It's not something most people would be willing to admit to in public, but I do think that it's pretty common. The vast majority of people only care about things that either directly affect them, or fit into the tribe/team/us-not-them slot. The only way to have a mass movement is to directly appeal to self-interest, or to hijack the team slot.
Since environmental disaster due to global warming or species extinction is at least decades off, environmentalists who want environmentalist goals to be achieved have, as I see it, three choices:
They can say that disaster is nearly upon us in the next 3-10 years. This is likely to backfire in 3-10 years, of course.
They can try to hijack the team association by making environmentalism into a pseudo-religion. This has more potential, but more downside, since if it goes too far it could result in a cultural mood that discourages solutions civilization needs, like higher-density energy and high-yield agriculture.
Lastly, they can just try to build things that people would rather use, and which are better for the environment, such as the subject of this thread, the Tesla.
It seems to me that productive people who are worried about the environment would be best served by doing that last, since it has more leverage potential, and since there are already a lot of people working on the first two.
It's not something most people would be willing to admit to in public, but I do think that it's pretty common. The vast majority of people only care about things that either directly affect them, or fit into the tribe/team/us-not-them slot. The only way to have a mass movement is to directly appeal to self-interest, or to hijack the team slot.
Since environmental disaster due to global warming or species extinction is at least decades off, environmentalists who want environmentalist goals to be achieved have, as I see it, three choices:
They can say that disaster is nearly upon us in the next 3-10 years. This is likely to backfire in 3-10 years, of course.
They can try to hijack the team association by making environmentalism into a pseudo-religion. This has more potential, but more downside, since if it goes too far it could result in a cultural mood that discourages solutions civilization needs, like higher-density energy and high-yield agriculture.
Lastly, they can just try to build things that people would rather use, and which are better for the environment, such as the subject of this thread, the Tesla.
It seems to me that productive people who are worried about the environment would be best served by doing that last, since it has more leverage potential, and since there are already a lot of people working on the first two.