Fallout: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgJZbFAWAAEelSb.png

If you feel that the statement needs to be future proofed, feel free to add "at this time" when you read it.

I think the point still stands with this condition and will for the foreseeable future.

Like the bleeding of horseshoe crabs for LAL it's always reevaluated based on current technology.

If being put out of work could be made to be less of a dire situation for the worker, some of these climate solutions might still be viable.

This article helped me to understand "the game" a little better. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

I've read these articles back and forth and I honestly cannot grasp more than 30% of the ideas. The loser eludes me, the middle layer same..

I'd love to poke in people's head to be sure what are the motives behind their behavior (the main one I assume being a balance of respect/equality and money).

> I'd love to poke in people's head to be sure what are the motives behind their behavior

I suspect you're approaching things too logically. In my experience most people do something then rationalize why they've done that later, if at all. And that's without any perceptive, or memory problems or anything like that, and assumes good intent-- which a lot of people don't have.

I also suspect some people's brains work so differently from my subjective experience that there's effectively no way to understand them.

A very hard lesson for me was "don't try to use logic to understand irrational people."

I now tend to think of people in terms of, "can I predict a response or action by them?" By observation, you can kind of build a set of rules and start hypothesizing about them and update your model when you get more evidence. But you still need to be mindful that different conclusions can be reached with different or conflicting information.

It worked so well on an ex of mine that she thought I was spying on her somehow, because I often had reasoned out things I shouldn't have known. The most terrible example-- that she was cheating on me. I came to this conclusion from a few bits of evidence-- she wasn't really the curious type. Most of the film, music, etc she knew about were from me. And then one day, she started talking in detail about a film I knew she hadn't seen, and she used a word I had never heard her use before.

This lead me to think, "She's having some sort of social interactions that I'm unaware of, and they're probably watching movies together, and if its being kept secret, its probably something bad."

And I was correct.

That's too cold an approach for me

I'd rather try to connect emotionally and see who's responding. I grew up the way you think and I'm tired of it. If someone doesn't like me (or doesn't like me anymore), no problem, then I'll find other people, all I want is honesty.

That said, I've encountered the post rationalizing lying kind just too many times.. :)

I understand your feelings but I'm not saying you should do this with everyone-- just problematic or difficult people.

that's a two-way street

Expect to be wrong when speaking on other people's behalf against their interests.

If you however, do something about it, that counts for something. Not just asking others to do your job for you, without even asking them.

I'd say it's practice

>you should probably leave your job or not take it in the first place

sounds like a decadent rationalization of some kind.

It's possible to walk a line that straddles both approaches.

> why wait for the industrial/capital machine to see the light and change course?

Because you not using pesticide in your garden while 100 square miles around you are getting sprayed on an industrial scale is a nice symbolic action that makes you feel cosy, but nothing more. Similarily personal climate changes are nice, but don't you ever fool yourself that this would even remotely dent the current trend.

The changes we need are not on the scale of "everybody that can should take a bicycle instead of a car" they are on the scale of we need to restructure the whole damn mobility system, the energy sector, industrial sector, logistics on a scale that makes the industrial revolution look like a walk in the park.

This is not something you can do from the roots up starting in your own backyard, this must come as a huge transformative movement carried by many people and aided by governmental and industrial interest, otherwise it is just not going to be enough.

>this must come as a huge transformative movement carried by many people

I believe governmental and industrial interest will follow the example set by these "many people". How do transformative movements start anyhow?

In order to arrive at "the change we need", we have to start somewhere.

We're facing the same general task... just have different ideas about how to approach it.

Wait for it to fall in your lap, or work for it.

Or in a great position to start over from scratch.

Perhaps I missed the sarcasm? Wouldn’t it be a terrible position to start over?

Depends on your perspective I suppose. As I see it, starting over is a opportunity to try again, this time with all the knowledge you lacked the first time around. You may still encounter many of the pitfalls of the first iteration, but this time, you'll have the advantage of experience.