Why aren't environmental activists more vocal about the potential for nuclear war? Seems like a very real threat to humanity, as much as global warming seems to be, but I've seen and heard almost nothing from them.
Because it's not environmental problem. Secondly, environmental problems are immediately actionable and surprisingly some of the easiest things to address. The threat of nuclear war lies in the domain of human power dynamics and organization, areas that are not understood in the slightest. Despite this, we still don't address the environmental problems or do so at a glacial pace. There's no hope for power dynamics.
Aren't environmentalists ultimately motivated by their interest in preventing some sort humanitarian catastrophe? We don't want to make the earth uninhabitable as it would result in the death and suffering of millions of people. Nuclear war would also result in death and suffering. There seems to be some common ground here.
Why aren't you being more vocal about the potential for nuclear war? Seems like a very real threat to you, as much as global warming seems to be, but I've seen and heard almost nothing from you.
Why isn't there outrage from environmentalists? Because you are incentivized and encouraged to make "green" choices and speak out on unethical fossil fuel consumption. You are disincentived to speak out against the continued funding of arms to Ukraine. Advocate for a diplomatic end to the war and you will be denounced as puppet for Putin.
Which leads one to believe that many of these activists are not actually motivated to protect humanity from an environmental disaster, but because they want to improve their social standing.
A true environmental activist should be advocating for nuclear war. The resulting explosions should launch enough material into the atmosphere to help cool the planet a bit and hold off climate change a while longer. And once vast regions of the earth are blanketed in nuclear radiation, it would allow for lush greenery and human abandoned landscapes to thrive, where animals can roam free, albeit with some mutations but most of which should calm down after a few generations of breeding and natural selection.
The nuclear apocalypse would require a confluence of political events that are (1) pretty unlikely, and (2) almost impossible formally prevent (unless we suddenly achieve world peace).
This is in contrast to climate change, which is ongoing and very difficult but not impossible to stop, at least in its worst forms.
In other words, it's a category error. Being worried about climate change doesn't commit one to every way that humanity can extinguish itself (nuclear holocaust, global pandemics, &c.).
bmitc|3 years ago
nprz|3 years ago
Both issues require a change in public opinion.
snowwrestler|3 years ago
nprz|3 years ago
Which leads one to believe that many of these activists are not actually motivated to protect humanity from an environmental disaster, but because they want to improve their social standing.
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
datalopers|3 years ago
xwdv|3 years ago
King-Aaron|3 years ago
woodruffw|3 years ago
This is in contrast to climate change, which is ongoing and very difficult but not impossible to stop, at least in its worst forms.
In other words, it's a category error. Being worried about climate change doesn't commit one to every way that humanity can extinguish itself (nuclear holocaust, global pandemics, &c.).