Because religion evolved to thrive in us.

It’s like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.

Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn’t have these beneficial traits went extinct.

Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it’s necessary to spread your belief to others, are ‘somehow’ more spread out than religions who don’t convey that need.

This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.

This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It’s funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.

Right?

“I would have helped avoiding the apocalypse! But then some random guys sprayed paint on some things!”

Activists (try to) do that as well. But it’s much harder to get close to a rich person or their property, than it is to do something in public spaces. They, too, have to see what they can do with their limited resources.

Next, the media coverage is very unequal, as well as reader’s interest. You are much more likely to click on an article covering a potentially outrageous action, than you are to read about something which does not bother anyone. Although you can rest assured, these things are tried and done frequently.

So naturally, to the uninvolved reader, it may seem as if activists don’t do anything but stupid stunts. And naturally, each outsider seems to think they have a much better grasp of strategy and what actions might make sense than the people who are actually involved in these things.

Of course, a particular action can still be silly. I just want to draw attention to biases at play, in general.

And if you really have a much better idea how to do something about the climate crisis, then go ahead and shine as an example. Not only would you author an actually impactful action (which in itself should be reason enough), you could also show all these rookie activists how to get things done. If your example is convincing, you should see less media coverage about inferior actions.

Dumm di dumm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles

Der Markt für Verbrenner verschwindet in den nächsten 10 bis 20 Jahren. Zeigt mal wieder deren Wirtschaftskompetenz.

What do you mean? Of course they do. It’s not a contradiction, because they are adversaries.

Würde ich auch vermuten. Ihre bisherigen Forderungen waren es aber nicht, mit großem Abstand. Also mal schauen.

Teilweise juhu, prinzipiell jedenfalls. Praktisch bleibt mir völlig unklar, wo zu welchen Konditionen denn nun Bubatz zu haben ist. Oder ob damit gewartet werden muss, bis die heute gesäten Pflanzen geerntet wurden. Es finden sich haufenweise Informationen dazu, wie kompliziert alles ist, aber diese eine entscheidende praktische Frage habe ich noch nirgendwo beantwortet gefunden.

Falls da jemand mehr weiß, für Hamburg oder auch anderswo, das wär toll.

In Germany, whenever the discussion about wether to deliver a specific weapon system or not extends to a “new” weapon system, this usually is an argument against. Hurr durr, it could be used to poke too deep into Russian-held territory, or beware, even strike native Russian soil. Russia might not like that and pull Germany into the war or throw a nuke or whatnot.

The day this country’s tensions between conservatism and liberalism die is the day the USA ceases to exist. That tension is at the core of our republic, literally since its founding, and it’s what makes us great, unlike any other nation on Earth.

That sounds as if this tension was somehow unique to the united states. It’s not, it’s everywhere. Even worse, the US have less of a political spectrum than most other nations, just shy of dictatorships.

I like that it comes in a can, not a plastic bottle simply because it gets colder faster and stays colder longer.

If it feels colder in your hand, it means the opposite of what you assume: It absorbs heat from your hand faster, so the stays colder shorter.

Imagine instead you hold a perfectly insulated container. You could not feel wether the inside is hot or cold, or else the insulation would be faulty.

So if you really want to have a drink that stays colder longer, grab something which does not give away how cold it is, quite literally.

Interessante Kritik. Etwas weiter gedacht, stellt sich dieselbe Frage nicht auch bei Politikern, die nicht mal analytisch-rational denken können?

Ich meine, sie muss ja nicht gleich die Welt retten. Besser machen wär’ schon schön.
Dafür muss sie keine perfekte Politikerin sein. Besser als der aktuelle Durchschnitt wär’ schon was.

Das ist so 1 Pimmelpartei. Das Logo, die Parteimitglieder, die Einstellung. Alles Penisköpfe.

Feiner Post. Naja, Bild halt.

Mir ist wirklich unklar wie Leute in anderen politischen Spektren das machen aber wie kann man sich denn so darüber wundern/ärgern, dass auf einer Bühne auch mal was gesagt wird was einem nicht gefällt?

