jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00368504231201372

Interesting paper. It correctly identifies the source of our problems: behavioral patterns, culture and power structures glorifying consumption and pronatalism. Authors recognize that targeting only symptoms of (like ) with incremental technological interventions is a losing strategy.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@pvonhellermannn I know you've lately been thinking about explanations for the lack of climate action. This may offer an interesting perspective.

fluffykittycat,
@fluffykittycat@furry.engineer avatar

@jackofalltrades @pvonhellermannn pretty bad takes in this paper. for one, overpopulation isn't an issue anymore, population peak estimates keep getting revised downward.

pvonhellermannn,
@pvonhellermannn@mastodon.green avatar

@fluffykittycat @jackofalltrades ! Thank you for pointing this out, @fluffykittenspambot.

1/2 😊 aside comment first: i think you joined a conversation yesterday, @jackofalltrades, about whether people should be held accountable for their “likes” and “boosts”, and whether those really reflect your opinions: my biggest downfall here is boosting and liking without reading things properly, whilst rushing round doing something else. In this instance:

pvonhellermannn,
@pvonhellermannn@mastodon.green avatar

@fluffykittycat @jackofalltrades

2/4 I did quickly click on paper, thought, “hmm, behavioural science, not my thing, but who knows, maybe interesting” - but failed to see “pronatalism” even though it was in your toot! That is indeed a bit of bad take/red flag. Do still need to read, but in general, i find political economy the most important for explaining climate delay; for example W Davies’ LRB review of B Christopher’s “The Price is Wrong”. So important.

https://mastodon.green/@pvonhellermannn/112291375085199659

pvonhellermannn,
@pvonhellermannn@mastodon.green avatar

@fluffykittycat @jackofalltrades

3/4 I am, by the way, a (sadly not very active) member of CSSN (climate social science network), all reearchers look at causes of or - a lot of interesting stuff here. Again, mostly about political economy, power structures and climate politics

https://cssn.org/about-us/

pvonhellermannn,
@pvonhellermannn@mastodon.green avatar

@fluffykittycat @jackofalltrades

4/4 Having said this, I am also very interested in psychology work on climate delayism/denial, in particular on suxh as Sally Weintrob - see great overview in this paper, written by Aaron (i did the part on the neoliberal university). And continue to be open to other takes (though not “pronotalism”. But must read).

[Apologies this has turned into a 4-part reply! My heart sometimes sinks when i see this yet i do it myself!]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2023.1237076

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@pvonhellermannn @fluffykittycat

Thank you for a thoughtful reply, Pauline.

The authors of the paper place pronatalism in the context of the political economy and power structures:

"Pronatalism is a set of social and institutional pressures placed on people to have children, often driven by forces such as patriarchy, religion, nationalism, militarism and capitalism."

That's why I thought this to be an interesting perspective on the topic.

It is not the sole focus of the paper though.

1/3

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@pvonhellermannn @fluffykittycat

As I understand it, it is not at all clear if we can feed 8 billion people without fossil fuels. Statistics like these:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-with-and-without-fertilizer

or calculations like these:

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2003-10-02/eating-fossil-fuels/

suggest the answer is no.

If that is correct then reducing population by having less children sounds like the most humane solution. Certainly more humane than famine or war.

2/3

mojala,
@mojala@mastodon.online avatar

@jackofalltrades @pvonhellermannn @fluffykittycat it might be but in the end it will go so that those in power get to decide who gets to have progeny thru nepotism / means testing / money / amount of pigment / religion

pvonhellermannn,
@pvonhellermannn@mastodon.green avatar

@mojala @jackofalltrades @fluffykittycat

Yes! It is pretty telling that Musk himself has 10 children and other tech bros/billionaires also tend to have many (at least one other has 10 himself I think). With all their stuff, it is literally them breeding their own lovely white offspring for the future whilst everyone else can die off.

But will read the piece! Work on palm oil so aware of global food needs etc. Just that, for above reasons, super wary of any overpopulation talk.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

They definitely take a broader view of human history:

"We are arguably in the late boom phase of a one-off boom-bust cycle (...) made possible not only by improving population health but, more importantly, through technologies that use fossil fuels."

This is similar to Tom Murphy's description: https://mas.to/@jackofalltrades/112236169141800179

Interestingly, most people seem unaware that this explosion was made possible not only by improving population health but, more importantly, through technologies that use fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas. Fossil energy is still the dominant means – 81% of primary energy in 2022 – by which humans acquire sufficient food and other resources to grow and maintain the human enterprise.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

As a solution they suggest behavioral manipulation on a mass scale through marketing and media.

The paper stops there though, leaving the political aspect of this suggestion unexplored. This begs the question who would do these things and why. Governments focused on ever growing their influence? Billionaires deriving their power from economic growth? The middle class caught up in the rat race?

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

This is where I feel texts like these always fumble.

Naomi Klein in "This Changes Everything" suggests abolishing capitalism. George Marshall in "Don't Even Think About It" wants us to take inspiration from organized religions.

I guess it would be a bummer to end a book with "so here's the problem, but I don't have any solutions, good luck 😎".

18+ NaturaArtisMagistra,
@NaturaArtisMagistra@mastodon.world avatar

@jackofalltrades

"They reap the benefits of capitalism, only to turn around and criticize it. Capitalism: The worst economic system, except for all the others." -Winston Churchill

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • climate
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • osvaldo12
  • love
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • megavids
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines