Disagree. Fear is not the only motivator, and it's a particularly bad one, because it spurs immediate action rather than exploration. Fear of sailing into the unknown is also what kept Europeans in the dark about the American continent for centuries.
What "fear" motivated the construction of the LHC at CERN? Wasn't it fear that caused a lot of people to advocate loudly against turning it on and performing experiments with it?
Overcoming fear drives progress (but it is by no means the only driver). Giving in to fear just leads to regression.
For many problems, the longer you let them sit around the worse they become. Linearly accelerating problems, yeah, you can usually get by with sitting them out.
But exponentially accelerating problems (climate change, infectious agents, consumer debt) require immediate and harsh response, otherwise they become so much more difficult to resolve. The key issue is that most people lack the basic education to understand exponential functions, even after two years of a pandemic.
> What "fear" motivated the construction of the LHC at CERN?
None.
> Wasn't it fear that caused a lot of people to advocate loudly against turning it on and performing experiments?
Indeed, but that one was a "false equivalency" media issue. Crackpots got a lot of media presence despite their claims being outright invalid from the start or being absolute niche opinions, simply because their unfounded fear brought in a lot of clicks from an ignorant and uneducated public.
Coincidentally or not, we have seen the same media issues in the COVID crisis, particularly with Fox "News"/OAN/"News"max in the US or the Axel Springer/Murdoch tabloids in Europe.
I think the main difference is that fear is an emotional response. And this important because emotions can often misguide us are also easily exploited. For instance, racism is often a product of fear. People see some group of people engaging in crime at a higher rate than usual, and start to fear all people of this group as criminals even when that fear and prejudice is completely unjustified. And tyrants since time immemorial have used "fear the other group" as a rallying cry for self righteous horrible acts in the name of a better tomorrow that never comes.
So in your examples is it primarily fear driving behaviors, or primarily logic/rationality?
this is critically underrated. dismissing ths current feardriven environment really misses the issue.
what is new now is not fear, but the communication - the market penetration. sowing dissent used to be the game of spies. now any political enemy, foreign and domestic, just has to tweet or facebook.
perhaps trust SHOULD be at an all time low.
As much as it sounds like we should "just turn off the oil" that would in fact lead to millions of deaths.
It's possible that there are problems that are unsolvable or at least a best outcome doesn't exist. Extinction maybe inevitable.
Indeed, but right now we are doing almost nothing meaningful. We shame people from taking vacation flights once every couple years but don't ban short distance "business flights" for corporate executives with a completely bonkers view on how important they are. We still don't mandate the end of "bunker fuel" burning on ships or the usage of land-line power of cruise ships. Instead of building electrified freight and passenger rail, large parts of the rail network run on decades old diesel engines, large parts of freight runs on trucks and in the US the word "high speed passenger rail" is as inconceivable as "fair minimum wage".
What is the carbon foot print of replacing all the rail and freight? Do we have the funds to make these changes all at once? How quickly can we realistically change out our entire fossil fuel infrastructure?
The first motor car was in 1886, over 130 years ago.
The first mass produced motor car was 1908, Over 110 years ago.
We've built this current system for over 100 years. Rebuilding a new one may also take a similar time line. The tragedy is we may not be able to BUT... you are right.
We should try!
You don't need to replace the rails, only add overhead power. Which, granted, isn't free in terms of CO2, but saves a lot of fossil fuel emissions and particulate matter emissions for those living adjacent to rail routes (which is mostly poor people, so this issue also has a social impact) down the roat.
> Do we have the funds to make these changes all at once?
The US spends more on their military than the next 7-11 (depending on which source you want to cite) countries combined. The US spends twice as much per person for healthcare than European countries, with worse results.
There are way more than enough ways to fund a transportation revolution, and in the worst case the US Government can issue special ear-marked bonds.
> How quickly can we realistically change out our entire fossil fuel infrastructure?
Two to three decades. Which coincidentally lines up with the predictions on when climate change will hit the "irreversibility" point.
Back in the 60s-80s, the world managed to use the fear of pox to eradicate the disease from existence - and most did so by instituting a vaccine mandate.
Back in the late 70s/80s, the world managed to use the fear of acid rain to ban sulphur emissions (LRTAP convention). In the early 90s, the world managed to use the fear of ozone to ban CFC gas usage.
Back in the Cold War, both major superpowers were too afraid of the other one to launch nuclear weapons to initiate direct warfare, and in the end the fear of global warfare led to comprehensive international agreements on reducing arms proliferation.
The difference is: back then, politicians did the right thing to do based on scientific evidence and indications of issues. These days?! Scientists and activists have warned for decades about the dangers of climate change and the urgency to do something... but until now, all we got is politicians waffling around instead of actually doing anything to combat the real problems we are going to face.