That’s their job, but my point is, who is listening, I mean really listening? It doesn’t matter, you’re unlikely to change anyone’s views anymore because they don’t listen and don’t understand. And they refuse to take steps to understand.
I could throw literally thousands of peer reviewed climate change papers at someone, and say “there’s your evidence”. They don’t care. The refuse to acknowledge it. They will even go to the effort of pushing back with some fairy tail in some instances.
Our entire system is broken. The veil that was in place previously hiding the real villains is being stripped away, and they don’t care. They know that too many still believe that the current systems, current politics, current centralisation of power and influence is still the “right path”.
But at least people know something is wrong and are looking for solutions. I guess we all need to find our own path through it. Sadly, I don’t think it will be pretty.
It looks like the mainstream press have already decided to do the Ed Miliband treatment on Zack Polanski. This caricature appeared in the Times. I’ve seen similar ones at our local museum. It wasn’t something that they were proud of.
It’s extremely difficult to change someone’s views, but you can educate people so that their views become nuanced or evolve.
I have been a big advocate of genetic modification. As scientist it’s my role to speak out, and I recognise that for many people it’s an allergic no. Absolutely not. Laws changing in NZ so has been in public eye.
I usually take a red grapefruit with me, explain that even thought it’s sold as organic. The red colour was made by shooting radiation at it in the 1970s to cause hundred of thousands of mutations. That’s not consider genetic engineering. Today scientist want to be more safe and more accurate tools making targeted single change with Crispr.
I explain that insulin today comes genetically modified bacteria, in the past it was the pancreas of thousands of pigs. Making it safer and cheaper. That little girl recently got cured from Leukaemia through Car-T cell therapy.
I also highlight that biggest risk to humanity is climate change and dependence on oil. To make alternatives to plastics, fertilisers, pesticides the best way of doing this is leveraging biology. We can make biobased alternatives. From drought resistant crops, to ensuring they are more resilient to different pests and diseases caused by climate change, to making vegi burgers that taste good and relies on less cows there are numerous solutions that could help humanity. People start to consider that world is not black and white. Might not like it, but can be tool for good.
Even the most ardent anti-gmo advocate will concede they want medicines that will stop little kids getting cancer. That nuance is a win for me.
I literally had a climate change denier tell me that oil drives the world economy and decarbonisation is a tax that is given to people that are too lazy to produce any value themselves.
They had the balls and ignorance to spout this in the middle of the the largest oil embargo the world has seen in decades if not ever.
Nothing I would say would move that person’s needle an inch.
It’s hugely frustrating. I once get heckled by someone spouting similar view. The way I responded was taking their premise and expanding it.
I explained that while I don’t agree. Ultimately even if they disagree on the intent of alternatives (climate change being a hoax) . Ultimately oil is finite and takes millions of years to form. Irrespective of beliefs at some point in the not too distant future it’s starts to become uneconomical to extract. Be it 50 or 100 years. So we need alternatives and we also need those solutions to protect national interests.
The other way is you just chip away. I once shared an office with devote christian who didn’t believe in evolution or climate change. After 4 years of sharing an office with me he did
I agree with the sentiments and share the frustrations of your post and challenge/question only in debate.
Is it their job? I ask that because I don’t know, I think this view has become accepted as common practice. I would expect Politicians to win favour with the electorate through inspiration and ideas. In my life time it started with Cameron against Milliband, the Tories didn’t offer any inspirational ideas or positive policies, their whole campaign was basically mocking Ed, his big Stone of promises and Labour. Starmer got elected mainly on the back of his promise of “Change”.
People will listen if there is something to hear, which is why people are ditching the two main parties.
I know from your posting history that you are very passionate about Climate Change and its consequences and I respect that. I can imagine there are a lot of people who don’t care but there are also a lot of people who care but it’s not their immediate concern. Their immediate concern is paying the bills, providing for their family.
My view is that we need to start educating children from an early age, maybe even make it part of the curriculum. As parents teaching them the importance of turning the lights off, their tablets off.
I agree our system is broken. This is across the board, across all parties and part of the problem is us! the public.
I refer to the first part of the post I quoted, where you say about it’s unlikely to change anyone’s views, they don’t listen and are unwilling to understand. Is this because they don’t fall inline with the educators values?
Just because someone refuses to change their view to align with someone else’s, it does not necessarily mean they don’t listen/understand and refuse to. It may be because they have a different view, which they are entitled to and they probably share the same frustrations in that people are not listening/understanding their concerns.lt
Yes. If they disagree with a policy proposal, they are supposed to highlight it. That should filter through to the electorate to choose the next government.
