If you ever wanted to read about fake druids vs. environmental activists, now’s your chance.
Not paint, literally orange corn flour that’ll wash off with the first rain. Stop spreading disinformation for big oil pls. Idk why they went for this instead of classical art, but acting like this is some terrible evil crime is exactly what oil companies want you to think, they want you to root against people protesting climate change, no matter how tiny their vandalism is in the grand scheme of things
I can root for people protesting climate change and think this was incredibly idiotic.
The article says it came out of a spray can. So how am I spreading misinformation?
Not misinformation, disinformation. You read the article, yet choose to act like this is comparable to spray paint or something else that won’t immediately wash off. This is like getting indignant bc somebody threw a couple eggs at a great pyramid. It’s stupid and irrelevant to climate change, but sharing articles where the title says they threw acid instead of eggs is just fucking wrong, and serves no purpose besides discrediting climate activism
Edit actually this article says nothing about corn flour, sorry for accusing you of ignoring that. That’s super shady and shitty on the Guardian’s part, a detail that majorly changes how actually harmful this act was
Double edit you’re still acting like they threw actual paint, so nvm my apology. Stop being such a blatant oil shill
They posted the article with the headline completely unchanged. If you wanna be mad at someone, be mad at The Guardian.
I am for sure, all the articles I’ve seen on this have called it paint and it’s really disingenuous and frustrating. The way they describe it makes it sound like they took a can of paint and splashed it on the stones. I interpreted it that way at first and got pretty mad, imo there’s no good environmental message that’s sent by destroying the ruins of long dead civilizations. At least defacing classic European art can be seen as a protest against the colonialist attitudes that led to climate change, Idk how actually effective it is at forcing change but part of me gets some morbid satisfaction from it :3
Paint: a coloured substance which is spread over a surface and dries to leave a thin decorative or protective coating.
So in this case the cornstarch is the paint. No misinformation at all.
Nobody’s first thought when they read “paint” is corn flour that easily washes off. Headlines written like this play these kinds of semantics games with their headlines to drive angry engagement, or even to push a political agenda sometimes. The Guardian seems to run articles critical of the oil industry fairly often so maybe this isn’t sinister like that, I’d have to do more research on The Guardian and the article’s author to get an idea
It’s stone. Stone is full of cracks. It will get into those cracks and not wash off.
Furthermore, environmentalists pissing people off in the middle of a religious ceremony does nothing to help with an environmental cause. That’s the way PETA goes about doing things. Do you think they’ve been remotely effective?
You know what else will get into the cracks?
Rain. To wash it off.
That’s really not how things work. We know a lot about ancient foods specifically because they get stuck in cracks in tools and we can get them out and study them. The rain didn’t get the tiny flecks of wheat out of the cracks.
This is a fine powder which will dissolve in water. It will wash out and honestly, if it doesn’t, it’s so deep in that its completely unnoticeable and doesn’t matter. Much worse has happened to Stonehenge.
“The rain didn’t get the tiny flecks of wheat out of the cracks” Yet somehow it’s clean. Why are you continuing to act like this is comparable to actual paint? You’re whining about something that’s literally not a deal in the slightest, you really should stop making free propaganda for oil companies
slight wording edit at the start
Maybe if you had given me that article before you started berating me for not knowing what I was talking about, I might have been educated on the subject.
Are you really not able to talk to people without insulting them?
What is it the activists wanted people to think? Did they consider their actions might lead people to turn against them instead of against the oil companies?
I get that the stunts will draw attention to the environmental issues the activists are protesting for, but surely not pissing off the public would be beneficial in spreading a message to them?
The uninvolved public would just remember the attempted defacings, and not care about the damage being temporary or minimal.
Yeah, I agree with the sentiment, but I feel like the methods are pointless and even might have a reverse effect. Doing this does nothing really to help the cause, imo. Any minimal publicity it gets, I feel, just invigorates the right leaning conservatives to have more fuel to hate “the left” and “liberals”. I just don’t see any benefit to these types of stunts.
