Catastrophic narratives and their limits
It seems to me quite clear that there is a thought behind Greta's communication strategy: the will to invoke a perennial state of exception, but above all the intention to take refuge in an emotional register, such as not to allow replies. "Why, can't you see? The forest is burning! The old lady is dying! The hill is collapsing! The river is dry! The river is overflowing!"
A veritable flood of exclamation points, and for those who don't let themselves be overwhelmed by them, there is the end of the world weapon: the reductio ad Hitlerum .
It seems to be stuff codified in the books of the Scientists (for example here , but when this blog worked you wrote the bibliography!). The damage that such communication can do to the most fragile minds and those in training are the subject of specific investigations , which we will not dwell on (unless you wish: but then you should contribute, that is not my field of investigation ). The fact is that catastrophic communication, especially when it is done by losers, is at a high risk of backfire :
( here ).
Meanwhile, if in order to draw attention to a long-term phenomenon, transitory episodes are emphasized, as in this case , it is easy to predict that the predictions of the nerds will not come true , and one will regress towards something that perhaps is not, but which nevertheless seems the normality:
as I noted today: we have before us the ten most normal days of the last credici thousand years
The peak at 48 degrees (or even 43 in Rome) simply didn't show up, as it was quite easy for me to predict: the newspapers didn't lose credibility, because they didn't have it; the Greek scum neither, for the same reason; some eventual serious analyses, if there were, and certainly there will be, even among those not censored by the mainstream , would however have lost it and who is to blame for this? Because of four idiots who keep crying "wolf! wolf!" for sinister reasons of political shop!
Then there is another fact: lies, when they are so blatantly so (due to the emotional way in which they are spread) lead us to ask ourselves questions. The first question I asked myself, as a human being who thinks of other human beings, is: but if it's 48 degrees here, how many will it be in Africa? Sixty? Thus, for some months now I have been monitoring the temperatures of the main sub-Saharan capitals. Do it too, it's very instructive! You will consider the idea of "climate migration" put around by four scoundrels who are not at ease with geography as worthwhile. Incidentally (i.e. for the Greta scum) I'm obviously not saying that the Sahara is a garden of delights. I'm saying that in urban centers where most of the population that then arrives here tends to gather (i.e. the one rich enough to be able to violate the rules on immigration by resorting to the expensive services of merchants of human flesh) temperatures are objectively not the main push factor . In Abuja, the capital of Nigeria, for example, it is now 24 degrees, exactly like here, and the annual maximum is around 37 (as it happens to be in Rome). So if the reasons come here (licit or illicit, respectable or sordid, justifiable or unjustifiable) they are others, they are of a social and political nature, and the attempt to bring them back to "objective", physical, or rather geophysical causes, exploiting ignorance of people, it is not exactly an indication of clarity of intentions, dear puppets of the Chinese!
On the other hand, if one abstracts from the frenzy with which the many unresolved adolescents who infest social media run to appropriate their own truth to defend usque ad effusionem sanguinis , and one places oneself on the side of the political decision-maker, that is, of a person who instead of to seek one's own happiness in the narcissistic contemplation of the truth that one carries in one's pocket must seek the happiness of others by making correct choices, there is no way out of Borghi's trilemma, according to which what we witness:
- o it is normal, and therefore does not require particular exceptional interventions;
- o it is exceptional but attributable to non-anthropic causes (geological, astronomical, etc.), and therefore there is no way to contrast them;
- o it is exceptional and attributable to anthropic causes, but then the strategy consisting in turning to goods produced in countries much less environmentally conscious than us (such as China, which rhymes with Greek scum) will be counterproductive: we will produce more CO2 than we suppose to eliminate.
And so what?
And therefore the problem cannot be solved with the hysteria of Greta dregs, with the destruction of our industrial fabric which would account for less than 1% of the world's total emissions, but with mitigation strategies (land management, reforestation, reservoirs, etc.) which would in any case be appropriate and which have also been interrupted by austerity, i.e. by the other major driver of deflation and regressive distribution of income before the green (a phenomenon from which we warned you here, as usual, with very large advance , to no avail…). Behind this stuff, needless to say, there are always the usual suspects: the asinistra and the orthoptera. But you'll also be tired of hearing this: it's perhaps the only thing I've managed to make you understand, probably because you already knew it.
Good night!
This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL https://goofynomics.blogspot.com/2023/07/le-narrazioni-catastrofistiche-e-i-loro.html on Wed, 26 Jul 2023 21:52:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.