Climate Debate Going Into Mass Psychosis?
Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne
At the online German news weekly Der Spiegel here, we find an interview with philosopher Alexander Grau.
Grau has been studying the language and symbols in the climate debate and also works as a freelance cultural and business journalist. He writes the column “Grauzone” for political magazine “Cicero”.
When asked by Spiegel what he thought when he saw Greta Thunberg’s outburst at the UN in New York and her emotional accusation of “how dare you!”, Grau responded:
Greta Thunberg’s performance was aggressive and fanatical. That was repulsive and clumsy. “Fridays for Future” on the other hand has to make Thunberg’s message suitable for events. This is about mass communication: the result is political kitsch: simple solutions, sub-complex problem consideration, strong collective emotionalization, transfiguration of nature and a denial of reality that claims to be realism.”
He tells Spiegel: “Greta Thunberg’s appearance had something fanatical about it.”
When Spiegel asks if Greta Thunberg and “Fridays for Future” call on us to finally acknowledge the reality of climate change and draw conclusions from it, Grau says that there’s a series of conflicting goals at play:
But the whole story also includes the fact that we are dealing with a series of conflicting goals. Climate protection is just one of many political goals. Without poverty reduction, for example, we will not get a grip on overpopulation. But for that we need economic growth and a great deal of cheap energy. A complete phase-out of humanity from fossil fuels could lead to even greater catastrophes.
Grau also told Spiegel in the interview:
In view of human intervention in the ecosystem, many people think that the world would be more peaceful, ecological and harmonious without humans. But that is nonsense. Man, also the man of modernity, is part of nature, not an external foreign body. Here a cynical misanthropy is barely veiled.”
Read full interview on Spiegel Online