Where do you draw the distinction between him doing ‘nothing at all’ and ‘more for humanity than Greta will do in her lifetime’ or whatever it was you said.
Are you referring to him being an inspiration to young cyclists or something?
And do you have any data to back up your claim that she’s appealing to the wrong demographic? You might be correct there.
Old response, but...
I never suggested that Lance Armstrong cured cancer. If that’s the line of judgement, we need to judge him against whether Thunberg has reversed Climate change.
Armstrong inspired hundreds of thousands (if not, but possibly millions) to start cycling and exercising. Many of those were unfit adults that would have been a drain on health services. He brought Nike to cycling. Nike making money brought adidas, and and and. His impact on how healthy millions of humans are... is almost without parallel.
Dreadful actions and very odd character, but he remains a net social good. Greta is a decade or more away from even coming close.
——
To your second point; Greta Thunberg is largely preaching to the converted. She’s not changing my parents mind. Or their friends. Or the whole boomer generation. These people WANT to do good. For the world. For their grand kids. But she’s not taking them along for the ride. She’s not mobilising a populace against government apathy. She’s criticising people for doing nothing. She’s not gaining support from the people that need to support regime change in government.
Given the platform she has, I should be able to ask a 20/30/40/50 year old at random and know what specific things she wants to do. The answer would probably be ‘She’s that climate change girl isn’t she?’.
Her cause is 100% supported by me. The methodology is flawed in every way.
Maybe in 36 months time I’ll look at her and think ‘What a prat I was’. But I just don’t see the right messages hitting the right people.
