Autistic Opinion - Greta Thunberg ~ Autistamatic

[Joshua the Writer]

Can’t stand her. Her opinions and views are not reality or realistic.

I am an aviation enthusiast and did not take kindly to her comments about aviation. How does she expect people to travel to places quickly? What about those of us who live on islands, does she expect us to take a boat everywhere? What if we want to go on a short break? Will we spend most of the time travelling to the destination?

I fly a lot. If planes were replaced with boats, that travelling would have to be cancelled and would become a major pain. A simple trip to London would be a 12 hour journey, a two week break to the Algarve would become a three week break with a week of travelling and a months trip to America would become two months with a gruelling 14 days at sea! Please no..

This woman is embarrassing for our condition.

Have you ever thought that she is trying to say that changes need to be made to the planes, themselves? Perhaps use more fuel-efficient engines or even make hybrid or even electric planes?

 

[Aspie_With_Attitude]

I have just published a new video wanting to inspire Greta Thunburg to begin public support advicating terraforming the Sahara Desert into a man made rain forest and possibly Nikola Tesla's free energy.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I live in a small rather uknown country. Recently, there was this interview with a local psychiatrist about Greta and her autism.

Do you want me to hear what the *expert* said about her (and about an autism in general)?

Warning: Could be rather upsetting.

1) Over 70 % of autistic ppl are paranoid.
2) Greta's robotic voice, weird facial expressions, fake smiles and so on... it's TYPICAL (yes, he said that) for autistic people.
3) She sees the world in black and white... and... also this is TYPICAL for autistic people.
4) Autism itself is mostly a business (that's what he said - whatever that means - not sure if he meant it in general or he only refered to Greta).

Anyway, lots of ppl are sharing this interview on social media which is kinda low. I am not Greta's admirer as I said before in this threat, but I think most of these claims he made are false. And I am not sure how to respond to this.

Just wanted to share.

 

[Ian Figlmiller]

I first heard about Greta around February of 2018, but it August of 2019 where I started to think "she's on a mission, and a very revolutionary one".

Didn't know she had autism until I heard some famous celeb(s) say something about it. I told my mom and she was said to me "I didn't know she had what you had".

What do you know, though? People with autism can make big differences in the world today. Greta is one example of that.

 

[DuckRabbit]

We are still not advanced enough scientifically to find a workable solution without disrupting every facet of everyone's life. The smallest of disruptions can cause horrific damage to people, communities, and economies. The solutions to our destruction of the environment will incur long-term change, implemented by alternative means of manufacturing and distribution of food and goods. This can't happen all at once. Then again, why would we throw away all of the advances we have made in science, engineering, and chemistry, purposefully designed to enhance the quality of human lives.

It is not science we need anymore, it's a heart and soul and an awakened consciousness to change our ways. It is this human-centric focus that has got us into the climate-change crisis in the first place - humans playing zero-sum games with every other living thing on the planet. Absolute egocentric megalomania and species-ism, fostered in some cultures more than others, over centuries. The appalling bigotry that human lives matter more than animal lives or tree lives. Or that humans are on top of the evolutionary pyramid. Taken by some as so self-evident that alternatives are unconscionable. How convenient for humans.

I agree Greta's message makes many people uncomfortable because it challenges their values and demands that they change their habits, comforts, conveniences or lifestyles. I've seen people use a welter of ways to 'attack the messenger' e.g., "Greta is unstable and mentally fragile/unsound" (from everything I've seen, she is not); "Children shouldn't be telling adults what to do"; "Adults are putting ideas in her head" (no, children in different generational cohorts are often born with different values and consciousness from the generations before - cf the 5-year-old girl in Ireland who refused off her own bat to eat "animal people" when her parents plied her with roast turkey); "She needs an education so she can debate the issues better" (this is just a delaying tactic). Notice how they attack her rather than engaging with her message. Projection, projection, projection.

Are these mutually exclusive? - "a workable solution based on science" vs. "stop doing the things we do"?