Das ist doch normal. Auch im linken Spektrum sind die Leute oft recht pingelig, mit wem sie sich gemein machen. Da hat FFF z.B. schon 'ne Band ausgeladen, weil die die falsche Kombination aus Frisur und Hautfarbe hatten.

Die Leute haben eben Angst, etwas zu unterstützen, was sie schlecht finden. Und sie haben Angst, für etwas gehalten zu werden, was sie nicht sind. Wenn also auf der Bühne Sachen dargestellt werden, mit denen du nichts zu tun haben willst, ist das ein Konflikt.

Auf der anderen Seite steht natürlich das hehre Anliegen, das große Ziel vor Augen zu haben und (sich) nicht in kleinen Grabenkämpfen zu verlieren. Und wiederum eine Angst, die gemeinsame Energie könne von einer radikalen Minderheit gekapert werden.

Ich denke, es geht in beide Richtungen: Als Teilnehmer einer Großveranstaltung muss ich mir im klaren sein, dass manches von meiner Komfortzone abweicht, teilweise deutlich. Als Veranstalter und Redner habe ich aber ebenso die Pflicht, meine nicht von der anwesenden Allgemeinheit geteilten Interessen der gemeinsamen Sache unterzuordnen. Es gibt einen Konsens, wegen dem sind alle da. Darum zu rangeln, wer wie weit davon abweichen darf, tut niemand gut.

Andererseits argwöhnen alle Seiten, dass die anderen genau das täten, und spüren dadurch den Druck, der Veranstaltung selbst ihr individuelles Profil aufzudrücken, quasi defensiv. Ist halt ein Kampf ums Narrativ, wer hat die Deutungshoheit.

Etwas zugespitzt kannst du sagen, dass die Rechtspopulisten auf die weniger gebildeten Teile der Bevölkerung zielen.

Oh, oh, oh, da passt dieses Zitat!

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives… I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honorable gentlemen should see that position as at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party . . . There is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power."

John Stuart Mill ( British philosopher, economist, and liberal member of Parliament for Westminster from 1865 to 68 )

― John Stuart Mill

Für mich war der Höhepunkt “There is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle”, allein schon wegen ‘dense, solid’, was hier in beiden Bedeutungen passt.

Nice! The market and climate need clear signals like that.

I think that’s fine. Unless we’re talking about greenhouses or urban indoor gardening, food grows in the environment. If you want to protect the food, you implicitly have to protect the environment, which makes you an environmentalist driven by food. There are lots of hazards which have little to do with climate (or at least which also have other, climate-unrelated causes), which can affect food. Invasive species, plastic, overfertilization, corporations, general socioeconomic disparities, just to name a few.

While continuing to tap new oil fields and failing to make sufficient progress. Also, this one isn’t about climate, but healthy and sustainable food. Connected issues, but still.

All that aside, to come back to the somewhat dodged question, what would make things go faster?

This is not the way to go about that

What is your way to go about that?

If you aren’t doing anything, what way(s) would you deem acceptable? If you know acceptable ways, why aren’t you following through? Honest if-questions, not meant as assumptions.

Healthy and sustainable food seems to be a decent goal. People should be able to get behind this. So if all the disagreement is about the right approach, where are the people with the right approach, and where are all the people voicing their concern about art supporting them?

Please help me out. It feels as if people are more concerned about pieces of art which they may never see, than about healthy food, the climate, or other major issues which affect everyone.

I get why it puts people off, these points exist. I just wonder what the “right” alternative to these “wrong” approaches is, and wether the critics walk the talk.

Aber Arbeit muss sich doch wieder lohnen! Es sei denn du beziehst Bürgergeld. Dann musst du einfach wieder arbeiten, auch ohne Lohn.

I know multiple people that think the best thing to do right now is just accept the losses, get a peace deal, and stop the violence.

The problem with this idea is Russia’s track record of broken deals (like accepting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, then invading) and aggressive ambitions (greetings to our Baltic allies). Chances are the last two points are nothing but false hopes and all that remains is “accept the losses”, while Russia prepares to invade the next neighbor. All the good points are also the untrustworthy points. We kind of tried this idea when they took Crimea, and see where it got us.