[0xbadc0de5]

The trouble with the climate change lobby (aside from the paid /lobbyists/ and entrenched profit motives) is that you can only cry wolf so many times and make so many wildly hyperbolic and/or hypocritical claims before well-intentioned people start to question the whole narrative.

Don't get me wrong - I'd prefer not to find out what sort of negative impact climate change may have. I just think the current messaging isn't doing them any favors.

[buscoquadnary]

So this is not meant as a criticism of climate change or an opposition or anything like that but honestly a lot of the climate change doomsayers seem very similar to me like religious apocalyptics in a lot of ways.

There is a huge impending end of the world catastrophe coming soon because so many people are living their lives wrong, the only way to stop or change that is to make massive personal changes in your life and do everything within your influence to convince everyone you know to change their lives or else the end is nigh!

I mean really that messaging is pretty much the same between fundamentalists of both the religious and climate variety. It often seems as well they are less interested in figuring out actual realistic solutions to these problems than feeling smugly superior because they are "one of the chosen".

Just my 2c.

[jfim]

And what do you propose as an alternative?

We've known about climate change for over thirty years and there's been no real substantive action nor any decline in atmospheric CO2 levels.

[goatlover]

Discuss the actual predictions from mainstream climate science rather than the unlikely doomsday scenarios, like a hothouse Earth. And include the adaptability of humans and the potential of technological solutions. Weigh that against realistic scenarios in a cost/benefit analysis. Proclaiming society is doomed and humanity is going extinct is not only unlikely, it’s chicken little and ends up turning well meaning people off.

[Schiendelman]

We’ve done all of that. Have you looked for it?

[goatlover]

I have seen it, which is why I mention it. So no reason for the sky is falling bullshit doomerism. That accomplishes nothing.

[carapace]

I identify as an environmental apocalyptic. It started when I was a teenager and I realized how destructive we are. It seemed clear to me even then that we were headed for disaster if we didn't learn to live in harmony with Nature.

From that POV let me address the similarities and differences to religious apocalyptics as I see them:

> There is a huge impending end of the world catastrophe coming soon...

That's what it seems like to me, but not because I was raised in a religion that teaches that, but rather because I can see with my own eyes that we are doing things like: washing away topsoil, causing "dead zones" in the ocean with agricultural runoff, poisoning the air in a few different ways (ozone, CFCs, lead, smog, etc.), over-fishing the oceans while filling them with plastic debris, and so on.

It's not the absolute end of the world, life will go on, and probably humans will survive too, but it seems clear to me that our complex global civilization is undermining the ecological foundations we rely on to the point where there is serious risk of a global collapse.

> ...because so many people are living their lives wrong,

Yes, but again, not "sin", just foolishness. And even that foolishness is understandable: until very recently it was fine to pollute because our impact was small compared to the whole of the planet. That's changed.

> the only way to stop or change that is to make massive personal changes in your life

This is a point of divergence from the religious folks. It seems to me as a non-religious person that much of religion is about controlling other people. I don't want to control other people, except to limit (what I see as) the harm they do to the environment.

We don't actually have to change our lifestyles that much to live in ecological harmony, but we do have to avoid waste and pollution. But really that's just common sense, eh? I don't have a dogma, I don't mind if you don't like camping, but I don't want the forest torn down to make shopping malls and parking lots. I don't want to breath poison. We can have nice things without destroying the environment.

> do everything within your influence to convince everyone you know to change their lives or else the end is nigh!

Here the resemblance or analog between religious and environmental apocalyptics is probably the greatest. If you believe (as I do) that there is a great risk and that we need to change some of the things we do to avert it, then yes, you want people to get on board and to spread the word.

> It often seems as well they are less interested in figuring out actual realistic solutions to these problems than feeling smugly superior because they are "one of the chosen".

This is where the difference is greatest I think. I've met a few "holier than thou" folks who are smug about it, but most environmentalists I've met personally are nice people who like Nature and don't want to mess it up. And we're totally interested in figuring out actual realistic solutions to these problems! That's like, the main thing, yeah?

The idea of being "one of the chosen" makes no sense to an environmental apocalyptic: there are no chosen, we're all going to be fucked if the shit hits the fan.

So there it is: environmental apocalypticism resembles religious apocalypticism but differs in that it's largely based on real-life events rather than a received metaphysical worldview. Religions are self-perpetuating, in contrast the goal of the environmental apocalyptic is actually to solve the crisis and, as a side-effect, obviate the apocalypticism itself. Ideally environmental apocalypticism is self-extinguishing.

[Schroedingersat]

There has been no crying wolf. If anything the dangers are being consistently undersold.

Just because someone says 'it will be x bad if you don't do this list of things' then you do three of them and ignore the rest and it's not quite as bad doesn't make them a liar.

[0xbadc0de5]

> There has been no crying wolf.

... In your opinion. Perhaps we could agree on the term "moving of goalposts" instead. A skeptic might ask how the dangers are being undersold and how you know those dangers are legitimate as opposed to inflated claims made by those who earn money through making them. Again, I'm not saying I don't have my concerns - or that I'm not doing more than most to minimize my impact. I just think the doomsayers aren't necessarily entirely correct, without blindspots or without bias. To think otherwise seems naive.