This isn’t minimal publicity, minimal publicity is what they got when they directly targeted fossil fuels by blocking the supply lines.
https://wagingnonviolence.org/2023/12/the-method-behind-just-stop-oil-annoying-madness/
Are you seriously really upset at coloured cornflour being spread over some rocks?
One hopes the powder doesn’t cause any lasting damage to a priceless piece of human cultural heritage.
That is my worry. Even if it gets washed off by rain, it can get into cracks.
Eh.
That, too, is the history of the monuments.
That doesn’t justify it.
…while I may not like the forms their protest takes, I think - well, they certainly think - it’s worth your ire if it opens people’s eyes to the oncoming worldwide disaster.
suspect they’re right.
Whose eyes do you think aren’t open at this point that this stunt would open them?
Like I said elsewhere, this is like what PETA does and people are still eating a lot of meat.
So you really think you understand what’s going on?
because the scientists are scared shitless.
dunk on peta all you want, it’s not going to stop the world cooking.
And painting Stonehenge is going to stop the world cooking?
It opens my eyes to a bunch of attention seeking vandals who should rot in jail. It’s too bad we don’t have anyone willing to protest Big oil: I could get behind that
Get a grip
It’s too bad we don’t have anyone willing to protest Big oil
literally what they’re doing, you just don’t like their method. I’m not here to defend them, but that’s pretty pathetic.
Man big oil has it easy with all these slacktivists shitting in public and calling it a protest.
As always, while I support their claimed ideals, I can only see them as petty vandals who care more about attention seeking than their cause. They certainly won’t get any of my time or attention. If you’re against Big Oil, protest Big Oil and half the population will agree. If you’re intentionally seeking my outrage with unrelated crap, you got it: rot in jail
They do it because the stuff you’re asking for doesn’t work that well, but this does (that said they do still engage in those actions as far as I’m aware). Activism is about making noise, there aren’t many tools beyond that and they’ve worked for all sorts of issues in the past.
The point is that JSO doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
https://wagingnonviolence.org/2023/12/the-method-behind-just-stop-oil-annoying-madness/
the stuff you’re asking for doesn’t work that well, but this does
I didn’t think that this works. The examples where people claim “is just like this” I don’t see as being like this.
The ones that work are ones that have some relation to their cause. Forcing everyone to really think about an issue Inherent to the act. For example, going about and doing this to parked private jets, which they did.
Just doing anything to get attention isn’t useful if there’s no Inherent message in the act itself. Especially with climate where everyone already has awareness, just not action.
Being merely loud is not going to sway hearts and minds in your favor.
It’s orange power which washed off with water
Yeah I don’t know why they wouldn’t block the entrance to an oil refinery. Some people would be unhappy about this especially the people that work there. But the general public could understand, who knows it could possibly slow production for a few days.
They have. Compared to this, it got barely any news coverage.
That is why they do this. Their only goal is attention, and they do that quite well.
The way they seem to operate is quite smart, actually:
-
Their stunts get a lot of press and bring climate change to the forefront of people’s minds, frequently.
-
They’re not a political party, so pissing voters off isn’t a problem. They can afford to be unpopular to further the cause.
-
Those who already care about the climate won’t change that based on a small group they dislike.
-
Those who call them “terrorists” are people who call anything short of licking oil company boot “eco-terrorism”. They were never going to be convinced to care whatever the group does. Probably read the Daily Mail.
-
Those who are apathetic about the climate are still going to be apathetic, with a bit of rage towards this group as with the others, but again, ultimately that doesn’t matter as they still won’t change anything based on a single group.
-
A small handful of people will be inspired by them and their constant reminders of climate crisis, and be motivated to push for change.
The last bullet seems to be the target audience of the group. And they’re the ones who will actually do anything.
Their only goal is attention
This is not scammy advertising where “any attention is good attention”. This is an important cause where we need to build support
They can afford to be unpopular to further the cause.
Sure, no donations, no popular support, they can just be marginalized and ignored as a bunch of extremists. Everyone cheers when the cops cart them off to jail. Yay for attention though
Those who are apathetic about the climate are still going to be apathetic, with a bit of rage
This is where they’re wrong, and where I’m especially frustrated when it’s a cause I agree with. All those middle ground or non-active people who could be wooed as supporters, will now dismiss the cause as a bunch of annoying kooks. Nobody caused change by driving away potential supporters
What cause are they furthering though?
Inspiring people to act against climate change.
They silence a lot of people fighting for climate change by making it harder for everyone to discuss this. They make it much harder every time they pull one of these stunts. Its not smart unless you’re talking about the oil industry execs funding them
“Silence”? How?
They don’t make it harder to discuss climate change. People don’t just go “a small group I hate cares about climate change so now I don’t care”. And if they do, well, they never actually cared about the climate. They cared about looking good and were never going to help with anything.
And stop with the conspiracy that they’re funded by oil executives. The organisation of the granddaughter of an oil billionaire (who is dead) funds 2% of them. Because, children and grandchildren, believe it or not, can disagree with their elders.
People don’t just go “a small group I hate cares about climate change so now I don’t care”.
No they don’t, but if I want to talk about the same cause to try to change people’s minds, instead I have to explain away a bunch of extremists and try to get them to take the cause seriously despite those extremists
It’s 100% not a conspiracy and you can go back to find many climate organizations have been infiltrated by agent provocateurs since the 70s. The FBI sent a guy in had a kid and pulled him out leaving an entire family. Industries have lots of leaked documents showing their support for these groups because they’re so unpalatable to the average person.
These groups behavior often make it harder. It distracts from the fight and puts a giant clown hat on the whole issue. People will argue “it’s not permanent damage” without realizing the point that underlies that. This is about image. Its not about actual effect. Image is valuable and these people think that damaging the image somehow is the key to action because it gets people talking. Its not the 70s anymore everyone knows. We need these groups to be more self aware and create civil action to get people on board instead of making it unpalatable. Or just stop and give room for groups or drive positive change.
many climate organizations have been infiltrated
Ok but:
-
you’re talking about the US, JSO is UK based
-
It is a conspiracy theory because you have no hard evidence that JSO is infiltrated and having it’s strings pulled by big oil like you claim
It distracts from the fight
No I’d actually argue it brings the fight to the forefront of people’s minds, specifically the people who are actually inclined to do something. Those who do nothing but complain about climate activism were never going to do anything useful and so their thoughts on the methods are frankly irrelevant since the methods work for those who actually want to act.
We need these groups to be more self aware and create civil action to get people on board instead of making it unpalatable.
They’ve blockaded oil terminals and vandalised terrible offenders driving climate change, and still do. It was nowhere near as effective as their publicity stunts, which get people talking. They just ended up getting whisked away by police and largely ignored by the news. Pointless.
Whether you like it or not, the sort of quiet, non-inconvenient activism you seem to be proposing has shown itself to be useless.
Greenpeace, OWS, ELF, Activists at Standing rock and in Briton groups like CND (look up Mark Kennedy) have all been infiltrated and lead astray. But this group is somehow different? I call bullshit especially after seeing these groups piss off more and more people every time they make the news.
This doesn’t bring any of this to forefront of peoples minds. I’d argue it does the opposite of what you propose. It forces an association between the topic and people who are not appealing.
You should really evaluate what you’re saying here.
Those who do nothing but complain about climate activism were never going to do anything useful and so their thoughts on the methods are frankly irrelevant since the methods work for those who actually want to act.
This issue hinges entirely on getting voters to care. Yet, many groups and even you seem to dismiss them, saying “they don’t matter.” In reality, voters are the most crucial factor.
It makes sense that the idea of alienating the general public from climate action might be intentionally promoted by well-funded and organized entities. These entities have the resources to influence groups, and we’ve seen this pattern in many movements since the beginning. Their goal is likely to disrupt and weaken the effectiveness of climate action initiatives.
