Nov 7, 2022 08:52 PM
(This post was last modified: Nov 7, 2022 09:41 PM by C C.)
A technologically advanced society is choosing to destroy itself. It’s both fascinating and horrifying to watch
https://theconversation.com/a-technologi...tch-192939
EXCERPT: As social scientists, this is both horrifying and fascinating to observe. How is it that a technologically advanced society could choose to destroy itself by failing to act to avert a climate catastrophe?
Like watching a slow-motion train crash, the world’s leading climate scientists have for decades warned of the dangers of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Political and corporate leaders knew of the threat more than a decade before it was key public knowledge. [...] So why, in the 45 years since, has there been so little action in response? Why do we condemn today’s children and future generations to live on a dangerous and hostile planet?
We’ve sought to answer this question in our research into business and climate change over the years, including our latest book.
The answer, we argue, rests on a prevailing assumption organised by corporate and political elites: that endless economic growth fuelled by fossil energy is so fundamental and commonsensical it cannot be questioned.
We term this all-consuming ideology the “fossil fuel hegemony”. It asserts that corporate capitalism based on fossil energy is a natural state of being, one that’s beyond challenge.
[...] The concept of “hegemony” was developed by the Italian intellectual Antonio Gramsci. In the 1920s, Gramsci sought to explain how dominant classes maintained their power beyond the use of force and coercion.
[...] But the true test of the fossil fuel hegemony will be how long this image can persist as the weather becomes more extreme and climate activism grows.
Because as more people acknowledge the reality of the climate crisis, those seeking to maintain the fossil fuel hegemony will need to work harder to maintain their grip on climate politics... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - -
Cynic's Corner: Thus, it's not mere hyperbole when the "soft" or "human-focused" sciences are conceived as being an apologetics apparatus for justifying the philosophical/ethics theories and political ideologies outputted by the humanities.
Here's an instance of "social scientists" overtly referencing and utilizing Marxist concepts/doctrines (cultural hegemony in this instance) as if they're impartial science. Not even being coy or obfuscatory about it, as is their usual strategy. If any other motivated crank stuff was appealed to like this, outcries of pseudoscience would be rampant.
It's this very approach to co-opting the real threat of climate change to become a part of leftist agenda that got it undermined and skeptically regarded by various anti-establishment movements to begin with (including many of the patronized proles themselves finally rebelling against the condescending dictates of the intellectual class).
https://theconversation.com/a-technologi...tch-192939
EXCERPT: As social scientists, this is both horrifying and fascinating to observe. How is it that a technologically advanced society could choose to destroy itself by failing to act to avert a climate catastrophe?
Like watching a slow-motion train crash, the world’s leading climate scientists have for decades warned of the dangers of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Political and corporate leaders knew of the threat more than a decade before it was key public knowledge. [...] So why, in the 45 years since, has there been so little action in response? Why do we condemn today’s children and future generations to live on a dangerous and hostile planet?
We’ve sought to answer this question in our research into business and climate change over the years, including our latest book.
The answer, we argue, rests on a prevailing assumption organised by corporate and political elites: that endless economic growth fuelled by fossil energy is so fundamental and commonsensical it cannot be questioned.
We term this all-consuming ideology the “fossil fuel hegemony”. It asserts that corporate capitalism based on fossil energy is a natural state of being, one that’s beyond challenge.
[...] The concept of “hegemony” was developed by the Italian intellectual Antonio Gramsci. In the 1920s, Gramsci sought to explain how dominant classes maintained their power beyond the use of force and coercion.
[...] But the true test of the fossil fuel hegemony will be how long this image can persist as the weather becomes more extreme and climate activism grows.
Because as more people acknowledge the reality of the climate crisis, those seeking to maintain the fossil fuel hegemony will need to work harder to maintain their grip on climate politics... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - -
Cynic's Corner: Thus, it's not mere hyperbole when the "soft" or "human-focused" sciences are conceived as being an apologetics apparatus for justifying the philosophical/ethics theories and political ideologies outputted by the humanities.
Here's an instance of "social scientists" overtly referencing and utilizing Marxist concepts/doctrines (cultural hegemony in this instance) as if they're impartial science. Not even being coy or obfuscatory about it, as is their usual strategy. If any other motivated crank stuff was appealed to like this, outcries of pseudoscience would be rampant.
It's this very approach to co-opting the real threat of climate change to become a part of leftist agenda that got it undermined and skeptically regarded by various anti-establishment movements to begin with (including many of the patronized proles themselves finally rebelling against the condescending dictates of the intellectual class).