slow pace and are therefore vetted by the process of evolution. Humans have done away with this, introducing large scale changes in a very short space of time. To me the question boils down to – do we accept ourselves as part of the environment and forego convenience, comfort and accumulation, thereby reintegrating ourselves OR do we knowingly accept the risks of continuing on our current course, whilst trying to implement halfway measures in good faith to prolong our existence. Whether the latter can be termed a ‘solution’ I don’t know but the former will require voluntary reductions and limits of all sorts and is therefore highly unlikely.


> ‘Alternative hedonism’ in this sense tries to avoid moralising about what people ought to need or want (although I accept it maybe can’t be avoided altogether…) while relating to new forms of anti-consumerist response. Kind of a strange point for an article about basically “why your understanding of ‘the good life’ is fundamentally bad,” to be making. Anything that effectively posits that “people are not always the best judges of their own well-being” and therefore their own understanding of what constitutes a good life for them is suspect is more or less going to wind up making accusations of “badwronghappiness” at some point. The title of this post (which differs from the title of the linked article, by the way) hints at this. But it offers a choice. Western societies (and perhaps societies the world over) can have their current ideas of progress and what constitutes a good life, *or* they can have “workable” solutions to climate change. While the linked article presupposes what the right answer to that choice is, the fact of the matter remains that the choice is there and people are going to have to make it. Right now, the choice seems to be business as usual now and remediation later, which, to be sure, seems to be the standard way of doing things. What will change that is when the costs of remediation become high enough that there is broad support for paying them earlier, in order to lessen them. While the article posits that the time to make that trade off is now (or, to be more precise, three years ago), because it relies on people seeing the world differently than they currently do, I suspect it’s not going to happen.


Nuclear power will allow a continued progression of quality-of-life while also providing a “workable solution” to climate change. The title, the article, and most arguments against nuclear power are proof that a large portion of the Green Movement is Anti-Capitalism at its core, IMO.


I think this argument comes from a position of privilege. You can knock ‘clone town’ online shopping, but it’s a lot cheaper than “main street” stores- and a lot less time consuming too. Similarly, GDP growth correlates strongly with basic indicators of human well-being (i.e., having enough food, clothing, etc.). In the west, we might pine for a ‘simpler’ and less ‘materialistic’ time- but the trade-off for that is increased poverty. The author also skims over the huge amount of time that people used to spend on daily household tasks, and even seems to criticize the division of labor by which we’ve experience a massive increase in material wealth. Lastly, evidence suggests that developed nations pollute less than developing nations. Increases in GDP seem to have an overall positive environmental effect once they reach a certain point.


All of our biggest problems are “Externalities”, meaning tragedy of the commons, meaning important multigenerational world ending shit that nobody wants to mess with because it takes too much time, money and human lives to solve with super long ROI and the best system we have right now is entirely against it, trying its best to ignore it and cant make any profit from it. (Corrupted market system incentives) If we truly wanna solve climate change and every other “externalities” that come after, we need to improve the current system A LOT, to the point that it is almost unrecognizable from what we have today. Daniel Schmachtenberger and the consilience project peeps have a very detailed breakdown of what we know, what we dont know, what we need to find out and how to move forward and change society to integrate externalities into itself from bottom up and top down. They are not the only one with such a scientific and practical approach, but alas……….we have a BIG problem that prevents this from happening…….I call it the **”Azzholes with thugs”** dilemma, meaning a bunch of azzholes could manipulate a bunch of thugs to make people like us do whatever they want and no amount of problem solving can solve anything if they are in charge of society forever……..because the thugs will beat us up if we try. lol So the immediate urgency now is HOW do we get AROUND/get RID of **”Azzholes with thugs”** dilemma? If we dont, we cant move forward much.