this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
16 points (100.0% liked)
Degrowth
1110 readers
3 users here now
Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Interesting. I share your general take so it's good to know I'm not missing something obvious.
TBH I'm finding it very hard not to psychoanalyze. EK is a super conscientious intellectual with two young children. He's therefore super invested in making his moral choices add up correctly. This insidious thought first occurred to me a couple of years back when he began emphasizing that the most recent climate forecasts are - surprise! - better than than the previous ones. (That said, I like to use this factoid when talking to complete pessimists, because mindless pessimism is a danger in itself IMO.)
Pretty sure I remember that and it pricked my ears up too.
I have thought quite a bit about this.
I remember a week last year where Ezra Klein interviewed Hannah Richie, author of "Not the End of the World", and Adam Conover interviewed a guest whose name escapes me, but basically was arguing an opposite opinion to Richie. Conover had interviewed Richie only a week or two earlier, and so the podcasts created this fascinating split-screen.
Conover and his guest explored the thesis that we're in a cataclysmic crisis, and in such a situation we should be ready to shake things up. Call things as they are. Recent climate wins are nowhere near enough and demand MORE.
Meanwhile, Klein and Richie explored the thesis that we're in a cataclysmic crisis, and in such a situation we need to be very constructive in our guidance. Call things as they are, but don't create panic. Recent climate wins are evidence that change is possible even if they're nowhere near enough, so we should celebrate these as we keep negotiating for more.
These four basically agreed on all the basic facts. But whereas Conover and his guest were ready to rumble, Klein and Richie both quietly admitted to one another that they'd largely gone vegan out of recognition that this kind of change was necessary, but neither liked to talk too much about it for fear for being derided as radical or preachy. I have since joked that Adam Conover seems to be who Ezra Klein would turn into if he drank Dr. Jeckel's disinhibiting transformation potion.
That's where I think Klein is. I think he sees the logic in many things, but he's fundamentally an anxious, data-driving cynic who -- perhaps rightly -- recognizes that most revolutions fail, and those that succeed have plenty of case studies of producing terribly disappointing outcomes. So he tries to do what he thinks is reasonable.
I think he's an interesting bellwether for mainstream thought, and could be persuaded further to the left.
Interesting insight, thanks!
I do remember the interview with Hannah Richie and thinking something similar. After all this careful hedging about how we need to keep things in perspective and perhaps it's not so bad, she suddenly admits to personal behavior that suggests otherwise! But I definitely took her more seriously because of that.
I'd say EK is cautious rather than a cynic (tho perhaps the meaning of this powerful word is migrating). And honestly, I share his general temperament.
What really bothers me about EK is his apparent ecological illiteracy. Yes, we know that voters like economic growth. To the point that it might even be a prerequisite for democracy and individual rights (I suspect this fear is what is driving EK). But we also know that economic growth is closely correlated with ecological destruction, and that the dream of absolute decoupling is nowhere in sight. And that there will be no social progress left to protect with a biosphere in full breakdown. At this point these observations are pretty close to anodyne scientific truth. I expect doctrinaire orthodox economists to wave them away or ignore them - but so does this thoughtful vegan. I don't get it. Am I really smarter than Ezra Klein? For me it's an ongoing mystery.
He's mentioned often what a hyper conscious over thinker he is. Have you seen the scene in The Princess Bride where Wallace Shawn is trying to guess which cup is poisoned? And he speculates what his adversary thinks he'll think they think he'll think they think? I think that's an example how at a certain point, it doesn't matter how smart you are. When you're trying to predict other people, logic only goes so far before it just breaks down.
Perhaps EK has considered what you've observed. But I think what he says has to be presumed to be through a tremendous filter. Hit him up when he's on a gummy and a glass of Pinot Noir and I bet he sounds like Carl Sagan or some shit. We can't really know, because he minds his words carefully.
Anyway, I like to listen to him, but I take everything he says in all that context.
Ha. Amusing. I haven't seen that scene but I know what you're talking about. Seems like a decent theory of mind for EK. What remains for me is the interesting paradox of being intellectually in awe of someone who holds what seems to be a transparently dumb opinion. Still, his voice is very nice to listen to. And that beard looks great too - such an improvement.