SuttaCentral
My latest blockbuster video, on solutionism, the idea that tech can fix it! I take a leisurely tour of the background and philosophical implications of solutionism, and why, ironically enough, it may be the thing that prevents us from solving climate change.
We don’t even know whether earth is actually a planet, or is it that the sky is blue because it is the color of the dome? Do you believe NASA? I don’t trust anyone so I won’t believe it unless I see it with my own eyes. Which is a Buddhist teaching on itself, right? What if mara deceived us by saying that earth is a planet? He deceived Baka Brahma if I’m not mistaking.
Not quite. The Buddha said that all his teachings can be seen for oneself, but certainly did not say that this is the only reliable source of knowledge. See AN3.65, the Kalama Sutta
Anumodana sadhu sadhu sadhu, Bhante, for another great climate video.
It was like when I listened to your presentation of the Keeling curve, that this left me in a nice space of stillness, seeing the way it is, and agreeing with what was reflected, that that kind of thinking that got us into the problem isn’t the right kind for getting us out of this mess.
I like a bit of revolution, so I guess it’s the Robin Hood in me maybe … 
But I also think that mindlessly bringing new babies into this world, or better out of this messy world, isn’t the wisest one can do now. So, take from the rich and give to the poor, yes, but also don’t allow for more than one child for each family.
No. The Buddha taught a reasonable and constructive approach to knowledge. Extreme skepticism undermines reality just as surely as extreme dogmatism. Trust in others, reasoned inference, reliance on authority: all these have their place, and are essential to living a healthy and meaningful life.
Pure distrust, as is found in conspiracy theories, and as underlies blockchain and crypto technologies, betrays an unhealthy paranoia and lack of compassionate understanding of fellow humans. Love more, trust more. 
Truth is pragmatic. It is functional. It serves a purpose. The Buddha was opposed to any idea of a dogmatic or absolute truth; rather, he looked to what matters. The reality that we see in Buddhism is the truth that helps us to let go of suffering. If it does that, it’s done its job. If we end up becoming alienated and distrustful, then that’s on us: we have taken the snake by the tail. 
I’m sorry but I don’t believe in climate change at all. It’s simply impossible. You telling me I should trust a thief? I don’t want to be rude, but I was an atheist in the past. I was even such a sci-fi dork. The very reason why I started to believe in religion is because I know something is going on in this world. An open conspiracy if you will. This is real.
PS: I don’t know how to quote
Then this teaching is not for you. Be happy, and live a life full of love and understanding. 
This might help a bit.
This video also address the problems with Solutionism. From the consequences of Colonialism, the push for unlimited growth in a limited world, lithium extraction, and tons of other deep problems that don’t get addressed when billionaires and politicians talking about climate change.
Is great. Thanks for sharing it!
Watching now, it looks good thanks.
One point I noticed, he says, “doomerism only helps the fossil fuel industry” which is the kind of thing I’ve heard people say many times, but I’ve never seen anyone actually offer any evidence in support. Is there any actual empirical evidence on this point?
“The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” by Epstein and Moore’s film “Planet of the Humans” immediately jump to mind as examples of doomer-flavored, pro-fossil-fuel propaganda. Their basic claim is “yeah, sure fossil fuels are bad, but no fossil fuels would be much worse.”
Hmmm okay, the largest study I could find (32 countries, N>12k) shows that climate anxiety is positively correlated with climate action:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494422001323
Finished now! It’s awesome.
Not sure that’s correct. Epstein’s is so far as I know what The Kurzgesagt Agenda video (TKA) called “ecomodernism”, basically let libertarianism loose and it will solve things. Moore is the opposite: current solutions are too heavily invested in capitalism. It seems to me that neither of these are doomers. One says capitalism will save us, the other that getting rid of capitalism will save us. Doomers say nothing will save us.
Ha ha, I knew it! Science says I’m right yet again! But seriously, the whole “doomerism means you’ll just give up” is one of those things that is repeated constantly as a self-evident truth, and I think it’s no such thing.
I’m a proud doomer: I think there’s slim likelihood that civilization will survive climate change. More likely the majority of the earth’s population will die horrible and unnecessary deaths and the rest will revert to tribal warlords battling it out like Mad Max, except without the cool stuff like, you know, cars.
I’ve believed this for a decade now, it’s made zero difference to how much activism I do. 
I simply don’t want to be the kind of person who would stand by and do nothing.
Okay, I’m fact checking the video as I go. Again, it’s a really excellent video, highly recommend, just a few points I would do differently.
TKA critiques the Kurzgesagt source on coal burning by focusing on gas, but that’s not the only problem with this data. Following are quotes from Kurzgesagt:
“coal burning in India has slowed down”
“leveled off like in China”
Also the graphs they’re showing on this point are not ideal, as they begin in 1980. If you look at the global data from 1960, it accelerates rapidly in the 00s, and the last few years has been bumpy but more or less on the same trajectory as pre-1990.
So it’s by no means true to say that coal is over.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/16/world/coal-use-record-high-climate-intl/index.html
doomerism is based on the fallacy of assuming “business as usual”, i.e. that humans will not change
“Business as usual” describes the increase of coal emissions and global atmospheric CO2, which last month was 422.14 ppm, an increase of about 3.5 ppm over the previous July (418.85 ppm). This increase has been remarkably steady since the beginning of records.
It’s not that we’ll do nothing to respond, but that future responses are likely to continue to be as ineffectual as past ones.
Of course some things will get better, but also some things will get worse. Global atmospheric CO2 is not “one of the bad things”, but the sum of all the good things and the bad things: and it’s bad.
What are those “bad things”? The dark horse here, which I think is chronically underestimated in most future scenarios—and not discussed directly in the video— is the collapse of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism.
TKA overlooks this ongoing and very real change, while accusing doomers of thinking things will not change. On the contrary, I think that with greater chaos and insecurity more people will turn to the hollow promises of dictators.
TKA focuses on the problems of neoliberalism and libertarianism, but I think the time will not be long before we look back on neoliberalism with fond sentimentality. In fact, I would argue that in the US that point was already passed in 2016, and the ensuing mess makes Reagan and the Bushes look like models of balance and reason.
Regarding the climate apocalypse, I spoke with an atmospheric scientist from NASA around three years ago, who was in favor of doing what ever we could to ameliorate this problem. Then he said that they had run numerous models, including impossible ones like the US and all of Europe immediately going to zero emissions.
Even with this assumption, the worst effects of climate change were delayed by merely three years, due to emissions from India and China.
Still, we have to do something!
Isn’t this based on the idea that capitalism = libertarianism? You can have capitalism without libertarianism. The Nordic countries, for example.
CO2 is plant food.
Thats all i am going to say, since i’ve already been flagged once for political views…back to the suttas for me 
True, but what’s your point?
CO2 is also acidifying the oceans and destroying huge areas of coral reefs while warming from CO2 in the atmosphere, along with methane, is melting the glaciers and warming the more southerly oceans, leading to alterations in ocean currents.
Just to name a few effects.
But maybe I’ve misunderstood you…
There absolutely is not, which is why there is a global consensus of climate scientists on this matter.
On the “co2 is plant food” disinformation:
Please be warned, what you are doing is climate change denialism, and it is not permitted on this forum.
