You must log in or register to comment.

Rakshear t1_j7ftdd0 wrote

This is how I got my family to stop littering, I told them if we recycle we help America be less dependent on foreign material and more secure as a nation.


almostcyclops t1_j7hzxkz wrote

The fact that this worked when most of our recycling is shipped to China is hilarious.


AlphaSquad1 t1_j7jp5z6 wrote

*was shipped to China. They stopped taking all but the highest value recycling in 2018. Many cities have had to switch to either burning their recycling for power or just throwing it in their landfills now.


Widespreaddd t1_j7kejbg wrote

Yes, my city stopped free recycling. You can recycle some items, like glass, if you want to, but you now have to pay them to take it.


mattjouff t1_j7ifi97 wrote

Well depending on where you are 90% of recycled stuff still ends up in landfills because you can’t just have cardboard mixed in with different types of plastics. The sorting still has the be done by humans, so it’s easier and cheaper not to sort.


oldar4 t1_j7jb5jn wrote

You realize recycling is bs though? Used to sell more plastic so you won't feel bad, by oil companies themselves. Not much actual recycling is going on, most of it is dumped


LeftFaceDown t1_j7k12vl wrote

People have forgotten that it is three R's: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

The first two are important too.


Lucyintheye t1_j7lyxse wrote

And recycling is the last on the list for a reason. Only to be done when your efforts to reduce waste and reuse/repurpose said items are exhausted.


oldar4 t1_j7n3eyz wrote

They don't market the 3 Rs. They market the recycling symbol and the number that says whether its recyclable or not. Qnd most of it ends up in the trash anyway. The better way is to not buy or use or produce any of it to begin with


DeNoodle t1_j7hka5i wrote

I got my 87yo, republican Father to admit universal healthcare would be a good thing because I framed it as an investment in the health of the population, which would be more productive as a result, and make America's economy stronger.


James_Solomon t1_j7id6db wrote

This was also why you had a lot of federal programs to ensure the population was vaccinated, fed, and baseline educated - America found out in WW1 that many Americans couldn't need the fitness standards of the army at the time.


wiggywithit t1_j7ii7ur wrote

Brilliant! I’ve used that argument with my conservatives about immigration. Instead of thinking of it as “they leach off the system I pay for”. Or the classic “der tuk rrr jerrbbbs” I say how about, as a people, we invest in these people, and then we can all pay taxes.


uberneoconcert t1_j7iymbi wrote

That's also my argument but "responsibility as a value" (and concerns about how well it would be run) somehow supercede the value of life.


DeNoodle t1_j7lr5hw wrote

There are different philosophies; for some a life's value is determined by output, for some it's impact, for others life has innate value regardless of impact or output. It's not an exhaustive list, but if I can generally find where someone lands on the continuum between those three then you can frame almost any argument to the benefit of what motivates the listener.


your-uncle-2 t1_j7lhj3c wrote

In South Korea, universal healthcare was framed as fighting communism by being better than North Korea.


PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_j7jl69t wrote

That’s how I always saw it. It’s not really about the human rights argument to me. It’s about efficiency. It’s more efficient to fund it all from one source instead of each individual agonizing over plan details, arguing with insurance over claims, dealing with doctors, etc. It’s also wildly more efficient to have a healthy, productive population. The current system only benefits the wealthiest and the insurance companies


PinkFloydBoxSet t1_j7imxgt wrote

This has always been the best venue for positive climate impact.

Same reason in deep red states with high hunting populations have a bunch of "conservation groups" who push anti deforestation/development/mining bills to the locals. It works. Simple pitch. Vote for bill XYZ so they don't cut down a bunch of forests and destroy your hunting areas.

It's also working for banning a bunch of inhumane practices like trapping.


BjornAltenburg t1_j7jaeke wrote

Got any evidence? Hunting has been on the decline for two decades now and the lack of sportsman tax revenue generally in state budgets out west has not been matched. Take it from an avid hunter most state legislaturesand the public can not be brought to care even in red states. I know it's more a light article but can dig out the poli Sci papers if need be.


PinkFloydBoxSet t1_j7l3kdd wrote

Because it’s what is being used in Montana, Wyoming, Indiana and some parts of Florida that I know of personally because I have seen TV ads and know people working with the advocacy groups on the local level.

I have friends who mention that it is also going in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky.

That evidence enough.


