EcologyInterventions

Posts

Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions

Comments

Why fun writing can save lives: the case for it being high impact to make EA writing entertaining

My semi-outsider perspective might be useful here: 
On the one hand I feel like I can barely absorb any content from the EA forums because the posts are so technical and dry that I can barely get through any one of the many painstakingly crafted masterpieces that are posted here every day. I would learn and engage so much more from an increase in conversational writing and a decrease in formality/careful wording. 

On the other hand I am deeply impressed that this forum exists at all. It is harboring so many high-quality, deep soliloquies and extensive rational discussions that I'm afraid to disturb whatever magic allowed this to place to grow. We so desperately need a place for this kind of dry discussion to be welcomed and where it can bear fruit. I don't know anywhere else that is like here. 

So my answer: The atmosphere would be risked with such a change, leading to bad odds. By all means write more engaging material, but put it everywhere else but here. =P 
Epistemic status: dubious

[Creative writing contest] [fiction] The Iron Woman of the Southern Ocean by DJ Cockburn

Nice contribution to the contest! Its plot is really on topic with a couple of individuals making a difference, improving the future for all. 
For the purpose of the contest it does not "get to the (EA) point quickly," with most of the focus being on the relationship between the main characters.  (I also personally think it's a bad idea to encourage individuals geoengineering, so I wouldn't endorse this entry)
But it was both a good story with a unique themes, plot, and protagonist. I enjoyed reading from George's perspective. I thought it was well-written and realistic. It is not inherently emotionally compelling to dump iron sulfide in the ocean, but you made it dramatic and daring to take actions which do the most good for the planet. Well done!

The scene at the end seems unreasonable. I initially brushed it off as "they spent 7 years together" but he betrayed her; sabotaged everything that is meaningful to her; and she opts to leave her entire life behind in order to escape. That is not some paradise boat ride into the sunset, that is losing her friends, family, income, home, life's-work, everything. I don't think she would kiss him in that moment, especially when he hasn't made any sacrifices or amends. Why does she like him now?  Lacking another explanation, I am parsing it as wish-fulfillment for the reader. I am also reading her actions as a message to the audience to forgive him. Both of which I dislike. I do not know if these interpretations are what you intended.

I especially like the part where Lindsay is worried about the secondary effects of what they are doing (fires, floods). I thought it was a great lifelike application of EA values in a non-theoretical setting:
"If we hadn’t done what we’re doing, would the consequences be better or worse?" 
"When a cost-benefit analysis tells you that the benefits outweigh the costs, you don’t lose sleep over the costs. [...]  I guess she saw costs and benefits in a different currency to me."

I'm new to the EA forums and not very familiar with the proper writing etiquette here, so apologies if I am responding improperly. I wanted to provide some feedback for this story since it obviously was written with care and has gotten a harsh reception thusfar without any explanation provided.