-
1, BS. 2, The history of change is full of people who pissed off a lot of other people. Change never happens from asking politely and being meek
survivor basis on that. And really how much change do we have here? Aren’t we still fighting all the same issues for decades? Maybe time to face the truth
It’s not surivor bias. Unsuccessful protestors weren’t all killed. And no, we’re not fighting all the same issues: gay rights, woman’s rights, workers rights, racial equality have all made huge strides over the years and protests have led those changes. That’s the truth that you need to face. Read up on the civil rights movement for a good example, or emancipation for women.
-
Why not fund raise and set up a lobby group and fund politicians to pass laws. Why stand in traffic. Seems like the most ineffective backward steps
Why not fund raise and set up a lobby group and fund politicians to pass laws.
Do you think some kids are going to be able to buy the support of politicians by outbidding the oil companies?
Do you think some kids are going to be able to buy the support of politicians by outbidding the oil companies?
Politicians care about votes, money is just an easy way to get them. No, a bunch of kids by themselves brings nothing to the table. A bunch of extremists probably never gets to the table. Do you know what’s the only thing that may outrank those corporate interests? Votes. If you bring votes to the table they don’t even have to buy, you’ll get a response
Notice what’s being discussed here. You claim this type of action gets people talking but no one here is discussing their cause nor supporting it
Yeah because these people are making random attacks on landmarks instead of going after oil refineries and gas stations. Their strategy is confusing to the general public.
Targeting oil companies directly would force people to talk about the actual issue. “These radicals put orange dust on Stonehenge what are they trying to accomplish with that?” vs. “these radicals got an oil refinery shut down for a day, what are they trying to accomplish with that?” The former requires an abstract explanation (which isn’t effective) while the latter has a very obvious answer to the point where most people won’t even bother asking the question.
Yes, why wouldn’t they. What do you think TPUSA is
By TPUSA do you mean Turning Point USA, the organization that’s funded by billionaires?
A single kid who won support and funding of politicians and other powerful people. A real asshole who I think dropped out of college.
I hear how the left is so much smarter by often I see the left doing foolish stuff like spray painting historical works to fight climate change or advocating to deflate tires from the general public.
All the while the right are going across the country to college campuses and bringing their band of idiots like JP and Kirk to speak directly to the youth about their issues
JFC
deleted by creator
I think this action lacked some supportive commentary, a spoken idea why they did it and what does it mean. It comes of as an attention bait without a clear message. It’s also too random to associate it with climate activism without a context.
After hearing about that I thought what would become our Stonehenge if we fail miserably (Statue of Liberty, like in Planet of the Apes?), or if we get back into a new Stone Age making this circular monument both the past and the future of humankind. I would not probably care that much if they actually damage it a bit if that’s for creating a powerful symbol, adding to it’s (contemporary) significance instead of taking from it. But that’s too much to ask, it seems, all we can do is orange paint.
Orange cornflour
Just stop oil is funded by the oil industry to make environmentalists look like morons.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rishi Sunak condemned the action, saying: “This is a disgraceful act of vandalism to one of the UK’s and the world’s oldest and most important monuments.”
A senior druid and pagan priest, King Arthur Pendragon, said he “totally” disapproved of the Just Stop Oil protest and that the group’s actions “alienate any sympathy” for their cause.
Pendragon, who is standing as an independent parliamentary candidate for the area, said: “Stonehenge is a living, working temple at times of celebration and pilgrimage such as the summer solstice and, as a well-known protester myself, I totally disapprove of such behaviour as demonstrated by these people, who do nothing to enhance and everything to alienate any sympathy anyone has or had for their cause.”
The priest has previously been involved in several protests at the monument and lost a legal challenge over a £15 car parking charge at the site in 2017, claiming the fee breached his human rights.
Mike and Julie, who did not wish to give their surnames and had come from the west coast of the US to visit Stonehenge, said it was a shame the path around the stones was closed after the incident.
In a statement, JSO said it was time for “megalithic action” and called for the next UK government to agree a plan to stop the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030.
The original article contains 645 words, the summary contains 230 words. Saved 64%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Those stones will be suuuper useful to us after we died because our global ecosystem collapsed.
Maybe we should set up our own stones for explaining to future generations why we didnt do anything about climate change until it was too late.
