Archived copies of the article:
- archive.today
- ghostarchive.org — you need to click ‘archived page not showing up’ in the main menu
Until serious consequences start, the more denialist politicians are, the better.
The current stage of consequences won’t snap people out of denialism, and reducing denialism without eliminating it just makes the problem worse by having more people born and more wildlife extinct before we reach that stage.
Each of us shouldn’t be denialist or support denialism at all, but we’re not politicians. Politicians are denialist, so we should welcome it when they are as extreme and rushed as possible.
The problem is not as much denialism, as what causes denialism. As long as people benefit from fossil fuels, the meat industry and so forth, they are going to defend that. The key is not to create more pain, but to reduce the number of people benefiting from destroying the planet. In other words, climate action has a positive feedback loop. Success anywhere also helps other people. For example if Germany shuts down coal power plants, that is good news for Colombians fighting coal mines producing the coal, which was exported to Germany.
Doesn’t matter. If the “progress” you’re talking about happens now, it makes things worse, not better, because the denialist population is still growing.
I get humans are attached to the idea of growing the population, but if you can’t understand what I’m saying, you’re doing denialism too.
If a German politician thinks shutting down coal mines in Colombia will stop them from being started back up, there’s a word for that: denialism.
If you are a politician, my advice is to change jobs because there’s no point acting as a “representative” of a suicide cult.
If you’re not a politician, you should accept that politicians have to at least act denialist because they represent the democracy of a suicide cult, so accelerationism is the potentially least deadly option for them.
