Thanks for the link. I will listen when I have more time (note that I’m one of those attention-deprived modern online people, but I’ll try). But right now I’d like to share some first impressions and personal beliefs.
I have posted about what I call the engagement problem on this community forum, and it is similar to what we see at large scale with surveillance activism and climate change: urgent problems and insufficient action.
You mention ‘creating better awareness campaigns’. I pose that most people are perfectly aware already, at least to the extent where they know they ought to act. But such is our human nature and hectic life that we’ll only do so once personally affected in a real sense. When the water floods our house, or the AI wrongful judgment landed us in jail. And even then our action is mostly focused on removing our personal problem, after which life-as-usual continues. This is excluding the small minority that are already activists, and for whom further awareness is unneeded.
Activism demands sacrifice, whether it be in time, effort, money or otherwise. That sacrifice constitutes the barrier to act.
And it is asked again and again and again everywhere we turn. We get climate stress and flight shame and whatever. So much so that people entirely tune out of the message.
Now when I opened that NPR link, I feel full agreement with the first of text:
“Grappling with the realities of the climate crisis can be incredibly discouraging—especially when we feel powerless, paralyzed, or don’t know where to start.”
But I when I then quick peek at the list of “Direct Action” resources, I immediately see the article headlines that I’ve seen in a 1,000 variations for the past 35 years of my life. And though that all of them try not to - they all are asking for sacrifice it seems. It’s a first impression, I know, and I clicked the most hopeful titles, like “How to Stop Freaking Out and Tackle Climate Change” - a five-step plan to deal with the stress and become part of the solution.
Then Step 2: Focus on systems, not yourself. (okay, fine). Then:
[We can’t fight everywhere when] pushing for the systemic changes we need. […] I have chosen to fight against a proposed gas pipeline, liquefaction facility and liquefied natural gas export terminal (sacrifice) […] My point is that the climate crisis is not going to be solved by personal sacrifice. (contradiction). It will be solved by electing the right people, passing the right laws, drafting the right regulations, signing the right treaties — and respecting those treaties already signed, particularly with indigenous nations. It will be solved by holding the companies and people who have made billions off our shared atmosphere to account. (right, its an abstract far-from-my-bed show, and I can point to others to take their responsibility)
Luckily in my quickscan I see there is also real good stuff: “How peer pressure can help stop climate change”, though with “peer pressure” having negative connotation and it has a lot of negative intro before the positive gist is revealed:
But my study of “behavioral contagion” — social scientists’ term for how ideas and behaviors can spread through populations like infectious diseases — has changed my view. The environmental impact of seemingly insignificant voluntary actions is far greater than most people realize, for two related reasons. First, they have the power to shift how the people around us behave. Second, and more important, they change who we are, making us much more likely to support the large-scale policies needed for progress.
That’s something I truly believe in, and I think it can be done in a way leave out negative connotations, where people with climate stress already skipped to the next channel.
I gotta go