[UkrainianJew]

Like it or not, the mainstream liberal arts education has devolved into a religion of its own. For instance, we treat climate change not as an engineering problem worth solving (how many "climate studies" prepare actual engineers for building nuclear power plants?), but as a source of irreparable guilt used to push back on ambition and launch personal attacks on people that do not agree with this viewpoint. This is textbook original sin straight from the medieval times. There are many other examples. Trying to call it out publicly very quickly gets you labeled with one of the modern-days equivalents of a heretic, and anyone trying to defend you will be considered a heretic by association.

There are many, many people who are not happy with the status quo, and they are looking for others who share their opinion. And since the media and the social networks are actively working on deciding who's opinion gets amplified, and who gets memory-holed, the people disagreeing with the mainstream agenda will have no choice but to join existing opposing organizations and adopt some of their views, even if they don't fully agree with them.

That's polarization of the society happening in front of our eyes.

[watwut]

There is no shortage of engineers for nuclear plants. However, it is engineering, physics, programming or other specialization. And it requires exactly that specialization.

Climate change is something else and there is zero reason for itself to try to overtake actual quality engineering, physics etc programs that existed for years.

[crabmusket]

> the people disagreeing with the mainstream agenda will have no choice but to join existing opposing organizations and adopt some of their views, even if they don't fully agree with them

This confuses me a bit. For convenience, can we refer to the "mainstream" climate-change-as-religion group as M, the dissenters as D, and the opposition as O.

If we're taking the single issue of how climate change is presented, why would D go and side with O despite not fully agreeing with them, instead of M who they don't fully agree with?

Concretely, it seems to me that O are likely to not prioritise climate change in any way. Are D willing to give up climate change action for other principles? Why should D not join M and push for change, or be the faction that is more welcoming of other "heretics"?

[FredPret]

I've been thinking of this and Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality in recent months.

He describes how Christian + Jewish morality came about, and what might happen as religion fades away. I think you're hitting the nail on the head. Same same but different.

[Teever]

> For instance, we treat climate change not as an engineering problem worth solving (how many "climate studies" prepare actual engineers for building nuclear power plants?), but as a source of irreparable guilt used to push back on ambition and launch personal attacks on people that do not agree with this viewpoint.

But climate change is largely a social problem at this stage, not a technical problem. We can't even begin to solve the technical issues surrounding it until we get stakeholders on board with the plan to solve it. That isn't possible because people deny that it exists and/or actively fund denial in others.