Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
These lawsuits may not sound like much on their own, especially
given the scope of the injuries that need healing. But start looking
for it, and we can find examples of this struggle in progress all
around – and the question of which side will prevail (however
imperfectly) is very open.
  

    
"Reality bats last" is only a slight improvement as handwaving goes.
It's a gesture towards making a prediction without actually doing
it. Fill it in from context. Similar to "I will be proven right in
the end."
  

    
I agree with 298. See 254.

I also agree with 300. Thanks Emily, and I hope your father can be
kept comfortable until his time comes. I like hearing about people
actually addressing the Big Problem. It is the most pressing matter
requiring our collective attention. Wars contribute to the
problem(and distract from addressing it), but they do end, and the
need to address the eco crisis won't.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go
away." - PKD

Dismissing the validity of the science around climate change as hand
waving, simply because we don't want to clutter these posts with
cites from the last 40+ years is a tactic. It's not an assertion.
Exxon knew this shit in the 70s, and kept it to themselves. The
facts aren't in dispute, only what to do and when.
  

    
Dismissing the rhetoric around climate change is not the same thing
as dismissing the science.
  

    
The science of atmospheric warming can be dated back to Antony van
Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723)
  

    
Thunberg's message is that her audience all understand the science
of global warming, they know what needs to be done and when it needs
to be done, and they know that they're not doing it. She is calling
the question. That's not hand-waving.
  

    
Nature bats last.
  

    
An example of her foolish hand waving, and hyperbolic rhetoric.

<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U72xkMz6Pxk>
  

    
I don't object to preaching to the choir due to being from a
different church. I'm on the same side. But when people use stale,
generic slogans in a conversation as if they're supposed to be
persuasive, I don't feel like saying "amen" and it's hard to resist
the impulse to poke at them. If I wanted to convince a skeptic of
anything in particular related to climate change, I wouldn't use
them. There's no learning going on and nothing to be curious about.
We might as well share memes, since at least they can be funny.
  

    
I find this conflict rather bizarre. I don't know very much about
Thunberg and have nothing against her. But why is anyone supposed to
find an argument more compelling because a young celebrity said it
very sincerely? I'm sorry I inadvertently insulted your saint, that
wasn't my intention.
  

    
The point is that she's twenty, has an excellent understanding of
the crisis, and doesn't give fuck one about whether anyone is made
uncomfortable by having to hear it. "I want you to panic". She
doesn't say that gratuitously. She means it. 

This SOTW exercise dwelled on lots of things that are interesting,
but will become more and more extraneous when the economy and the
environment completely collapse because we didn't overthrow the
leeches who insist on constant economic growth as the only pertinent
model. Hoping we'll pull it out of the nose dive dive with some
elusive tech solution is a deadly delusion. We need less tech(which
equals more polluting mining and manufacturing), and we need to stop
selling consumerism. 

The belief that how we live now is okay is a delusion. The necessary
shift in values and focus is even fought against in this forum. The
house is on fire. No time to talk about who should drop whatever
they're doing and work to save the biosphere. It's not preaching to
the choir, it's rallying the troops. It is apparently necessary.
  

    
I can't imagine how you define her as a 'celebrity'.
  

    
When she was 15 she hacked the global media with a piece of
cardboard and a Sharpie. She brought intensity and clarity to the
discourse, and eclipsed the blather from the monied interests with
clear, simply stated truths. She is doing something about the
biggest problem the world faces, which is more than the vast
majority of adults can claim. 

She could make a ton of money if she wanted to, but instead denies
herself the luxuries that might afford. She is, in fact, pretty much
beyond reproach. 

Waving off the concerns she expresses as being less crucial than
she's making them out to be is a mistake. The climate/biosphere
crisis is the most pressing matter facing humankind. Everything else
is tertiary at best.
  

    
By 'celebrity' I mean someone who is famous. I didn't mean to
discuss her and regret my part in making the conversation about her.
  

    
Clearly some of us here are feeling the stress of climate collapse
more than others, and since I’m in that camp, I am so grateful that
anyone is doing anything, and therefore I adore Greta Thunberg
  

    
Moi aussi.
  

    

maybe i don't adore her, but i'm glad she's rallying the troops. i can't
even rally myself and my own family -- to magically find, like, and live an
entirely new lifestyle. funny how difficult that can be.
  

    
Because so much of it is structural not simply personal. 
  

    
Calling us the troops is sort of fitting. The effort must be akin to
a "wartime footing", All Hands On Deck and that sort of thing.
  

    
recall jimmy carter evoking william james, and the moral equivalent
of war?
  

    
MEOW!
  

    
Kids need role models, someone who can state a specific thing that
will help, not just “do something.”  She is a celebrity because
social media makes young girls celebrities to be picked apart.
Sharpies aren’t good for the environment either.  And kids have been
skipping school because it’s bullshit since forever.  The scientists
with all the evidence did go to school, and did climb through the
established ranks.  Are we doing a full platonian full circle, where
we say science isn’t worth all the plastic waste and manufacturing?
If it is a war on tech, is this conference the enemy?

Only saying this because it has already been established that I say
things that are not true and also worrisome.
  

    
Is it too terrible to add that I too don’t get paid to want to live
in a world where all signs don’t point to death and would like to be
a hero for it.

I don’t think Greta wanted to be a celebrity.  I think she wanted to
grow up without being bombarded with info that the world was ending.
That’s the problem with social media. Nobody gets what they want.
  

    
There once was a girl who dreamed of being an inspirational artist,
who found the whole world was inspiring and one big beautiful
artwork and then everyone with money told her to stop or fuck off.
https://youtu.be/AR8-zt4Yt8A

The algorithms and coorporations pick and choose who think about and
who you will die for.  She wants us to panic because that is how she
feels when schools serve no purpose but to inspire panic, though
everyone should know you learn 20 times faster through play.  And
you can’t even invent without waste, yet everyone with financial
sway gets to argue about whose new car is more efficient.  More
efficient at driving us crazy am I right?
  

    
Again just putting in my two cents because it’s been established
that I am full of shit.  That is the state of the world. Everyone’s
a fair game celebrity to be eaten alive. The ones in the shadows
thrive on it.  Though it’s hard to put this forward as any
fathomable kind of plan, it also wouldn’t surprise anyone.  In fact,
they are praying for a big reveal.