To me, the solution is stopping 2 things and starting 1 thing:
1. Stop using plastic (supermarkets and shops need to take the lead in this, and governments need to stipulate EARLY deadlines for changing policy, not lazy 10-year time-frames as we don't have that long when there are animals in the oceans and other ecosystems dying as I write).
2. Stop eating animals (apart from being more humane and healthier, this will lower carbon emissions). I don't understand why "No more cows" is ridiculous. Slaughtering a sentient being who values its life as much as we do ours would be "ridiculous" if it weren't so barbaric.
3. Start planting indigenous trees. We're never going to change our lifestyles to the point that we stop flying and driving, so the least we can do is plant trees on a MASSIVE scale. I'm sure it will be the main past-time of children in years to come - ditching the social media and planting trees as though their lives depended on it, which it does. I was pained to spot a headline today about 5 elephants starving to death in Zimbabwe due to drought. If that image doesn't spark a sense of urgency and impending change in people, nothing will.

"A workable solution based on science" sounds like a wonderful way-out so we don't have to change our ways and rethink our values. It also sounds spectacularly gentle and gradual and passive - with any luck we won't have to usher in the changes; the next generation will. It sounds like taking a pill to fix a problem in lieu of putting in the hard graft to change our conditions ourselves. Planting trees is something we can all do (there is even a blind man and a man with both arms amputated in China who are planting trees together - see below). Changing our diets is also something within our control. And with the cooperation of supermarkets and governments we can reduce plastic usage too, or change our waste-dumping habits ('out of sight, out of mind').

Here are people taking action themselves today, instead of waiting around for "science" or the government to fix the catastrophe that our cultural values and lifestyles have unleashed:

Forest Man
A Man Planted A Tree Every Day For 37 Years And Grew A Beautiful Oasis

50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything | Short Film Showcase

Regreening the desert with John D. Liu - Docu - 2012
Double Amputee Turns Barren Hills into Lush 17,000-Tree Forest
Couple Spend 25 Years Turning Barren Patch of Land into Paradise of Biodiversity
Photographer And His Wife Plant 2 Million Trees In 20 Years To Restore A Destroyed Forest And Even The Animals Have Returned
The man who planted a tree and grew a whole family of forests
Nobel peace prize for woman of 30m trees
Ethiopia will plant 4bn trees to fight deforestation

 

[DuckRabbit]

I have just published a new video wanting to inspire Greta Thunburg to begin public support advicating terraforming the Sahara Desert into a man made rain forest and possibly Nikola Tesla's free energy.

A nice idea but is that viable? Is that where forests would naturally grow or is the climate too dry? Deserts have their own ecologies and adapted plant and wildlife. It's important when replenishing the trees we've plundered over centuries that they be indigenous to the region. We don't want to wreck existing ecologies any more than we already have. But it would be great to reforest areas where trees were originally growing - I'm sure biologists or conservationists would be able to advise where these are, and in many areas it's already happening. Photos from the 19th century often don't give an accurate view of whether there were originally trees there or not, because the trees were felled for firewood, houses etc long before the camera was invented.

 

[DuckRabbit]

Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’
They set out a series of urgently needed actions:
-Use energy far more efficiently and apply strong carbon taxes to cut fossil fuel use
-Stabilise global population – currently growing by 200,000 people a day – using ethical approaches such as longer education for girls
-End the destruction of nature and restore forests and mangroves to absorb CO2
-Eat mostly plants and less meat, and reduce food waste
-Shift economic goals away from GDP growth
---
Imagine if social status wasn't located in our postcode or the car we drive or how many exotic destinations we've travelled to this year, but rather in how many trees we've planted (there should be online records, like a date-stamped photo or video with you and the tree) and how well the animals are doing under our care, including 'farm' animals - healthy and happy animals being the measure of the state of our souls. Anything else is unhealthy ego-distortion - inflating ourselves at the expense of other living beings on the planet.

When climate change reverses, then we'll know our hearts and souls are on the right track again. The pain entailed in change will be more than repaid - by still having a planet to live on. Not to mention being spared those distressing images of living creatures and forests suffering and dying.

 

[Ken S.]

@DuckRabbit Arctic Cold Smashes October Records in the West, Plains | The Weather Channel Like these record lows from just a few days ago during crux of Global Warming?

 

[Kalinychta]

It is not science we need anymore, it's a heart and soul and an awakened consciousness to change our ways. It is this human-centric focus that has got us into the climate-change crisis in the first place - humans playing zero-sum games with every other living thing on the planet. Absolute egocentric megalomania and species-ism, fostered in some cultures more than others, over centuries. The appalling bigotry that human lives matter more than animal lives or tree lives. Or that humans are on top of the evolutionary pyramid. Taken by some as so self-evident that alternatives are unconscionable. How convenient for humans.

