Your example shows exactly what people are missing. Just because you did not have the capacity for more dogs doesnt mean that other people never got convinced to save one of those dogs. If those pictures convinced even just one person to adopt a dog, then it was worth the minor inconvienience that you had to go through.
Similarly the actual damage from this protest is slim to none (if they used the same stuff as usual that just washes away with water) and if it convinces somebody to get politically active for climate change then it was already worth it.
You thinking that you are powerless, shouldnt result in other people being forced to be powerless when they are not.
That’s not how climate change works. Everybody except for politicians and fossil fuel executives are me in this scenario. We’re just being told constantly how the world is getting hotter and something must be done and there’s fuck all I can do about it. And that’s also true of every person at Stonehenge that day.
We can’t control where the energy comes from and what cars are made and what bottles drinks are put in. And it’s really clear that it doesn’t matter who we vote for either.
So, in this situation, people see these stunts and just get angry and stop paying attention since there’s nothing they can do about it anyway.
Who’s actually doing that, though? I mean that sincerely. Is there anyone who wouldn’t have gotten involved, but who was swayed to do so by orange paint on historical artifacts? This seems like directionless compensatory venting by activists whose other strategies are failing to meaningfully persuade.
Further, what’s the balance of people in the other direction who have an inkling that they’d consider doing more, but who are swayed against it by the increasingly unhinged extremist tactics these protestors are using? There’s an entire online ecosystem rife with a combination of climate denialism, analytical paralysis, and doomsaying, and there’s a non-zero number of people who likely either stop caring or throw their hands up in frustration because protestors are doing more harm than good by throwing what I’m sure looks to them like ridiculous tantrums. For every ally they gain, they probably lose some, too.
And that’s not even touching on the fact that systemic structural changes are the only possible solution to this problem, and making the average person feel guilty and/or agitated is a weird form of victim shaming.
A better way to propose your question is: out of all the millions of people on Earth who hear about these activities, will literally 0 of them take any meaningful action against climate change?
The likelihood of that quite small, suggesting a non-zero value. That non-zero value is likely to be smaller than the damages of water-washable paint.
I’m not advocating for anyone here, but I think that’s the calculus OP was suggesting, and it makes perfect sense to me.
If eye-rolling and annoyance produced greenhouse gases, then it might be a different story.
I’m not sure I follow. You’re suggesting that >0 people take meaningful action as a result of hearing about this protest. I’m saying that >0 people take fewer meaningful actions as a result, and >0 probably turn away from your cause when they hear about stupid shit like this. So for every one convert in the right direction, there are some in the other direction. Whether or not the two balance is certainly up for debate, and which side you prefer to highlight at the expense of the other, depends on your preconceived opinion.
Which really just reiterates that this kind of nonsense is a net negative, because the people who respond positively to it were already converts in the first place.
Your example shows exactly what people are missing. Just because you did not have the capacity for more dogs doesnt mean that other people never got convinced to save one of those dogs. If those pictures convinced even just one person to adopt a dog, then it was worth the minor inconvienience that you had to go through.
Similarly the actual damage from this protest is slim to none (if they used the same stuff as usual that just washes away with water) and if it convinces somebody to get politically active for climate change then it was already worth it.
You thinking that you are powerless, shouldnt result in other people being forced to be powerless when they are not.
That’s not how climate change works. Everybody except for politicians and fossil fuel executives are me in this scenario. We’re just being told constantly how the world is getting hotter and something must be done and there’s fuck all I can do about it. And that’s also true of every person at Stonehenge that day.
We can’t control where the energy comes from and what cars are made and what bottles drinks are put in. And it’s really clear that it doesn’t matter who we vote for either.
So, in this situation, people see these stunts and just get angry and stop paying attention since there’s nothing they can do about it anyway.
Again, how does this help?
There are so many “annoying” protests that this logic can be applied to that would seem pretty short-sighted in retrospect.
It’s not these people that future generations will think poorly of.
So this is just about what future generations will think, not about solutions?
Who’s actually doing that, though? I mean that sincerely. Is there anyone who wouldn’t have gotten involved, but who was swayed to do so by orange paint on historical artifacts? This seems like directionless compensatory venting by activists whose other strategies are failing to meaningfully persuade.
Further, what’s the balance of people in the other direction who have an inkling that they’d consider doing more, but who are swayed against it by the increasingly unhinged extremist tactics these protestors are using? There’s an entire online ecosystem rife with a combination of climate denialism, analytical paralysis, and doomsaying, and there’s a non-zero number of people who likely either stop caring or throw their hands up in frustration because protestors are doing more harm than good by throwing what I’m sure looks to them like ridiculous tantrums. For every ally they gain, they probably lose some, too.
And that’s not even touching on the fact that systemic structural changes are the only possible solution to this problem, and making the average person feel guilty and/or agitated is a weird form of victim shaming.
A better way to propose your question is: out of all the millions of people on Earth who hear about these activities, will literally 0 of them take any meaningful action against climate change?
The likelihood of that quite small, suggesting a non-zero value. That non-zero value is likely to be smaller than the damages of water-washable paint.
I’m not advocating for anyone here, but I think that’s the calculus OP was suggesting, and it makes perfect sense to me.
If eye-rolling and annoyance produced greenhouse gases, then it might be a different story.
I’m not sure I follow. You’re suggesting that >0 people take meaningful action as a result of hearing about this protest. I’m saying that >0 people take fewer meaningful actions as a result, and >0 probably turn away from your cause when they hear about stupid shit like this. So for every one convert in the right direction, there are some in the other direction. Whether or not the two balance is certainly up for debate, and which side you prefer to highlight at the expense of the other, depends on your preconceived opinion.
Which really just reiterates that this kind of nonsense is a net negative, because the people who respond positively to it were already converts in the first place.