I’m not sure how this helps though. These people can say to future generations, “well, we didn’t get people to stop using fossil fuels, but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument that was made long before anyone had the idea of burning fossil fuels to make people aware of a problem they were already aware of but powerless to do anything about.”
This isn’t going to stop oil companies from drilling for oil.
It reminds me of a friend of mine I used to follow elsewhere on social media. Every day, she would post pictures of ‘death row dogs’ in nearby shelters that were going to be euthanized. There was fuck all I could do about it. I already have two dogs, from shelters. I don’t have room for more and I couldn’t afford more. So all it did was make me feel like shit. Then she started posting photos with “too late” messages and I stopped following her.
How does that help?
but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument
As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.
That’s not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it’s a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It’s the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh’s painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.
I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Also, orange dye can easily get into cracks in the rocks and stay there for a very long time. Especially if it displaces the lichens. That won’t make it collapse, so maybe ‘damage’ is not the right word, but this is potentially long-lasting vandalism which, as far as I can see, will have no effect on the actual problem.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Which brings me back to the last point in my comment.
I also hope I’m right. The two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result. Also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was “No visible damage”.
As I said, I’m not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.
Edit: Formatting
To play devil’s advocate against the devil’s advocate, I’m not sure “Stonehenge covered with orange corn starch by Just Stop Oil activists” would have communicated the kind of emergency these activists are hoping to convey, so they’re clearly counting on the headline grabbing people’s attention and triggering their outrage meter. In that way, the journalist might even think they’re helping the JSO group.
I agree, I think they’ve been remarkably responsible about avoiding lasting damage. What upsets me is how they’re fueling the far-right rage machine with more propaganda ammunition at a time when we are already fighting a fierce and undecided battle to live in a world that isn’t run by exclusionary ideological nationalistic idiots.
It’s like they cannot understand that some people don’t want the world saved, and agree with Hitler when he wrote about the tears of war being the bread of future generations. A sentiment that basically says suffering=good. So, more suffering=better. Will climate change cause suffering? Well, guess what then.
Many of the recent protests about climate change have been less direct and more about stirring up controversy to force the public to actually think about their decisions.
My hat off to them as so far this style of protest has been working and has resulted in many of us pushing for better climate control.
You’re right this isn’t going to stop companies, but even if you disagreed with them it puts climate change in your conscious mind. Even if that simply means you’ll try to make slightly more climate friendly decisions moving forwards, that’s a win.
Personally I don’t know if I agree with the technique, but I do feel like it has been working in terms of making people discuss this topic more.
My hat off to them as so far this style of protest has been working and has resulted in many of us pushing for better climate control.
I don’t know that I believe that is because of these protests and not just seeing what’s happening to the world. I really do not see pissing people off by painting Stonehenge, especially when it’s during a religious festival, helping this cause.
.
How does that help?
We’re talking about it
But we’re not talking about it. We’re not talking about political action, or technological solutions, or mitigation programs, or investments in adaptation, or natural resource management, or harm reduction, or food distribution, or drought management.
No, we’re talking about a bunch of first world children who decided to paint a bunch of ten-thousand year old rocks for attention.
“The orange cornflour we used to create an eye-catching spectacle will soon wash away with the rain…"
will soon wash away with the rain…"
Just like any attention they may have grabbed due to their stunt.
For the record, I’m not saying I agree with their methods, but I don’t think it’s fair to them either that everyone is acting like they did irreparable harm to the monument.
.
But it also stops us from talking about anything else. Part of this is not allowing other things to take over. Yes it would be even better if the discussion focussed on a productive way forward. It would be worse if we were discussing something else.
And therein lies the problem with today’s generations. Instead of doing the hard work of getting involved in civic groups and local politics in order to mobilize voters and enact real, substantive change, we’re taking the short cut by spraying shit on the walls so no one can talk about anything else.
You made my point very succinctly, so thanks for that.
Oh I see we are at the “this generation is lazy” level of discussion. Have a nice day.
