comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 39 minutes ago
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?

The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.

Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.

We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Never know if you're on the wind up on these threads.

Where exactly is the evidence that younger people are changing their behaviour in response to a concern around the climate?

I don't see it.

Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to quantify these things but as a millennial myself, I know an awful lot of people who have become vegan/reduced their meat consumption since becoming an adult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I was going to say - veganism/vegetarianism is the area where I would expect to see younger people making more sacrifices than their elders. Fast fashion, perhaps not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethical/sustainable fashion makes up less than 1% of the global clothing marketplace by sales.

Consumer-wise, very few even in the developed world are doing anything about it, which is a massive, massive, massive issue given the scale of the industry and how hugely damaging it is environmentally and socially.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?

__________

This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh?

It's a question, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption


^
This part, the meat consumption listed comment seems massively wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a question.

What part of that don't you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think he's implying that it's so obvious that younger people are more likely to be vegan/vegetarian that that shouldn't have been listed in the question with the other things. Not saying I necessarily agree, but I think that's his point.

Red Russian (U4715)

Yep, I can show you data that proves people don't tell the truth in surveys.

That's what I was referring to with the 'lies' comment.

It's not hard to deny that younger generations care about the environment more... or if they do, then they're making a pretty crap job of showing it.

comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 6 minutes ago
The efficacy of electric cars to reduce the impact on climate change is pretty much directly tied to the amount of electricity we can generate as renewable. As long as we're not renewable, all you're really doing is substituting putting liquid dinosaur into your car, for someone else using it to generate your electric.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As I understand it, a car running on electricity generated by burning coal is still more resource efficient / lower carbon footprint than a petrol or diesel engine. However, you're right that the real gains come when the energy is renewably generated.

Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)

If it's obvious then the data will back it up.

I'd tend to agree that there are more non-meat eating people around, absolutely, but I'm not sure of the overall numbers - fast food is a roaring industry, isn't it?

One of my clients is a fast food company... a big one.

We run analysis on their customers and I can tell you which section of society is buying meat products from them, and it ain't the boomers.

Granted, there's a slight leaning towards younger audiences for their non-meat range, but it's a leaning and nothing more.

If you're going to generalise whole generations then you need more than a slight trend, surely.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)

If it's obvious then the data will back it up.

I'd tend to agree that there are more non-meat eating people around, absolutely, but I'm not sure of the overall numbers - fast food is a roaring industry, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is... I'd expect both veganism and fast food to be more popular among young people. Back in my teaching days, I was always aghast at the centrality of McDonald's in teenagers' lives. I've probably been in McDonald's about ten to fifteen. times since the 90s - almost always with teenagers on a school trip.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
Red Russian (U4715)

Yep, I can show you data that proves people don't tell the truth in surveys.

That's what I was referring to with the 'lies' comment.

It's not hard to deny that younger generations care about the environment more... or if they do, then they're making a pretty crap job of showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The claim that people in general lie in surveys (which no one would disagree with) doesn't substantiate the claim you made that it's demonstrably false that young people care more about the environment. It only tells us that we shouldn't rely on surveys alone. You can only draw that conclusion if you can point to rigorous data that tells us that their behaviour contradicts their avowed views.

By the way, I'd suggest that electoral politics is rather different to opinion polls, since you're asking people to vote for policies that will impact their lives. There's a pretty consistent pattern here that younger people across the developed world are voting quite consistently for more communitarian and environmentalist parties, which suggests to me that the evidence from other surveys isn't wholly wrong when it comes to their values.

Whether human beings are hypocrites who don't always live up to their values is another question altogether.

Red Russian (U4715)

Yes, it's a lie because it's a claim made on falsehoods.

Who really has any evidence of that claim? It's a lie... it's either based on believing surveys or it's just made up.

comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)

If it's obvious then the data will back it up.

I'd tend to agree that there are more non-meat eating people around, absolutely, but I'm not sure of the overall numbers - fast food is a roaring industry, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is... I'd expect both veganism and fast food to be more popular among young people. Back in my teaching days, I was always aghast at the centrality of McDonald's in teenagers' lives. I've probably been in McDonald's about ten to fifteen. times since the 90s - almost always with teenagers on a school trip.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, but being 'more popular' is not enough, if we're talking a few percentage points, is it?

This is a claim of a whole generation caring more than another.

I call bullsheite.

Well. A quick Google search suggests that 25-34 is the age group with the most vegans.

comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
Well. A quick Google search suggests that 25-34 is the age group with the most vegans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Never said otherwise.

Have you actually digested what I said?

Let's put this in football language.

If Team A are averaging one red card for violent conduct a game and Team B are averaging three red cards every four games... can Team B lecture Team A on discipline?

Can Team B be held up as the saviours of a non-violent approach to football?

Can they fack.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
Red Russian (U4715)

Yes, it's a lie because it's a claim made on falsehoods.

Who really has any evidence of that claim? It's a lie... it's either based on believing surveys or it's just made up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We're getting into epistemology here. For it to be a lie, you would have to show me that the opposite of the assertion is true, which I don't think you have. An absence of evidence to support a claim just means it's an unsubstantiated claim, not a lie.

I wouldn't describe what you've claimed as a lie, but it is no more substantiated than the proposition that young people care more about the environment. So I put it to you, that according to your logic, both the original proposition and your counter-proposition are lies!

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
Let's put this in football language.

