![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
100 People Paddling a Boat Towards the Top of a Waterfall
There are 100 people paddling a boat towards the top of a waterfall. One person realizes the danger, and raises the alarm. Do they stop paddling? Do they start back-paddling against the other 99? Or do they keep paddling towards the danger, while loudly yelling "we all need to stop paddling into danger"?
This is analogous to the situation activists find ourselves in. If the issue is climate change, then in this scenario, the boat represents industrial civilization. If the issue is digital cages, the boat represents the internet. Either way, the other 99 people represent everyone we care about. We can jump out of the boat, but everyone else going over the waterfall is still going to affect us.
We can take a fatalist position that the boat is doomed, and do and say nothing. We can raise the alarm while paddling towards the abyss with everyone else, in which case our message rings hollow. We can raise the alarm without paddling, in which case we're just making noise. What are we asking everyone to do? If we back-paddle while raising the alarm, our message is more likely to be taken seriously, and we're modelling what needs to be done.
It's true that if only one person back-paddles, the other 99 will still propel the boat over the edge. But it's equally true that exactly the same thing will happen for sure if the person raising the alarm isn't walking the talk (or in this case paddling it ;) A majority back-paddling is needed to effect change, but *someone* has to be brave enough to be the first one paddling against the mainstream, and cop all the flack that comes with that. It's equally essential that a small group are brave enough to listen to the 'voice in the wilderness', and join the back-paddling effort, so that solo back-paddler isn't just written off as a crank and ignored.
Originally posted on the fediverse.
This is analogous to the situation activists find ourselves in. If the issue is climate change, then in this scenario, the boat represents industrial civilization. If the issue is digital cages, the boat represents the internet. Either way, the other 99 people represent everyone we care about. We can jump out of the boat, but everyone else going over the waterfall is still going to affect us.
We can take a fatalist position that the boat is doomed, and do and say nothing. We can raise the alarm while paddling towards the abyss with everyone else, in which case our message rings hollow. We can raise the alarm without paddling, in which case we're just making noise. What are we asking everyone to do? If we back-paddle while raising the alarm, our message is more likely to be taken seriously, and we're modelling what needs to be done.
It's true that if only one person back-paddles, the other 99 will still propel the boat over the edge. But it's equally true that exactly the same thing will happen for sure if the person raising the alarm isn't walking the talk (or in this case paddling it ;) A majority back-paddling is needed to effect change, but *someone* has to be brave enough to be the first one paddling against the mainstream, and cop all the flack that comes with that. It's equally essential that a small group are brave enough to listen to the 'voice in the wilderness', and join the back-paddling effort, so that solo back-paddler isn't just written off as a crank and ignored.
Originally posted on the fediverse.