Do we have to be a hivemind?
If I say "no," does that mean yes?
Maybe.
Depends - who is the "we" in the question?
Greenpeace is a long time contributor to keeping us on - and in some instances reverting to - oil and coal, by their feelgood-based resistance to nuclear power. They are actively harmful to Earth's climate and environment.
We? How about you either study the subject and form your own opinion or then don't have an opinion on it at all.
I think there is no “we” and there is no “them”
It’s an arbitrary distinction between two groupings that are too broad to meaningfully judge.
There is also no point or honor in judging on its own. If you dislike Greenpeace's approach, find another approach and devote yourself to it, put your money where your mouth is.
Activism is in reality often a choice between choosing the least worst strategy in a context where you have limited power and control, and any decision you make will alienate someone. Particularly the armchair-sitters who believe they are “in the middle” and who’s only contribution tends to be saying empty things like “I believe in their mission just not their tactics” but don’t put forward a practical strategy of their own. This applies to most activism, particularly direct action.
There isn't enough opposition to entrenched influence. They push back against huge companies doing shitty things. I like that.
I'm ambivalent about their anti-nuclear stance. Renewables seem like a much better bet, but it's hard to say no to anything that would slow down climate change.
They've screwed up on some of their actions, sure. But they're pushing in the right direction.
absolutely, i've done a lot of research on nuclear energy recently and i can safely say: we should've shut down the coal plants. but there are some real problems with long-term storage. so if we did leave them running, we still would need to get renewable either way.
Look into deep geothermal. We don't need nuclear. There are other options
"Some real problems with long-term storage"
Political problems. Real, political problems; see Harry Reid's opposition to Yucca. Fossil fuel and renewable manufacturing also have serious waste problems that are on a far greater scale than nuclear.
If we (society as a whole) had started switching to renewables when Greenpeace first started campaigning for them, I suspect we wouldn't have the climate emergency that makes nuclear look attractive.
It's hard to expect them to change their stance just because we failed to follow their lead for decades.
Nuclear is attractive because all the renewable options are climate dependent consequently highly variable. Unless you have some new form of renewable energy, this isn't going to change.
We think?
I must confer with the hive mind
They are an anti science organization. They oppose nuclear power, GMOs, etc.
Personally I dislike top-to-bottom-orgs like gp, while I see at the same time they are fighting for a world worth living in (as I do as well).
Can't talk for anyone else, but I put them in the same category as PETA.
They probably do a lot of good, but it feels like the good they do is outweighed by all the bad they do to get there.
Like kidnapping collared dogs from the streets to euthanize them (PETA), or fighting the (at the time) only realistic alternative to oil, giving all the rich oil sheiks a hard on and adding to the already bad global warming problem (Greenpeace).
While there was like 1 fucked up story about a PETA employee doing that, it’s not something they actually do. It’s like the needles in the Halloween candy, people still spread the story
Right, I thought it was a group of employees doing this over an extended period of time, might not be a fair comparison after all then.
Not that it's a fair comparison to begin with, I just held a similar amount of annoyance toward the two.
i think they mean well. its hard to hate the person. the organization has made some interesting choices
What did they do?
Why has this community become asklemmy2
what else would it be?
Can’t make a man bun look sexy.
Good
