The kinda thing that feeds my pessimism: Really important video. So far it has 419 "views." Less important, with 10 billion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZsoesa55w
This is a reposting of the NASA video by "Next Level." I just checked the original at NASA, which has 4,400 views. A log power better, but still small.
But also, the NASA video was posted three days ago. Baby Shark was posted 5 years ago.
Here's a better approach: Take every YouTube video ever posted on the subject of climate mayhem and see how the total number of views compares with Baby Shark alone. If it's anywhere close to 10 billion, I'll burn my pessimist card.
Regardless, I appreciate your posting this, and all else. I think it's important to understand how we are destroying ourselves as we destroy ourselves. What people find compelling (or not) is ever fascinating.
When Carlin talks about the environment, I hear a sociopathic narrative. As if the suffering inflicted though ecocidal behaviors, on people, animals and ecosystems, is simply beyond his capacity to acknowledge, either morally or empathically.
Just for a point of reference, I wish Carlin had made a similar pitch about the Holocaust. Full-throated sneering at anyone who's silly enough to be troubled by genocide.
Perhaps Carlin never fell in love with nature.
I understand his misanthropy; antinatalism would have worked better in this context.
I think this bit will sound exponentially less funny as time passes.
"I think this bit will sound exponentially less funny as time passes."
It already does! I (sort of) understand the reverence for George Carlin, but he fully misses the point in this silly rant. Environmentalists aren't so much worried about the Earth itself; they are worried about the catastrophes that are in humanity's future if climate change isn't abated.
Yes. By "Earth" do we mean a big, lifeless rock? Or "life as we know it?" Vertebrate life for example? Saying the "planet will survive" is inane. It's like George loves his rock collection, but never met an ecosystem.
The kinda thing that feeds my pessimism: Really important video. So far it has 419 "views." Less important, with 10 billion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZsoesa55w
ReplyDeleteTrue, but...
DeleteThis is a reposting of the NASA video by "Next Level." I just checked the original at NASA, which has 4,400 views. A log power better, but still small.
But also, the NASA video was posted three days ago. Baby Shark was posted 5 years ago.
All true.
DeleteHere's a better approach: Take every YouTube video ever posted on the subject of climate mayhem and see how the total number of views compares with Baby Shark alone. If it's anywhere close to 10 billion, I'll burn my pessimist card.
Regardless, I appreciate your posting this, and all else. I think it's important to understand how we are destroying ourselves as we destroy ourselves. What people find compelling (or not) is ever fascinating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_videos#Billion_View_Club
The cold spells from the industrial revolution in the oughts are interesting.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/8eWQSpO2eF0
ReplyDeleteWhen Carlin talks about the environment, I hear a sociopathic narrative. As if the suffering inflicted though ecocidal behaviors, on people, animals and ecosystems, is simply beyond his capacity to acknowledge, either morally or empathically.
DeleteJust for a point of reference, I wish Carlin had made a similar pitch about the Holocaust. Full-throated sneering at anyone who's silly enough to be troubled by genocide.
Perhaps Carlin never fell in love with nature.
I understand his misanthropy; antinatalism would have worked better in this context.
I think this bit will sound exponentially less funny as time passes.
"I think this bit will sound exponentially less funny as time passes."
DeleteIt already does! I (sort of) understand the reverence for George Carlin, but he fully misses the point in this silly rant. Environmentalists aren't so much worried about the Earth itself; they are worried about the catastrophes that are in humanity's future if climate change isn't abated.
Yes. By "Earth" do we mean a big, lifeless rock? Or "life as we know it?" Vertebrate life for example? Saying the "planet will survive" is inane. It's like George loves his rock collection, but never met an ecosystem.
Delete