[fargle]

> There have always been people resisting the majority decision

if you resist within the law and generous existing freedoms to do that, that's fine. if you feel it requires anything beyond that, you are essentially invoking a call to revolution. so if you'd tear down what we have, imperfect or not, over your single issue, that's exactly what I mean by "more dangerous". consider the substantial risk that we'd end up in an much more inequitable and un-ecologically sound system.

> That you'd write off recognition of an existential threat to humankind's existence as a "tantrum" is telling

I appreciate you mean "telling" as a complement. it also demonstrates nicely what I mean by "tantrum": if I don't agree with you, then I must not have studied the data enough because it's so obvious that your position is right.

> if you're already willing to prioritize billionaire luxuries

I'm willing to prioritize everyone's right to exist and function withing the framework of society. Including billionaires, if they are people too.

> The ones we need to convince are the ones with the actual power

are they? I doubt those in the actual power are going to be convinced by you sitting in front of their private jets or really anything else.

who you need to convince is super-majority of the rest of society. this kind of behavior and dismissiveness is spectacularly inept at convincing, which is why it hasn't worked to your satisfaction. back to the original problem, making thousands of people wait in traffic, while killing someone in the process is extremely unconvincing.

[yellowapple]

> if you feel it requires anything beyond that, you are essentially invoking a call to revolution.

There's a pretty broad spectrum of civil disobedience between "passive protest" and "overthrow of the current regime" - for example, disrupting the lives of those both largely responsible for the looming existential threat and in possession of the authority to make a meaningful attempt at mitigating further damage.

> if I don't agree with you, then I must not have studied the data enough because it's so obvious that your position is right.

Well yes. If I didn't believe my position to be right, then I wouldn't be arguing it, now would I? And if there wasn't ample evidence of said position being right, then I wouldn't have reason to believe it to be right, now would I?

Again: the stakes here are human extinction. Blaming the people concerned about that risk for being a bit passionate about, you know, not fucking dying is kinda asinine, no?

> are they?

Yes, by virtue of them, you know, being in power. The alternative would be to remove them from power - a.k.a. revolution - but you seem opposed to that so that kinda narrows things down.

[fargle]

> There's a pretty broad spectrum of civil disobedience between

this I agree with. and when you go past innocent civil disobedience and disrupt not just the lives of those who, according to you as judge and jury, are responsible, but other folks, you are into mild forms of eco-terrorism. when someone dies, it's not as mild.

> Well yes.

ok, then I believe the moon is made of green cheese and is inhabited by lizard people. If you don't believe me, you haven't studied the facts enough. Are you convinced? No? I'll call you names then, block traffic and make you late for work. In this whole exchange you're focused on the truth and righteousness of your cause - I'm saying your methods of convincing people are faulty and your idea of how to instigate change is as dangerous as it is ineffectual.

> alternative

you get a majority of regular people together and out vote them out. the people that are in power are there because we (not you or i, but we) let them be. you need to bring the argument to people in a form that is convincing, not spit through your teeth that it is extinction!, damnit!

the reason nobody does anything about big oil is that they are too powerful for a small noisy minority to do anything about. they are not too powerful if everyone believed as strongly as you do. but everybody doesn't.

and stunts and behaviors and extremism are highly unlikely to change that. you're not convincing powerful people to fear you, you aren't convincing regular people to follow you, you aren't convincing thoughtful people to listen. folks that act that way are doing more to harm your cause than help it, regardless of whether it's true or not.

[yellowapple]

> when someone dies, it's not as mild.

When millions (let alone billions) die, people like you pretending that said deaths are acceptable because the people who warned about it and sought to prevent it dared to mildly inconvenience some rich people will not be remembered fondly - assuming anyone's alive to remember you at all.

> then I believe the moon is made of green cheese and is inhabited by lizard people

If there was any evidence for that whatsoever then maybe you'd have something vaguely resembling a point.

> you get a majority of regular people together and out vote them out

Which does not happen when the incumbent rich and powerful control virtually all mass media and strongly influence the pool of candidates for political offices. Said rich and powerful are quite content to manipulate people like you into condemning those who dared to at least try to prevent the untold death and suffering instead of, you know, the very people putting their own wealth and power above humanity's survival. Said rich and powerful are also quite content to limit democratic options to that effect. "Choose between ignoring the problem or paying lipservice to it" is not a reasonable choice.

> and stunts and behaviors and extremism are highly unlikely to change that

Asking nicely hasn't changed that, either.

[fargle]

> When millions (let alone billions) die, people like you pretending that said deaths are acceptable

And I didn't say that it was or pretend it either.

> If there was any evidence for that whatsoever then maybe you'd have something vaguely resembling a point.

I gave you exactly as much evidence as you gave me for a thesis that is approximately as rational: e.g. millions BILLIONS of deaths. There's climate change and there's acting like chicken little.

> Asking nicely hasn't changed that, either.

and that is the epitome of having a tantrum. I didn't get what I wanted by following the rules WHICH WERE UNFAIR so I started lashing out and blathering.

Listen, it's great to be passionate about a worthy cause. But you have to meet people where they are. YOU have to bring the debate to them with facts, not just say "well you're an idiot if you can't see what is plainly...". You can't expect to solve any problem at all with anarchy.

Firstly, you haven't asked nicely, nor either defended the dire urgency of your idea. Secondly, "asking nicely hasn't changed that either". YET. Patience is a thing that is probably foreign to the people slicing tires and chaining themselves to bridges but it's something that you will learn.

[yellowapple]

> And I didn't say that it was or pretend it either.

Your quibbling over the tactics of activists demonstrates rather plainly otherwise.

> I gave you exactly as much evidence as you gave me

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2108146119

> for a thesis that is approximately as rational: e.g. millions BILLIONS of deaths

Those are indeed the stakes.

> There's climate change and there's acting like chicken little.

There's being uninformed and there's being in active denial.

> and that is the epitome of having a tantrum

Says the one playing defense for butthurt millionaires. "I didn't get to take off in my plane because those big meanie hippies blocked the runway which is SO UNFAIR so I called the police to arrest them and haul them away on buses because their lives matter less than my convenience and comfort"

> YOU have to bring the debate to them with facts

The facts are widely available, and are well-understood by most people. They are unfortunately ignored by the tiny minority of people who actually have any capability whatsoever to stop our planet's destruction, and we're all condemned to suffer for it.

> Firstly, you haven't asked nicely

Yes I have, as have plenty of others. It didn't work, because the ones actively contributing to the problem are the ones with a vested interest in ignoring us; their material wealth matters more than human lives.

> Patience is a thing that is probably foreign to the people slicing tires and chaining themselves to bridges

We're already past the point of no return. At this point climate change response is about mitigating further damage, and every second wasted means more damage, more suffering, more death. Climate activists have been extraordinarily patient given the circumstances - and the consequences of hand-wringing over people recognizing a dire situation for what it is is something all of us will learn, the hard way.

Like, if you think climate activists now lack patience, wait until mobs are banging down your door for every last scrap of food and potable water they can find amid global famine. You'll be thinking back fondly on how politely those activists chained themselves to bridges.

[fargle]

you are clearly an irrational narcissist extremist and have absolutely no common sense. to just state "I'm right, there's plenty of facts" is ridiculous. A paper that explores what might happen is not evidence.

Plenty of rational people are working the problem. The paper you linked said: "There is ample evidence that climate change could become catastrophic.". I have no problem with believing it might go that way either. But you're no a climate scientist and you aren't the judge of what is definitely going to happen.

But you seem to think it's drastic enough to justify and defend killing? That's crazy. I'd rather (maybe) starve in 10 years than see a bunch of extremist bullies taking things into their own hands now. It's a breakdown in society, but not due to any crisis but imagined in your own head (likely in future or not, it hasn't happened).

One of us is brainwashed and we won't agree on who. All I can say is that one side has a reasonable code of ethics and one side is basically anarchy and terrorism. Guess what I won't ever accept - not climate change - but thinking that your motives are ever right enough to overrule right and wrong. That's far more dangerous than putin with nukes, 3 degrees C and china. And it's more dangerous sooner.

Now, if you really do believe all of what you said, instead of chaining yourself to a bridge, how about you quit your 1st world job, get rid of your cars, air conditioning, etc. Get rid of your own carbon footprint which is roughly the size of Ethiopia, crawl in a hole, and wait it out. But don't bug the rest of us. If you are right, you'll inherit what's left of the earth. If you're right it's imminent, so it won't take long. I don't tell you what you should believe. I don't defend the rich either but I do defend everyone's right to live within the law and make decisions on their own - you are not the lawfully elected climate czar.

If that means society might be doomed, so be it. Because if we go your route, it's 100% already gone.