They are not the people I mean here but this group is a massive concern. Not because of their apathy towards Climate Change, more because we have a system that puts them into the position where they are unable to consider it a priority.
Ultimately this is the answer to everything. But that is being deliberately suppressed.
Quite the opposite, in fact we all do. I expect most of us to do our duty and vote this Thursday. Will the fundamental rules of the game change following that election? Not a chance. We will still be governed by a system that filters wealth upward, drives droves into poverty across the world and destroys the world at the same time. And we get shiny new Nikes in return. Those I mention simply believe that system works or are ignorant to the reality of it.
Even voting Green won’t change much. While I admire their efforts, they may if given enough support make some small differences but they aren’t tackling the issues on a global scale. They simply can’t.
While it’s a depressing thought, you play the game hoping you can improve things locally. Maybe it does, but what is apparent from our last 20 years, maybe the government isnt really in charge.
The environmentalism I come from has always been staunchly opposed to Genetic Modification, and I remain deeply concerned about its application.
However, I find a lot of the concern raised about GM by my fellow environmentalists quite absurd. Talk of Frankenstein foods and so on. My biggest issue has always been corporate ownership of the food chain, and sleepwalking into a situation where big corporations control our ability to grow food.
We’re there already. Well pretty much.
And why is there such push back against renewable energy? Same reason. We can’t have people generating their own energy now can we?
There’s honestly a growing part of me that admires people that can live fully off grid. I feel it should be something for me to move towards.
Point 1 - I agree bad policies should be challenged, but I find it is happening more often and regarding everything. Parties are more focused on pulling the Government up every issue, on a varying level of importance rather than come up with a plan that reassures the electorate.
Point 3 - I would question whether it is deliberately suppressed. It just hasn’t been given enough consideration, importance which is equally as bad.
Point 4 - I understand your frustrations but what is the alternative? This isn’t solely a UK problem or a 2026 problem (note I understand you loosely refer to the world). I agree that the distribution of wealth is scandalous but unfortunately that is life. It has been like this since the year dot.
Sadly the World is not fair, and this will be a constant until the World stops spinning.
On another note and for another day. I would love hear your thoughts on the recent’s prediction from the ONS that the population will shrink if you don’t factor in migration and also the use of AI replacing humans. I think Japan have just started using Robot baggage handlers in their Airports for example.
I have no problem with multiple parties running for election. The concern I have is to what it highlights, which is the publics frustration and lack of trust/belief in the main parties.
One problem I do foresee is a lot of people making excuses, blaming other people for the anticipated shafting Labour are going to get at the locals.
All policies should be questioned. That doesn’t mean voting against it, but understanding full impact of it.
I’d argue otherwise. Everything from lack of funding, tuition fees etc. The whole thing has been rigged to suit those that can pay for too long.
Yes a problem decades in the making. Ever since much of world moved towards subsidising capitalism we were always going to end up here. And no it is not life. I do not begrudge anyone being successful but what we have is public money used to subsidise investment in “something” but we get very little in return. Maybe some jobs and taxes. Strictly speaking that’s not capitalism. We then bail them out when it fails with more public money. That’s part of our failure.
I dread to think where we end up in saying another 50 years of this.
RE immigration. The UK needs it. That makes up for the lack of expertise we have, as well as backfilling jobs that simply need people. That doesn’t mean uncontrolled immigration, quite the opposite.
But globally immigration is complex. Stopping blowing up other countries to unleash your resource hungry corporations might be a good start, but that doesn’t suit the funded capitalists I mentioned above.
My response was on the impression you were referring to educating children on being more energy efficient.
I understand some aspects of higher education can be elitist but my parents were never rich yet I was provided a good, financially viable environment to learn.
I speak from my own experience, I am aware that others may have had a different experience.
It is not decades it is the History of time. The people have pretty much always paid a tax of some kind and Capitalism has always existed in some form.
We pay our taxes because it is our legal requirement and yes a lot of this money is wasted by the bad decisions of our Government.
I know you have your concerns about pensioners but our Taxes pay for people less fortunate and to provide free education and Healthcare.
I completely agree, I don’t have an issue with immigration - just the other week I was in Hospital for a couple of nights the other week and the Doctors/Nurses were predominantly not White British, they were all lovely from the skilled Dr’s to the caring Nurses.
My issue is with it being uncontrolled. As harsh and simplistic as it sounds, as a country we are already struggling to support the needs of the current inhabitants.
A strange question but one I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on (because I am unsure of my own) is where do you stand on Food delivery drivers? Would you class that as a job people need filling? There is clearly a demand for delivery drivers but it is not a skilled job, you don’t even have to pass a driving test to operate a Moped.
