Of course actions speak louder than words, but very few people know how to act in the interest of the common good effectively - I'd argue even fewer know how to share their methods and drive, while also being capable of reaching and inspiring others to find their own answers.

We need to have conversations about effective action organically, many times over, instead of being led like the donkey in the carrot and stick metaphor when it comes to facing and solving the problems we face as a society, species, and world.

I strongly disagree.

In a lot of ”very complex” issues, the answers are really simple, and we all know fully well how to solve them.

This is particularly true of the large existential problems we are facing. With climate change, for instance, we have known the solution for a long time: stop burning fossil fuels.

What to do about it has been clear, straightforward and simple all along, but not easy – it would have taken sacrifice to achieve it. We’d have to live more simply, do away with consumerism and have to put things on hold while we find sustainable ways to do them. And we probably would have had to take enormous risks to our own lives, to stop those that wouldn’t aggressively cut down on fossil fuels voluntarily. Without any guarantees of success.

Even transitioning to a solar punk utopia would have been hard, including for those on board from the start.

All while the alternative to the solution is to to have long warm showers at will, enough cheap food that we can get really fat and still throw half of it away, intercontinental air travel that costs less than a bus pass, and so on.

It’s not because we have talked too little or that the discourse hasn’t been good enough that we can’t seem to solve it – our most brilliant minds have talked endlessly for a generation about climate change and how to address it. It’s simply because quitting our fossil fuels addiction is a bitter fucking pill to swallow. And pointless if you do it alone.

The same goes for the ”slow” slide into fascism all over the West, a.k.a. the steady concentration of wealth in the hands of dumber and dumber financial elites. (Not that it’s a separate issue from climate change.)

If you want to beat it, whether peacefully or not, you eventually have to accept that your next meal won’t be guaranteed and that, you might get beaten, arrested or even killed – hungry, tired and cold.

As our American friends have showed us, on this matter, the stakes of disruptive protests are not very appealing – it’s better to continue going to the office, get that paycheck that keeps the lights on, holds off the bank from taking your home and lets the fridge stay full, even if that means paying taxes to and serving those you protest in the weekends and in social media posts.

Tackling these issues does not require exceptional individuals, but a lot of ordinary ones working together, accepting that it’s probably gonna suck really bad. Even so, there is already an abundance of extraordinary people out there, notably Greta Thunberg (of this thread fame).

And yes, it does also take talk to bring those people together, but that talk won’t get you around the hard parts.

First - I must thank you for responding, and I do think we agree a bit more than you think, and I respect your viewpoint.

Collective action is needed to face, address, and solve our problems - especially climate change. It needs to manifest imminently. The solutions to our problems are usually simple, as you suggest, but translating those solutions into physical reality requires collaboration and coherence. We simply aren't meaningfully collaborating in ways that change our collective trajectory, nor are we coherent.

Many believe voting is enough, many argue to me that organizing around established political parties will eventually change them for the better (translating to real change at some point), and many believe that change or progressive policy isn't popular enough to merit consideration. These viewpoints are common in political spaces, and they show me that people don't understand the dire urgency of our collective situation - even if they are politically active. This isn't just about the rise of fascism and individuals like Trump - it's about our fresh water, it's about our agriculture and ability to grow food and eat, it's about whether or not we are able to be comfortable broadly (or even live at all on an increasingly inhospitable planet).

I believe that simply demanding change or simply voting every few years, in the absence of a larger movement, isn't enough. Neither is online discourse enough, nor is local action and collaboration enough.

Every action and person plays a role, but I feel it is critical for more people to understand who currently wields the power to shape our societies, and the radical change that is needed to take back our collective power. One expert or leader isn't going to save us. Even a wave of new, progressive leaders or experts rising to prominence won't be able to save us. Most people think they can still ignore the elephant in the room - out of control capitalism and broken economies - that are 100% beyond reform. We need a clean slate. People are about a half of a century or so too late to seriously advocate for reform, and many don't realize this simple fact - myself included from time to time.

As you loosely suggest, collective action requires us to face uncomfortable truths, and I feel it is important for others to understand that our comfort has been weaponized against us, so the few can profit and lord over us.

Our societies have been shaped around unhealthy and unsustainable systems to enable our comfort; but where we mostly differ is my belief that there are already many solutions all around us, just waiting to be watered and allowed to grow to enable our comfort. The switch just needs flipped, but first people need to realize the switch is even there. And I believe it does take some level of discourse to come to those understandings, despite the many decades that we've already had to discuss these issues. I'm not saying we need to wait for anything, but more productive discourse and greater collaboration will help make these solutions more obvious and clear for the majority of people, myself included.

I don't think many billions need to die for change to manifest, I don't feel like change overshadowed by violence (organized or otherwise) is desirable to wish for or is necessary, and I don't think just talking about what options we have is enough.

There has to be a way forward that doesn't result in total chaos and destruction, and there has to be a way forward beyond accepting that only capitalism and fossil fuels can grant us comfort. It is important to realize that fossil fuel use is an addiction, but I don't believe the comfort we are used to is unsustainable if we put our heads and hands together.

Maybe people do need to become uncomfortable to also come to some of the realizations we generally have, but I don't want to believe that is necessary.

Thank you for this thought through response. I've been meaning to get back to it sooner, but I have been very tired after work and not feeling I have the bandwith the matter deserves. I'm afraid this might not be the evening either, but I found it rude to not respond at all.

One caveat I'd like to enter into the wider discussion is that the distinction between "acting" and "talking" is often more tenuous than either of us have acknowledged thus far.

