I like the perspective offered here but I don't really think the author's perspective on the "leftward end of the climate activist movement" comports with my own experience. Most people I know that I'd bucket as such are eating ~vegan, driving less, stretching the lifespan of their built-to-break consumer goods and (this is the real litmus test in my opinion for upwardly mobile techies) seriously limiting when and why they fly.
Or maybe he's talking about "climate envoy" John Kerry and his private jet. At any rate I hope he meets some climate activists that he likes someday because this is a valuable addition to their conversation and a good antidote to some of the worst doom-and-gloom tendencies in those circles.
Yeah, the random straw-man divergence in the middle of the article was a bit off putting.
I like framing climate change in a further reaching time context, but if anything I think the author has reached too far. The point I took away was something like “it’s all going to happen anyway, and we’ll all be dead, so why bother”.
I think the sweet spot of forward-thinking is somewhere between next financial year and the next geological epoch; I propose around 5 generations (150 years?).
I think if we spent more time imagining and talking about the world our grandchildren’s grandchildren will inherit, it’s close enough to feel a personal connection, and far enough away we can meaningfully direct our destiny.
Comments
I like the perspective offered here but I don't really think the author's perspective on the "leftward end of the climate activist movement" comports with my own experience. Most people I know that I'd bucket as such are eating ~vegan, driving less, stretching the lifespan of their built-to-break consumer goods and (this is the real litmus test in my opinion for upwardly mobile techies) seriously limiting when and why they fly.
Or maybe he's talking about "climate envoy" John Kerry and his private jet. At any rate I hope he meets some climate activists that he likes someday because this is a valuable addition to their conversation and a good antidote to some of the worst doom-and-gloom tendencies in those circles.
Yeah, the random straw-man divergence in the middle of the article was a bit off putting.
I like framing climate change in a further reaching time context, but if anything I think the author has reached too far. The point I took away was something like “it’s all going to happen anyway, and we’ll all be dead, so why bother”.
I think the sweet spot of forward-thinking is somewhere between next financial year and the next geological epoch; I propose around 5 generations (150 years?).
I think if we spent more time imagining and talking about the world our grandchildren’s grandchildren will inherit, it’s close enough to feel a personal connection, and far enough away we can meaningfully direct our destiny.