Climate as a Collective Action ProblemSep 30, 2022
With floods and fires getting more frequent and intense, and the summer just ended shattering heat records around the globe, we clearly need to do something—collectively—about climate change.
Catastrophic storms, floods, droughts, and fires are increasing in frequency all over the globe, and the polar ice caps are melting twice as fast as initially predicted. Despite this, we struggle to take meaningful action that could avert—or at least mitigate—the impending climate disaster. So why is it so hard for people to coordinate on doing the right thing, when the threat is so urgent? Is it a failure of human rationality, a lack of will, or something else? And how do we overcome the obstacles we face and take collective action that will make a real difference? Josh and Ray collect their thoughts with Kieran Setiya from MIT, author of Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way.
Can individual actions solve the climate crisis?
Is it enough to get solar panels and bike to work?
What will it take for governments to tackle climate change?
Friday, September 2, 2022 -- 6:38 AMThe larger the human
The larger the human population becomes, the harder it is to feel represented/heard. Prior mechanisms (first past the post/politics) become useless and/or counterproductive. Newer forms of representation threaten more complexity. Thus, older generations become disenfranchised when their old ways are forced to change. People prefer/trust the simple over the complex.
Sunday, September 4, 2022 -- 1:39 PMBut isn't there a simple
But isn't there a simple answer to the question of how to respond to climate change, in addition to many complex ones? The simple answer is to eliminate combustion of hydrocarbon materials. In my view what to do is not in question, but how the desirable result is achieved. I think the complexity of the means to that end has been exaggerated. A simple small alteration in the relation of product-surplus distribution to voluntary labor, namely of mutual independence, could conceivably do the trick, since production levels could then be determined by labor itself, precluding grounds for non-allocated surplus, thereby reducing resource needs commensurate with appreciable credibility of renewables-transition processes.
Harold G. Neuman
Sunday, September 25, 2022 -- 8:07 AMWhen I read about a professor
When I read about a professor of philosophy from MIT, I snicker a little. Sure, I know there are 'philosophies' of math; physics; science and so on. And, I suppose these are all legitimate. However, considering where we are, on a fictitious scale of survivability, they are no more efficacious than any other philosophic genre. Our continuing worry over climate and depletion of resources is clear and convincing evidence, seems to me. Philosophy is too busy identifying new fields of study, many of those hopelessly cross-disciplinary, too take active interest in solving older problems....(more,later).
Sunday, September 25, 2022 -- 4:42 PMWhat about climatology? Does
What about climatology? Does that just stick with the quantitative science, or is there a not-especially-efficacious philosophy that goes along with that too? Is the study improved by having some connection to philosophy, or impeded? This stands in connection with a broader question about whether or not science still needs philosophy at all. If climate science doesn't borrow anything from philosophy, such as an epistemic critique of its axiomatic assumptions, is it less likely to succeed in practical application?