Either way, to the point where you say we differ most, i.e. "but first people need to realize the switch is even there". From my perspective, what I fail to understand is when you would consider that condition met. Should action be deferred until there's a perfect consensus or at what point do you envision that enough people have come to that realization? Do you consider people embracing ideas like this to be likely to happen, considering real world conditions? Both genuine questions, not rhetorical.

I too am a believer that it is perfectly possible for humans to live good lives outside of the (selectively available) exesses of the fossil fuel paradigm. But I also think it's evident that paradigm will only come to an end through either a decisive and global shift of our collective lifestyles and economies or through the looming risk of societal collapse. At this rate, my frustration is that collapse will come knocking before we're done talking. I'm not as optimistic as you, that we can figure it out, let cooler heads prevail and do things perfectly and achieve a smooth transition. I think it's worth considering that we might stand to lose a lot, whether we commit to change or not; one thing that sometimes get glossed over about fossil fues is that they're damn near magical in terms of what they have enabled us to do.

Maybe we mostly differ in outlook, not predominantly in what we hope for. Because I sure do hope your more optimistic takes prove right.

My apologies for the jumbled and poorly proof-read stream of concioussness, I really need to go to sleep now.

Thanks for responding - I've likely been at a similar level of exhaustion recently. Please also forgive my sloppy response to you the other day and more so this one, where I am pretty ill currently. Take all the time you want to read/respond at your leisure if you desire/if we chat in the future. I'd be happy to see a response in my inbox even 6 months down the line, but honestly, I'm just tickled that anybody responds to me at all after the years of censoring and burying I have experienced over on reddit and other websites. It's been really cool here on the fediverse like that for me and I've grown a lot.

You're absolutely right that fossil fuels are magical. It seems impossible to imagine a world that is even a little bit as advanced as it is now without their heavy use, but we've absolutely grown too accustomed.

It's definitely not for a lack of reporting that the knowledge of the effects of climate change shouldn't be more widespread. I'd like to say that plenty of discourse has absolutely been had on this subject, but mostly in spaces where the conclusions people come to are downright grim and disabling, or firmly rooted in reforming the current system and telling individuals that they need to personally change, instead of shifting focus to the changes we can be making societally. On the flip side (where people are ignorant), average people are generally convinced that everything is fine. The right specifically think it's just the woke liberals trying to waste money on environmental programs led by fake science, likely to make themselves rich. With the making themselves rich part likely being a semi-valid point, and there broadly being a reproducibility crisis in some areas of science being fair to feel and point out as well.

Politically speaking, I predict a failure of the right - at least here in America. The Democrats are essentially in a state of failure already. I can't speak to Europe at all, but I would really hope that Europe gets its shit together with all that's going on. Predicting the fall of MAGA seems delusional even to me at times, but I have to imagine that the house of cards just needs a little wind. Every single thing that Trump/the administration does, it reveals a playbook for anyone curious enough to ask why. I think the reasons to ask that simple question will increase for most people as this continues. And I think ultimately, my optimism comes down to foreseeing the failure/rejection of the USD and a major failure of our tech/AI companies (the latter of which is also starting to become apparent for others).

Regardless of my predictions of the longevity of MAGA and a failure of the USD - are the big corporations, the rich, and those aware of the reality of our systems prepared to devolve into a reality even worse than Hunger Games? That question circles around in my head, and I think those with the most power to shape or influence society in the present order would be unable to manifest a world even that good for themselves. In their dreams, maybe. I think it would be a lot more boring and undesirable for them, best case scenario.

I'm not predicting a world where anything goes smoothly - where reform happens through the current systems or new systems that even remotely mirror the old. I think it's going to be very awkward and messy, at times, as the reality sinks in. I see and feel a whole lot of emotion building up in people, more than I ever have, and I believe the release of this emotion will be palpable.

Regardless of my predictions and hope for Europe to return to sanity, I guess I just want to believe in a world where people aren't so helpless and obedient to the current greedy and shortsighted world order.

If alternative energy sources became more widespread and cheap for regular people to purchase and install, whether through a breakthrough or other miracle that defies policy, it's very likely indicative at that point that our trajectory would be greatly improved. Here in the US, there is a lot of pressure put on our current grid, and I could see this all happening in reaction to high energy costs, stagnating wages, mass layoffs, etc. Obviously household energy use being switched over to partially decentralized green energy e.g. cheap, more efficient solar panels (with sodium-ion batteries possibly) is only one piece of the puzzle to solve.

I tried to speak to your questions in long-form, but here are quick, direct responses:

Should action be deferred until there’s a perfect consensus

Nope, but it would help to see our options laid out for more people to judge what have the most merit. More eyes are needed, but really people need to be more involved in shaping their lives and communities – instead of relying on external authorities.

or at what point do you envision that enough people have come to that realization?

I feel the future will always be more chaotic in practice than anybody can predict. I think focus will be very narrow until the reality widely sinks in for average people living their lives - until people are forced to adapt, likely in reaction to imminent shortages or projected shortages.

Do you consider people embracing ideas like this to be likely to happen, considering real world conditions?

If the status quo broadly continues, even on life support, it seems very unlikely.

I thought leena was flirting with prole as well.

If people can have insane relationships with LLMs, why can't we have our psychopathic relationships in our comment section /s

By the way, I like how you put spaces after and not before commas. Very hot.

Definitely the case, sorry for not being more clear

I'm hoping they can avoid the terror and death that Israel is wreaking on so many civilians and journalists