I agree Greta's message makes many people uncomfortable because it challenges their values and demands that they change their habits, comforts, conveniences or lifestyles. I've seen people use a welter of ways to 'attack the messenger' e.g., "Greta is unstable and mentally fragile/unsound" (from everything I've seen, she is not); "Children shouldn't be telling adults what to do"; "Adults are putting ideas in her head" (no, children in different generational cohorts are often born with different values and consciousness from the generations before - cf the 5-year-old girl in Ireland who refused off her own bat to eat "animal people" when her parents plied her with roast turkey); "She needs an education so she can debate the issues better" (this is just a delaying tactic). Notice how they attack her rather than engaging with her message. Projection, projection, projection.

Are these mutually exclusive? - "a workable solution based on science" vs. "stop doing the things we do"?

To me, the solution is stopping 2 things and starting 1 thing:
1. Stop using plastic (supermarkets and shops need to take the lead in this, and governments need to stipulate EARLY deadlines for changing policy, not lazy 10-year time-frames as we don't have that long when there are animals in the oceans and other ecosystems dying as I write).
2. Stop eating animals (apart from being more humane and healthier, this will lower carbon emissions). I don't understand why "No more cows" is ridiculous. Slaughtering a sentient being who values its life as much as we do ours would be "ridiculous" if it weren't so barbaric.
3. Start planting indigenous trees. We're never going to change our lifestyles to the point that we stop flying and driving, so the least we can do is plant trees on a MASSIVE scale. I'm sure it will be the main past-time of children in years to come - ditching the social media and planting trees as though their lives depended on it, which it does. I was pained to spot a headline today about 5 elephants starving to death in Zimbabwe due to drought. If that image doesn't spark a sense of urgency and impending change in people, nothing will.

"A workable solution based on science" sounds like a wonderful way-out so we don't have to change our ways and rethink our values. It also sounds spectacularly gentle and gradual and passive - with any luck we won't have to usher in the changes; the next generation will. It sounds like taking a pill to fix a problem in lieu of putting in the hard graft to change our conditions ourselves. Planting trees is something we can all do (there is even a blind man and a man with both arms amputated in China who are planting trees together - see below). Changing our diets is also something within our control. And with the cooperation of supermarkets and governments we can reduce plastic usage too, or change our waste-dumping habits ('out of sight, out of mind').

Here are people taking action themselves today, instead of waiting around for "science" or the government to fix the catastrophe that our cultural values and lifestyles have unleashed:

Forest Man
A Man Planted A Tree Every Day For 37 Years And Grew A Beautiful Oasis

50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything | Short Film Showcase

Regreening the desert with John D. Liu - Docu - 2012
Double Amputee Turns Barren Hills into Lush 17,000-Tree Forest
Couple Spend 25 Years Turning Barren Patch of Land into Paradise of Biodiversity
Photographer And His Wife Plant 2 Million Trees In 20 Years To Restore A Destroyed Forest And Even The Animals Have Returned
The man who planted a tree and grew a whole family of forests
Nobel peace prize for woman of 30m trees
Ethiopia will plant 4bn trees to fight deforestation

I LOVE YOU!!! So well said and completely true!!! Scientists are responsible for SO much of the damage done to this planet. Arguably ALL of it. ANY kind of technology, from cures for disease to shoving animals into factory farms to nuclear bombs, when placed in the hands of our species becomes an ineffably destructive weapon against the planet, animals, and humans themselves. Technology has enabled us to destroy, consume, and spread on a massive scale. You wrote: “It is not science we need anymore, it's a heart and soul and an awakened consciousness to change our ways.” This is exactly true!!!!!!!

As for Greta, it’s classic ad hominem. Attacking her character draws attention away from her words.

 

[mw2530]

This is a loaded thread. Climate change seems to be one of the most divisive topics of our generation. Sometimes mass media seems to have OCD regarding one topic. There are numerous other problems that just don't get any coverage which is very sad. Climate change is conveniently blamed for many problems. I'm not saying it isn't happening, but the term has been abused over and over again.