I’d say spraying colored powder on archeological sites and art galleries instead of getting involved in civic action to enact societal and economic change counts as lazy, yes.
Note how we are talking about how large of douchebags the activists are and just how much they damaged a cultural heritage site.
Fuck these people.
“The orange cornflour we used to create an eye-catching spectacle will soon wash away with the rain…"
Yeah. That’s their intent. But they really don’t know for sure that their stunt won’t have some completely unexpected effect. Some slow reaction with that specific kind of stone that only matters if the powder gets deep into some cracks for 200 years or whatever. Or attracts stone eating bacteria of some sort.
The point is that they dont know what they dont know. Every time they pull one of these stunts, they are introducing the risk of irrevocable damage to historically significant objects that should be left to future generations.
Stop fucking around with human history. Stone Henge is a world wonder.
Which does exactly what? Is it at all likely that anyone actually able to do anything about this was unaware of the climate change disaster we’re facing and this will change their mind?
If you dont see any value in common discourse, you have already given up on life and the world imo.
you have already given up on life and the world
Yeah, that sounds about accurate for me…
This is hardly common discourse.
It’s not the same thing. At least your friend was calling attention to a cause she cared about
Much like climate change- who is not aware that there are dogs getting euthanized in shelters?
I don’t understand why all of you are talking about raising awareness of something everyone is aware of.
Your example shows exactly what people are missing. Just because you did not have the capacity for more dogs doesnt mean that other people never got convinced to save one of those dogs. If those pictures convinced even just one person to adopt a dog, then it was worth the minor inconvienience that you had to go through.
Similarly the actual damage from this protest is slim to none (if they used the same stuff as usual that just washes away with water) and if it convinces somebody to get politically active for climate change then it was already worth it.
You thinking that you are powerless, shouldnt result in other people being forced to be powerless when they are not.
Who’s actually doing that, though? I mean that sincerely. Is there anyone who wouldn’t have gotten involved, but who was swayed to do so by orange paint on historical artifacts? This seems like directionless compensatory venting by activists whose other strategies are failing to meaningfully persuade.
Further, what’s the balance of people in the other direction who have an inkling that they’d consider doing more, but who are swayed against it by the increasingly unhinged extremist tactics these protestors are using? There’s an entire online ecosystem rife with a combination of climate denialism, analytical paralysis, and doomsaying, and there’s a non-zero number of people who likely either stop caring or throw their hands up in frustration because protestors are doing more harm than good by throwing what I’m sure looks to them like ridiculous tantrums. For every ally they gain, they probably lose some, too.
And that’s not even touching on the fact that systemic structural changes are the only possible solution to this problem, and making the average person feel guilty and/or agitated is a weird form of victim shaming.
A better way to propose your question is: out of all the millions of people on Earth who hear about these activities, will literally 0 of them take any meaningful action against climate change?
The likelihood of that quite small, suggesting a non-zero value. That non-zero value is likely to be smaller than the damages of water-washable paint.
I’m not advocating for anyone here, but I think that’s the calculus OP was suggesting, and it makes perfect sense to me.
If eye-rolling and annoyance produced greenhouse gases, then it might be a different story.
I’m not sure I follow. You’re suggesting that >0 people take meaningful action as a result of hearing about this protest. I’m saying that >0 people take fewer meaningful actions as a result, and >0 probably turn away from your cause when they hear about stupid shit like this. So for every one convert in the right direction, there are some in the other direction. Whether or not the two balance is certainly up for debate, and which side you prefer to highlight at the expense of the other, depends on your preconceived opinion.
Which really just reiterates that this kind of nonsense is a net negative, because the people who respond positively to it were already converts in the first place.
That’s not how climate change works. Everybody except for politicians and fossil fuel executives are me in this scenario. We’re just being told constantly how the world is getting hotter and something must be done and there’s fuck all I can do about it. And that’s also true of every person at Stonehenge that day.
We can’t control where the energy comes from and what cars are made and what bottles drinks are put in. And it’s really clear that it doesn’t matter who we vote for either.
