I’m not deep into that specific topic, I just brought it up as a large environmental action to show that these things do happen and are not as visible as you might imagine.
That being said I think there are different perspectives. As far as I understand it the factory was built without good justification, and it has a negative impact on the environment.
“Picking” the lesser of two evils implies there is some kind of exclusive relationship between climate change and vandalism. As if this action had some kind of effect that counters climate change.
I didn’t imply it, I explicitly started with that.
You might not believe that all attention is good attention, but can you imagine that some people do see it that way? In fact I’ve seen a docu about a photographer who believes disruption is the only way to get people’s attention.
They are climate activists so I imagine climate change is one of the two evils. The other one is potentially upsetting the lichens and people’s feelings.
You might not agree with their decision, but I don’t find it irrational.
Right, that’s what I thought you were referring to, and responded to. Ruining stonehenge versus the climate. Or vandalism generally versus the climate.
We’re not picking between these things. They’re independent variables.
Disturbing the lichens on stonehenge vs generating awareness is clearly connected, since it grabbed our attention without millions of euros of advertising.
I think it’s based on the idea that all attention is good attention, and you pick the lesser of two evils.
What you are suggesting is already the case, but it tends be be less visible. For example did you know about this?
Are they protesting the specific location of the factory or the concept of factories?
I’m not deep into that specific topic, I just brought it up as a large environmental action to show that these things do happen and are not as visible as you might imagine.
That being said I think there are different perspectives. As far as I understand it the factory was built without good justification, and it has a negative impact on the environment.
“Picking” the lesser of two evils implies there is some kind of exclusive relationship between climate change and vandalism. As if this action had some kind of effect that counters climate change.
But it doesn’t.
I didn’t imply it, I explicitly started with that.
You might not believe that all attention is good attention, but can you imagine that some people do see it that way? In fact I’ve seen a docu about a photographer who believes disruption is the only way to get people’s attention.
Then what are the two evils you’re referring to, and which action are you referring to with picking the lesser evil?
They are climate activists so I imagine climate change is one of the two evils. The other one is potentially upsetting the lichens and people’s feelings.
You might not agree with their decision, but I don’t find it irrational.
Right, that’s what I thought you were referring to, and responded to. Ruining stonehenge versus the climate. Or vandalism generally versus the climate.
We’re not picking between these things. They’re independent variables.
deleted by creator
Disturbing the lichens on stonehenge vs generating awareness is clearly connected, since it grabbed our attention without millions of euros of advertising.