I agree we need to change things, but the changes need to make sense. Do we really think that all humans are going to stop eating meat? It is a natural part of our diet and has been for thousands of years, maybe longer I'm not sure. People are not going to stop flying. Just think about how many people travel for work. If they stopped, it would just cause more problems. I'm no scientist, but we need to be realistic. Technology has solved many problems and it certainly has caused problems as well. But technology always marches forward and no one can stop it. Technology has caused many of the current environment problems, but it can also be used to solve them. A massive clean up effort was launched in the Pacific Ocean relatively recently - some sort of system that collects plastic and other garbage. This is an example of a realistic solution to a real problem. Big changes come slowly and begin small.

This topic has generated strong feelings on both sides. Blaming our environmental problems on certain people or groups of people doesn't help us but only spreads hate. The dangerous thing about blaming is it can cause great harm to people that are innocent of wrong doing. I learned in school that Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's problems. Now that is a an extreme example, but proves how much damage blaming groups of people can be.

 

[DuckRabbit]

Thank you for the support @Kalinychta. However I'm not saying "blame the scientists for climate change"; rather I'm saying we need to blame ourselves IF we take the complacent path of waiting around for "science" to get us out of the fix our lifestyles and values have got us into.

I agree with @mw2530 that blaming the problem on certain people or groups isn't helpful, and is more likely to involve self-soothing projection: "They are to blame, not me" --- that is way too convenient! Rather, we are ALL responsible to varying degrees for the damage that's been done to the planet - all of us who've heard the horror stories that occur in abattoirs but nevertheless continue buying cheap meat; all of us who've bought toiletries and make-up, knowing they're tested on animals but just shrugging that off; all of us who've ever mindlessly chainsawed down a tree; all of us who've discarded single-use plastic without another thought as to where it's going to end up. Science, like the Internet, has a good side and a shadow side. How wonderful is science that we can call emergency services if we are ill in the middle of the night or have an accident, and that it's identified treatments for certain genetic disorders. I would not demonise science but I would certainly demonise our sinister use of it. It is US who determine whether it is used as tool for good or for ongoing unconsciousness (aka evil).

Sometimes mass media seems to have OCD regarding one topic.

I would argue rather there is not enough coverage of climate change. Alarm bells should be going off on a daily basis; we should be having our noses rubbed in all the ecosystems and species being driven to extinction on a daily basis, the forests being razed, the animals losing their homes. As things are now, we're pretty much enabled to continue denying and suppressing the evidence. It is rather the ability to blank out the signs and carry on as normal that is the real pathology here. If we were truly awakened, as empaths and HSPs are said to be, we would be lying awake at night, sick with worry about all the sea creatures currently tangled in nets and clogged with plastic, dying slow, torturous deaths, due to our thoughtlessness and self-centred convenience.

Do we really think that all humans are going to stop eating meat? It is a natural part of our diet and has been for thousands of years, maybe longer I'm not sure.

The vegan response to people who think we should eat meat because "we've been doing it for thousands of years" is: 'Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people'. We used to oppress women and keep slaves and treat children as units of labour; that doesn't mean we should continue doing it today. We need to use our brains and update our behaviours accordingly. Thankfully there are signs that our consciousness does evolve.

People are not going to stop flying. Just think about how many people travel for work. If they stopped, it would just cause more problems. I'm no scientist, but we need to be realistic.

I agree, driving cars, air travel and washing machines are conveniences that are not going to be outlawed any time soon. But there are compensatory things we can do: plant trees on a massive scale; refuse to use single-use plastics; don't buy products that involve animal cruelty; make our diets increasingly plant-based; keep our tyres fully pumped (Obama was ridiculed for this eco-saving recommendation); stop with the %$^%$*** fireworks.

Seriously, what purpose do fireworks serve, other than killing animals with fright (and we never even get to hear about the birds, insects and plants who are destroyed by them) and stimulating sensation-seekers with a low-threshold for boredom who need external stimulation? We're supposed to be an intelligent, creative species; surely there are less damaging, less mindless ways to generate excitement?
Pet owners campaign to ban fireworks after puppy and rabbit die of fright | Daily Mail Online
Video: Horses whinny in terror as massive fireworks display goes off nearby | Daily Mail Online
Video: Poor horses are spooked by fireworks show ahead of Guy Fawkes night | Daily Mail Online
RSPCA call for a fireworks BAN because they can 'scare pets and livestock to death' | Daily Mail Online

Technology has solved many problems and it certainly has caused problems as well. But technology always marches forward and no one can stop it.