So, in this situation, people see these stunts and just get angry and stop paying attention since there’s nothing they can do about it anyway.
Again, how does this help?
There are so many “annoying” protests that this logic can be applied to that would seem pretty short-sighted in retrospect.
It’s not these people that future generations will think poorly of.
So this is just about what future generations will think, not about solutions?
Normally I would say this damage was inappropriate. But, considering humanity is going to be eradicated in the next hundred years, give or take, I think maybe we should be doing more to slow that down.
FWIW this kind of alarmist talk only lets people write off your comment as hysterical. Humans are not going to go extinct in the next 100 years, Canada isnt going to become hotter than Arabia and become unlivable.
What we might (and even possibly the most likely scenario is to) get is wide scale societal breakdown, starvation of billions, mass migration of billions of those currently living in regions that become uninhabitable but dont starve, and the consequant resource wars that those entail. The future is bleak enough without making up even worse things that wont happen.
Would you like to make a wager?
That a viable population of humans will be alive in 2124? Sure how much do you want to bet? I think your chance of collecting from me if im wrong when im more than 120 years old are slim though.
1k, put in escrow. Pay out to whomever.
Yes thats a sane thing to do, agree to put money in escrow until after im dead. Totally something people do.
Also YOU ARE LITERALLY SAYING EVERYONE WILL BE DEAD THERE WOULD BE NO ONE TO COLLECT
Yes. One gazillion dollars.
See? See how ridiculous you sound?
That does sound ridiculous, but it’s your comment not mine.
.
But how will this slow that down?
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Obviously humanity is not being squeaky enough. Maybe if enough things are destroyed, The rest of the world will finally pay attention.
I thought oil was the problem?
Their point is absolutely valid. Their method is absurd. This doesn’t generate a dialogue, it undermines the point by enabling opponents to rightfully condemn the vandalism and changes no minds.
Attacking art or culture is counterproductive.
Why do you think “the world” matters? This is mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives couldn’t give less of a shit about what someone does to Stonehenge.
How do we stop evil corporations? With political action. How do we get political action? Either by voting or collective activism.
There’s no solution that doesn’t require ourselves to spring into action, even if it’s “mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives”.
How do we stop evil corporations? With political action. How do we get political action? Either by voting or collective activism.
That is true.
But they are doing activism for the wrong side. The conservatives and far right will jump on this one, because they just gotten handed a talking point on a silver platter. “Radical left activists attack cultural heritage site”. They couldn’t have asked for a more perfect one.
Voting for whom? They’re all corrupt, or haven’t you noticed? We’re living in a global oligarchy.
Also, why on Earth do you think environmental activists pissing people off will help with any sort of collective action?
Oh I don’t think the world matters. In fact, I’m super happy humanity is about to be wiped out of existence. We are all pieces of shit.
But you would think more people would be interested in saving it. A significant portion of humanity is uninterested in hearing about Global warming. Those people need to wake up.
A significant portion of humanity is uninterested in hearing about Global warming
What is “significant?”
And, again, hearing about it doesn’t mean you can do something about it. There’s fuck all I can do about it.
Yet this kind of protests just alienates the protesters from the population they want support from
They want support from me.
Here in the US we have one of the two main political factions regularly threatening terrorism, execution and even war.
When people are already arguing to take you out behind the chemical shed and shoot you, it’s a little out of touch to think they give two shits about your future health in a changing climate. Or our planet, they probably think they can get to Mars with Elon or something, or god will rapture them, or whatever they think, I don’t know.
You think people should care about future generations? They probably should, but we have parents that don’t give two shits about their own kids, much less anyone else’s.
These activists make fighting to end climate change harder every time they pull this shit. It’s pure asshole behaviour.
At this point I feel like it’s akin to art that people just don’t get. The average person doesn’t understand the message or point.
These protestors are committing simple acts that threaten to damage something that people value. People are so very angry that biodegradable paint was sprayed on an ancient monument, or that soup was tossed onto the glass protecting a famous painting.
