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.
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.
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?
.
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.
.