You have identified the design flaw in a species like us with an intellect. Like dogs who have a design flaw in their appetite, in that many would eat until they popped if left to their own devices, so humans if left to their own devices will turn technology into a god - throwing good money after bad, developing more and more of it and never stepping back to question if it's truly what we need, if it's really in our best interests. Technology DOESN'T always march forward; it is WE who propel it forward if we are unconscious. We have agency, a will, intellect, hearts and souls; surely we can gather our wits together sufficiently to see the point at which more technology isn't going to help us? It's change of heart that we need. It's hard, painful psychological growth and moral and spiritual evolution that is being asked of us.

Your passive voice in "But technology always marches forward and no one can stop it" is concerning. You are framing the problem as outside of your control; it is that sort of 'anaesthetising' mind-set that will ensure nothing changes and planetary destruction continues. Just re-framing that sentence in an active voice would be doing the whole planet a service. You would be doing your bit to raise the current level of vibrations, from passive and negative to active and positive. "WE create technology and WE can stop it" is surely more self-empowering?

Technology has caused many of the current environment problems, but it can also be used to solve them. A massive clean up effort was launched in the Pacific Ocean relatively recently - some sort of system that collects plastic and other garbage. This is an example of a realistic solution to a real problem. Big changes come slowly and begin small.

Agree, but it was an awakened consciousness and compassionate heart that chose to apply its scientific aptitude to innovating such technology in the first place, and putting it to such moral/spiritual use. It is dangerous to say "technology can solve our problems" because that will lead many to be complacent, thinking they are too ineffectual to change the problem. But if everyone thinks that way, we are doomed. Surely we each have a responsibility to change our thinking: how can I apply our technology to saving the planet instead of damaging it? I love reading stories about fireman coming out and using their expertise and equipment to rescue cats and wildlife who've got into fixes. I love reading about our technology being applied to create a prosthetic limb for a tortoise or a dog, or to remove a tumour from a goldfish. It shouldn't need to be said, but every consciousness and life form counts as much as our own.

This topic has generated strong feelings on both sides. Blaming our environmental problems on certain people or groups of people doesn't help us but only spreads hate. The dangerous thing about blaming is it can cause great harm to people that are innocent of wrong doing. I learned in school that Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's problems. Now that is a an extreme example, but proves how much damage blaming groups of people can be.

Great point. Projection is one of the great insidious evils of our nature. We will always do it, I believe it is in fact an essential part of our psyches, but we need to be more conscious of how damaging it can be. The first step is recognising that projection is a phenomenon, then recognising the ways in which we might be doing it. The treatment for it is Jungian shadow integration AKA being willing to take on-board pain, and suffer, instead of palming off pain and suffering on others - other people, groups, animals, nature, aliens etc. The amount of pain and suffering that humans have palmed off on animals over the centuries is eye-watering. If we had to truly comprehend it, we would kill ourselves. What brave, impossibly noble souls animals must be if they choose to incarnate on this bloodthirsty bloodbath of a planet - true angel heroes, sacrificing themselves for agonisingly slow human spiritual evolution. Here is an excellent explanation of the mechanisms underpinning projection:

 

[Ken S.]

@mw2530 I agree that focusing on a single ideology makes us lose sight of the good things people are doing and diverts from the real problems like CO and sulfur emissions. Example World's first ocean plastic clean-up machine set to launch Why is this not getting more media coverage? I would think a contribution such as this is Nobel Prize worthy yet very few people are aware of it.

 

[Kalinychta]

Thank you for the support @Kalinychta. However I'm not saying "blame the scientists for climate change"; rather I'm saying we need to blame ourselves IF we take the complacent path of waiting around for "science" to get us out of the fix our lifestyles and values have got us into.