Yet they continue on with their lives and refuse to hold many corporations accountable while those corporations make our planet less habitable. This would become a wall of text that nobody would read if I tried to just outline the existential threat human society faces thanks to the reckless behavior of many of the organizations. The suffering, loss of life, economic damage… unimaginable… yet we are basically barreling toward that inevitability at full steam.
But I’m sorry, how silly of me. How could I forget that some scientists might lose the opportunity to study undisturbed lichen on Stonehenge this year.
People are so very angry that biodegradable paint was sprayed on an ancient monument, or that soup was tossed onto the glass protecting a famous painting.
What is so maddening about this comment is how much it proves my point that you don’t see. You need to accept it doesn’t matter if the overall damage is none existent. Just like how a magician is never in danger or a wrestler isn’t getting punched in the head. And we’re all still left with strong feelings and compel us, sometimes even to action.
The real danger is not as important as the perceived danger. You’re showing something to so many people that the average opinions becomes very important and the average opinion doesn’t view this favorably. This is obvious to everybody but the activists who convince themselves this is the height of civil action.
And the end result is scientists don’t get funding. Scientist funding is funded through public interests. Organizations, industry and taxes go to fund research. And when activists start stirring shit up, it makes many shrinking back like turtle heads until it blows over.
What is so maddening about this comment is how much it proves my point that you don’t see.
…
This was literally the first sentence of my post. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough and “maddened you”.
At this point I feel like it’s akin to art that people just don’t get. The average person doesn’t understand the message or point.
I personally don’t often enjoy art. In particular, the art where the artists are creating some kind of layered metaphor like a blank canvas with a cryptic title or something. The artist might be trying to communicate that consumerism will never fill our need for social contact or whatever but the message is lost on me.
The same thing applies here for most people I think. However, for once I actually see a meaning in it. I get horrified by the act, then I read later how little actual damage is done. Then I reflect on it and realize there is no way the protestors didn’t know that the Mona Lisa was protected by glass. There is no way they accidentally used the least harmful bright paint they could find on Stonehenge… and it occurs to me that I was so immediately upset at the perceived harm but have become desensitized to news of the actual harm of climate change.
I’m not stating that this message is obvious or that people are stupid if they are angry - I’m stating it gets lost and most people don’t get it. Yes, I’m a bit angry that the media often never mentions up front how little damage is done in any headlines I see. It’s usually “climate activists throw soup on Mona Lisa, arrested, condemned by bystanders and art lovers everywhere” not “activists harmlessly throw soup on painting protected by glass to demonstrate humanity’s questionable priorities”. Sure, the glass can be in the article somewhere but nobody bothers to read that far.
Regardless, I agree that the end result isn’t helping because most people don’t understand. I, however, sympathetic with the activists and felt compelled to explain the message as I saw it.
What is most interesting to me is that the “powers that be” have so much influence over the news that I feel like harmless acts of protests have lost their power and are demonized by default. Climate change, income inequality, police abuse, Gaza… I’m honestly concerned that people with very legitimate concerns (at least, in my mind) will have to further escalate their actions in order to feel heard. This is just the beginning I think.
“I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.” MLK
People here keep saying it raises awareness. Who isn’t aware at this point? And why do they think doing this sort of thing helps the cause? Pissing people off doesn’t get them on your side, it does the opposite.
Yea I struggle with understanding that explanation too. I think something that plays a huge part of this is personalities that group together. Most people understand how important social game is. All activists seem like they have no social awareness. Their only goal is attention. They take the idea that there is no bad publicity to an extreme. I really believe many of these activist are being organized and funded by the oil industry without even realizing it. I say that because why wouldn’t they in this day and age. Its easy to funnel money to organizations secretly. We have proof they did this in the past.
https://www.climatefiles.com/exxon-knew/ are full of examples of this.
Great website for anyone interested on this topic. Full of documents from industries going back to the 50s showing internal documents and memos of how they knew and planned to discredit climate action
Removed by mod
They’re terrorists.
Not activists, terrorists.
That word… I do not think it means what you think it means…
We for sure have felt the terror they wrought.
Terror, I tell thee!