If Team A are averaging one red card for violent conduct a game and Team B are averaging three red cards every four games... can Team B lecture Team A on discipline?

Can Team B be held up as the saviours of a non-violent approach to football?

Can they fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What if team a are full of diving cants, conning the ref into dishing out red cards?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Let's put this in football language.

If Team A are averaging one red card for violent conduct a game and Team B are averaging three red cards every four games... can Team B lecture Team A on discipline?

Can Team B be held up as the saviours of a non-violent approach to football?

Can they fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Were team B in that recent Argentine cup final?

Red Russian (U4715)

Wrong.

For it to be a lie, all I really need to show is that the person making the claim knows that they don't have the evidence to make such a claim.

And given that surely not everyone making the claim can be as stupid as to think they do have such evidence, I'd say my comment is on solid ground.

But we're going down a rabbit hole that is probably a bit dull and semantical, so maybe best left.

comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
Let's put this in football language.

If Team A are averaging one red card for violent conduct a game and Team B are averaging three red cards every four games... can Team B lecture Team A on discipline?

Can Team B be held up as the saviours of a non-violent approach to football?

Can they fack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What if team a are full of diving cants, conning the ref into dishing out red cards?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then it's fair game and Team B are indeed saving the world.

Anyway, I think Winston would be on more fertile ground drawing attention to the fact that it's a more marginal difference than an absolute distinction. Not a lie, but a simplification.

I do think this places a bit too much emphasis on consumption patterns and not enough on politics though. Older demographics are voting overwhelming for governments that are hostile to action on climate change or very cautious about it, while younger ones are voting for parties that promise more radical action. These things have a great deal of real-world impact.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
Well. A quick Google search suggests that 25-34 is the age group with the most vegans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Never said otherwise.

Have you actually digested what I said?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not arguing with you It was just a floating comment linked to veganism and age groups - I deliberately didn't reply to anyone.

I was interested so just googled it. I thought it would be a slightly lower age group.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 44 seconds ago
Anyway, I think Winston would be on more fertile ground drawing attention to the fact that it's a more marginal difference than an absolute distinction. Not a lie, but a simplification.

I do think this places a bit too much emphasis on consumption patterns and not enough on politics though. Older demographics are voting overwhelming for governments that are hostile to action on climate change or very cautious about it, while younger ones are voting for parties that promise more radical action. These things have a great deal of real-world impact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are all sorts of reasons for that and generally we see people become more right wing as they age.

There's far, far more to voting patterns than just climate policies, as you well know!

A very loose connection, imo.

comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
Well. A quick Google search suggests that 25-34 is the age group with the most vegans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Never said otherwise.

Have you actually digested what I said?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not arguing with youIt was just a floating comment linked to veganism and age groups - I deliberately didn't reply to anyone.

I was interested so just googled it. I thought it would be a slightly lower age group.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it is... but if 90% of 'young people' are happily eating meat frequently, then there's hardly grounds for lecturing older generations about how they don't care about the environment, is there?

Added to the fact that I would wager younger people waste more - clothing, electricals etc. - and probably take more shorter journeys by car.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
Anyway, I think Winston would be on more fertile ground drawing attention to the fact that it's a more marginal difference than an absolute distinction. Not a lie, but a simplification.

I do think this places a bit too much emphasis on consumption patterns and not enough on politics though. Older demographics are voting overwhelming for governments that are hostile to action on climate change or very cautious about it, while younger ones are voting for parties that promise more radical action. These things have a great deal of real-world impact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps those making the accusations could describe it as a marginal difference and stop drawing battle lines between generations?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Red Russian (U4715)

Wrong.

For it to be a lie, all I really need to show is that the person making the claim knows that they don't have the evidence to make such a claim.

And given that surely not everyone making the claim can be as stupid as to think they do have such evidence, I'd say my comment is on solid ground.

But we're going down a rabbit hole that is probably a bit dull and semantical, so maybe best left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't know what evidence the person (Rosso in this case, I believe) had in mind, and whether he is familiar only with superficial online polls or sociological studies crafted by academics to reveal unconscious biases. You don't know whether his claim was premised solely on their behaviour as consumers, nor what studies he may be aware of, and you unaware of, detailing such behaviour. Looking at the exchange, I don't think the original claim is defined precisely enough for you to define what evidence would be required to justify it, let alone conclude that Rosso knowingly stated something he knew he could not back up.

But yes, I'm being very pedantic and I think we can safely leave it there.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Red Russian (U4715)

Wrong.

For it to be a lie, all I really need to show is that the person making the claim knows that they don't have the evidence to make such a claim.

And given that surely not everyone making the claim can be as stupid as to think they do have such evidence, I'd say my comment is on solid ground.

But we're going down a rabbit hole that is probably a bit dull and semantical, so maybe best left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't know what evidence the person (Rosso in this case, I believe) had in mind, and whether he is familiar only with superficial online polls or sociological studies crafted by academics to reveal unconscious biases. You don't know whether his claim was premised solely on their behaviour as consumers, nor what studies he may be aware of, and you unaware of, detailing such behaviour. Looking at the exchange, I don't think the original claim is defined precisely enough for you to define what evidence would be required to justify it, let alone conclude that Rosso knowingly stated something he knew he could not back up.

But yes, I'm being very pedantic and I think we can safely leave it there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I know he doesn't have any evidence for the claim, because it does exist.

But I wasn't calling him a liar.

I was calling the idea a lie.