I agree with @mw2530 that blaming the problem on certain people or groups isn't helpful, and is more likely to involve self-soothing projection: "They are to blame, not me" --- that is way too convenient! Rather, we are ALL responsible to varying degrees for the damage that's been done to the planet - all of us who've heard the horror stories that occur in abattoirs but nevertheless continue buying cheap meat; all of us who've bought toiletries and make-up, knowing they're tested on animals but just shrugging that off; all of us who've ever mindlessly chainsawed down a tree; all of us who've discarded single-use plastic without another thought as to where it's going to end up. Science, like the Internet, has a good side and a shadow side. How wonderful is science that we can call emergency services if we are ill in the middle of the night or have an accident, and that it's identified treatments for certain genetic disorders. I would not demonise science but I would certainly demonise our sinister use of it. It is US who determine whether it is used as tool for good or for ongoing unconsciousness (aka evil).


I would argue rather there is not enough coverage of climate change. Alarm bells should be going off on a daily basis; we should be having our noses rubbed in all the ecosystems and species being driven to extinction on a daily basis, the forests being razed, the animals losing their homes. As things are now, we're pretty much enabled to continue denying and suppressing the evidence. It is rather the ability to blank out the signs and carry on as normal that is the real pathology here. If we were truly awakened, as empaths and HSPs are said to be, we would be lying awake at night, sick with worry about all the sea creatures currently tangled in nets and clogged with plastic, dying slow, torturous deaths, due to our thoughtlessness and self-centred convenience.


The vegan response to people who think we should eat meat because "we've been doing it for thousands of years" is: 'Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people'. We used to oppress women and keep slaves and treat children,

The thing I wrote about scientists was my own thought, actually (I know you didn’t say “blame science”). I dislike the way scientists are worshipped and viewed as Prometheus-like saviors. We use the “fire” they give us to burn the whole world to ash. As do they.

I agree that blame isn’t helpful. It doesn’t even make sense, actually. If you’re raised by destructive people in a destructive society that teaches you to be destructive, then that’s what you’ll become as well. Neuroscience has pretty much shown that free will is a myth. And then of course there’s deindividuation—we lose self-awareness in groups and instinctively do/think/feel what the group does/thinks/feels. I’ve met very few people who are willing (able?) to do what’s right simply because it’s right. People generally aren’t moved by rational or ethical arguments. And we don’t change unless we’re forced to or unless the status quo changes. So, unless people have no choice but to change (related to either their own death or loss of freedom or comfort) OR unless all of the things you mentioned (veganism, doing away with single-use containers, etc.) are practiced by the majority of their peers (deindividuation), then people won’t change. So, blame is pointless.

You wrote: “How wonderful is science that we can call emergency services if we are ill in the middle of the night or have an accident, and that it's identified treatments for certain genetic disorders.” Yes, those things are wonderful,...but they also have caused great destruction. Injury and disease play an important role in ecosystems. Among other things, they aid in preventing overpopulation. So if scientists find ways to heal injuries and cure disease, then we have to consider the ecological impact of this and modify our behavior (e.g. voluntarily keep the birth rate under control). We haven’t. Hence, massive overpopulation and its detrimental consequences.

I personally think that scientists are the most dangerous people alive. But anyway, the other mistake we make is thinking that there has to be a solution for humans. Why does there have to be? Extinction is the answer to the homo sapien problem. We are a plague. Sooner or later we’ll destroy ourselves (I’m hoping for sooner) and then perhaps the environment can begin healing itself (will take millions of years) and the animals can be free again. (I’ve been vegan for ten years, by the way.)

 

[DuckRabbit]

The thing I wrote about scientists was my own thought, actually (I know you didn’t say “blame science”). I dislike the way scientists are worshipped and viewed as Prometheus-like saviors. We use the “fire” they give us to burn the whole world to ash. As do they.

I agree that blame isn’t helpful. It doesn’t even make sense, actually. If you’re raised by destructive people in a destructive society that teaches you to be destructive, then that’s what you’ll become as well. Neuroscience has pretty much shown that free will is a myth. And then of course there’s deindividuation—we lose self-awareness in groups and instinctively do/think/feel what the group does/thinks/feels. I’ve met very few people who are willing (able?) to do what’s right simply because it’s right. People generally aren’t moved by rational or ethical arguments. And we don’t change unless we’re forced to or unless the status quo changes. So, unless people have no choice but to change (related to either their own death or loss of freedom or comfort) OR unless all of the things you mentioned (veganism, doing away with single-use containers, etc.) are practiced by the majority of their peers (deindividuation), then people won’t change. So, blame is pointless.