DorianGre t1_j7n16sg wrote

And Arkansas and Illinois. Finding large tracks of land for sale that hasn’t had some part of it enrolled in a wetlands or conservation easement is getting more and more difficult. (Also, this will be a large problem in the future. Forever use bans is not best productivity or ecology.)


eldedomedio t1_j7gn7b3 wrote

Finding a shared viewpoint as a point of departure during a conversation about anything is beneficial for joint exploration of positive thoughts and possible actions. Community and commonality are key.


oldar4 t1_j7jbi4b wrote

Absolutely. Though its a 2 way street. But discourse like this is much preferred to the 2 enemy party system we've fallen into.


OIlberger t1_j7kdo2q wrote

It helps if one side of the argument wouldn’t rather cut their arm off rather than agree with a perceived liberal POV on literally any topic.


YggdrasilsLeaf t1_j7gew4s wrote

I’ve found it’s easier to keep asking them questions that inherently cause them to contradict themselves and challenge their current outlook.

Some people have to realize a thing on their own before they are capable of willingly accepting it.


oldar4 t1_j7jbohb wrote

No thats generally not a good approach because they'll fall back on emotions and probably hate you as well. And just not really listen to anything you say. You have to appeal while listening and be open to their ideas as well. As you're not right about everything either.


drkgodess t1_j7hsps8 wrote

Self-discovery is a cornerstone of teaching.


uberneoconcert t1_j7iyzja wrote

Doesn't work on my mother. She says "What are you trying to set me up for?" Then goes off on another tangent.


Shark_Leader t1_j7lbyp7 wrote

That's usually the worst approach. The evidence is in the study for this post. People have cognitive dissonance and will do all sorts of menatl gymnastics when you take that approach.


LanghamP_ t1_j7fxjwg wrote

I accidentally found that talking about how we can use drones as pollinators for commercial crops works surprisingly well. We've killed off most of the bees in North America via commercial crops and lawns that using drones to pollinate our portions of our crops will almost certainly be necessary in our near future.


Regular_Independent8 t1_j7gbdyy wrote

Using drones as a replacement for the bees is a good solution for the chemical companies….That way they can continue to sell their bee killing products.

Restoring the bee population is actually the most important action to do. It is late but not too late.


foolsfatal t1_j7jm670 wrote

Is this not how you can best present your case, no matter the topic, by giving arguments for something, rather than against?


Zeal514 t1_j7kpupm wrote

Yes, logic, rationale, reason, facts seem to work well.


autumnals5 t1_j7kd0jx wrote

“One-hundred companies are responsible for more than 90 percent of all global plastic waste, according to new research from The Plastic Waste Makers index.”

I will leave this here. Sure we all need to be more mindful of the environment and do what we can but without corporations making the switch what we do won’t matter that much.


rdvw t1_j7nxiio wrote


“The researchers noted that many sustainable behaviors – lowering the thermostat, recycling or buying fewer disposable products – are household or community endeavors that follow discussion and consideration. And so it follows, they say, that persuading others to adopt sustainable practices could be achieved through a common social activity: talking about it.”


AutoModerator t1_j7fospq wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


granoladeer t1_j7jjja8 wrote

  1. "Plants are cool"

  2. "Ok"

  3. ??

  4. Profit


Bitter-Inspection136 t1_j7lq7k9 wrote

This is the type of content we need more of. Thanks for posting this OP!


Ph0enixRuss3ll t1_j7lxmh9 wrote

People are dismissive of sustainability are capitalists who use fear to crack the whip on their employees. All capitalists are terrorists.


A_Evergreen t1_j7nrody wrote

Them: “Do you have any idea what’s in the vaxx?” Me: “Do you have any idea what’s in your air, water and food?”


JackEddyfier t1_j7g687s wrote

Is it also possible to change the minds of nihilists and climate loonies by sharing a pro-human point of view during a verbal or written exchange?, or are the minds of nihilists and climate loonies lost forever?

Asking: for the world.


Dependent_Yak8887 t1_j7gaxng wrote

What is a climate looney? Typically nihilistic attitudes wouldn’t involve strong opinions about policy either way, anyway not mentioned in this study as far as I can tell.

Ontological world views can definitely change over time….


Valyrian_Kobolds t1_j7hiq8c wrote

A pro-human point of view is a sustainability minded one...


JackEddyfier t1_j7hn0iu wrote


A anti-human idea which legitimises poverty.


Valyrian_Kobolds t1_j7holl7 wrote

Cutting down every forest to feed your fires won't help you in the winters to come. I don't know what sort of brain rot it takes to think planning ahead is a bad thing.


mekareami t1_j7hwe27 wrote

Calling folks who see humans as dangerous invasive species names is not going to convince them that humans are great and we should totally have 6 kids each to prop up the economy...

Unless by pro human you are advocating for quality of life vs quantity.


hellhoundtheone t1_j7kbafa wrote

if everyone has 6 Kids we are going down the rabbit hole much faster