You wrote: “How wonderful is science that we can call emergency services if we are ill in the middle of the night or have an accident, and that it's identified treatments for certain genetic disorders.” Yes, those things are wonderful,...but they also have caused great destruction. Injury and disease play an important role in ecosystems. Among other things, they aid in preventing overpopulation. So if scientists find ways to heal injuries and cure disease, then we have to consider the ecological impact of this and modify our behavior (e.g. voluntarily keep the birth rate under control). We haven’t. Hence, massive overpopulation and its detrimental consequences.

I personally think that scientists are the most dangerous people alive. But anyway, the other mistake we make is thinking that there has to be a solution for humans. Why does there have to be? Extinction is the answer to the homo sapien problem. We are a plague. Sooner or later we’ll destroy ourselves (I’m hoping for sooner) and then perhaps the environment can begin healing itself (will take millions of years) and the animals can be free again. (I’ve been vegan for ten years, by the way.)

I agree with your pessimism towards trying to get people to change their behaviour. Warnings, reasoning, pointing out self-interest, evidence and even emotional images, fall on deaf ears/eyes. Linking behaviours to social norms might be slightly more effective e.g., "everyone else is planting trees"/ "no one else eats meat on a daily basis anymore" - since humans are such herd animals (no disrespect to animals). But the only really effective tool for raising consciousness is suffering. However, I fear it's the natural world, animals and poor people who will suffer first, long before the privations reach the rest of us. They are at the frontline of survival, and they don't deserve that.

Perhaps your pessimism is right too about allowing this rapacious, greedy, willfully selfish, fear-driven species known as humans to die out. As you say, the quicker humans self-destruct, the quicker nature can repair itself, free of the human plague.

Good to know you've been vegan for 10 years - that you're assuming your share of consciousness-raising. You've broken through the loop of "it's what we do/ it's what's always been done/ my father and grandfather did it so it must be right/ it's how we're built" thinking. Thanks for raising the vibration of this thread!

Something I don't understand: how I can feel such aversion towards the human species ('mankind'), but feel such warmth and empathy towards the people I actually encounter in life, through work etc. I guess negative behaviours attract more attention than positive, and it takes more effort to find or recognise the sensitive people doing excellent things to reverse our unconscious patterns and help the planet, often in anonymity. The many animal and nature threads on this forum are a great source of comfort, suggesting that sensitive people are more numerous than one supposes.

 

[Wolfnox]

Neuroscience has pretty much shown that free will is a myth.

Yeah not buying that.

 

[Wolfnox]

So one question. All this talk about climate change and demands to change. What happens if mankind does all your talking about and it happens anyway?

 

[Kalinychta]

I agree with your pessimism towards trying to get people to change their behaviour. Warnings, reasoning, pointing out self-interest, evidence and even emotional images, fall on deaf ears/eyes. Linking behaviours to social norms might be slightly more effective e.g., "everyone else is planting trees"/ "no one else eats meat on a daily basis anymore" - since humans are such herd animals (no disrespect to animals). But the only really effective tool for raising consciousness is suffering. However, I fear it's the natural world, animals and poor people who will suffer first, long before the privations reach the rest of us. They are at the frontline of survival, and they don't deserve that.

Perhaps your pessimism is right too about allowing this rapacious, greedy, willfully selfish, fear-driven species known as humans to die out. As you say, the quicker humans self-destruct, the quicker nature can repair itself, free of the human plague.

Good to know you've been vegan for 10 years - that you're assuming your share of consciousness-raising. You've broken through the loop of "it's what we do/ it's what's always been done/ my father and grandfather did it so it must be right/ it's how we're built" thinking. Thanks for raising the vibration of this thread!

Something I don't understand: how I can feel such aversion towards the human species ('mankind'), but feel such warmth and empathy towards the people I actually encounter in life, through work etc. I guess negative behaviours attract more attention than positive, and it takes more effort to find or recognise the sensitive people doing excellent things to reverse our unconscious patterns and help the planet, often in anonymity. The many animal and nature threads on this forum are a great source of comfort, suggesting that sensitive people are more numerous than one supposes.

I think that’s why PETA and many environmental organizations use celebrities to spread their message. If Natalie Portman is vegan, then it will be seen as cool, whereas rational arguments explaining why she’s vegan aren’t important to people. Natalie is cool and famous, therefore veganism is cool.

I consider myself a realist, not a pessimist. Pessimism is as irrational as optimism. I hope humans change, but evidence points in the opposite direction.

I feel empathy/compassion for people, too. We have the capacity to be good. We’re just so controlled and brainwashed. And the norm is to not care.

Re: Greta, though: tons of autistic people have a much larger capacity for empathy and compassion, which is why you find so many of us involved in justice movements. Greta is wonderful.

 

[Kalinychta]

Yeah not buying that.

Why? Look at the research. It’s there.

So one question. All this talk about climate change and demands to change. What happens if mankind does all your talking about and it happens anyway?

Isn’t this like saying that a serial killer may as well keep killing, because he may very well be caught for past killings, so why should’t he keep doing what he likes?

 

[Autistamatic]

@Wolf Prince "What happens if mankind does all your talking about and it happens anyway?"

The situation we are at with climate change now is similar to the situation we had with smoking related disease in the 60s, 70s & 80s. 99% of relevant scientists said smoking caused lung & heart disease, but tobacco companies, the wealthy people who had shares in them and the governments that taxed them clung on to the 1% of doubt for dear life. Now we know without any doubt whatsoever that the link exists. Arguably, if it weren't for the Tobacco Master Settlement agreed in the US in 1998 we'd still be in that position now.

Climate change would happen naturally without human intervention, but not right now, not at the pace it is happening, and with a much better speed of recovery. Earth's climate changed drastically due to the sequestration of carbon that formed the oil fields & the coal fields - the fossils fuels we burn now. Our climate cooled to a temperature suitable for complex multi-cellular land based life such as us. We've been releasing it back into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. We didn't know the damage we were doing even 50 years ago, but now we do. Just the same as we were with smoking before.

The UK could generate all it's electricity using wind & wave power - including that needed to power all our millions of cars if they were electric. The US can do the same with Solar factored in as well. Most of the world can generate power cleanly if there is the social & political will to do so. The trouble is - the fuel is free of charge so no-one can profit by it's extraction & sale so a huge proportion of the 1% will lose out on their easy money. No wonder they're so desperate to cleave to that 1% of doubt.

If they're right and we're wrong? Well at least we'll have cleaner air and less pollution, so asthma rates will reduce, heart & lung disease rates will fall (air pollution is the second highest cause of both after smoking). less acid erosion from the rain, less smog, cleaner buildings... So if we're wrong we'll just have a big win as opposed to saving the future of our planet.

 

[Wolfnox]

@Wolf Prince "What happens if mankind does all your talking about and it happens anyway?"

The situation we are at with climate change now is similar to the situation we had with smoking related disease in the 60s, 70s & 80s. 99% of relevant scientists said smoking caused lung & heart disease, but tobacco companies, the wealthy people who had shares in them and the governments that taxed them clung on to the 1% of doubt for dear life. Now we know without any doubt whatsoever that the link exists. Arguably, if it weren't for the Tobacco Master Settlement agreed in the US in 1998 we'd still be in that position now.

Climate change would happen naturally without human intervention, but not right now, not at the pace it is happening, and with a much better speed of recovery. Earth's climate changed drastically due to the sequestration of carbon that formed the oil fields & the coal fields - the fossils fuels we burn now. Our climate cooled to a temperature suitable for complex multi-cellular land based life such as us. We've been releasing it back into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. We didn't know the damage we were doing even 50 years ago, but now we do. Just the same as we were with smoking before.

The UK could generate all it's electricity using wind & wave power - including that needed to power all our millions of cars if they were electric. The US can do the same with Solar factored in as well. Most of the world can generate power cleanly if there is the social & political will to do so. The trouble is - the fuel is free of charge so no-one can profit by it's extraction & sale so a huge proportion of the 1% will lose out on their easy money. No wonder they're so desperate to cleave to that 1% of doubt.

If they're right and we're wrong? Well at least we'll have cleaner air and less pollution, so asthma rates will reduce, heart & lung disease rates will fall (air pollution is the second highest cause of both after smoking). less acid erosion from the rain, less smog, cleaner buildings... So if we're wrong we'll just have a big win as opposed to saving the future of our planet.

Not against a cleaner environment. But just to ask. How truthful is the data on climate change? Given the amount of politics involved. Is there a truly unbiased source trustworthy enough to believe?