5 ms·

What's terrifying is that people don't connect their behavior to global warming and spew the most ignorant garbage justifying their airplane flights and so on,

by spodek 10y ago

What's terrifying is that people don't connect their behavior to global warming and spew the most ignorant garbage justifying their airplane flights and so on, including the most knowledgeable people. We can't stop what's happening now, but as sure as we wish past generations had reduced polluting, future generations will wish we had. But almost no one does. How many people do you know haven't flown in the past twelve months versus how many have? Everybody cares about the environment until they want to see the Eiffel Tower.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 10y ago
Individual actions don't make any noticeable difference. Climate change won't be affected if I fly to Europe next month versus staying home. It's a massive collective action problem, and collective action is hard. Individuals changing their habits won't do anything to help.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  That's the biggest cop-out ever. Of course 'individual actions don't make any noticeable difference'. But every collective action is ultimately enacted by lots of individual actors the sum of whose actions is making a noticeable difference. The bigger problem is that there are so many people in the pay of those who'd rather watch the world burn that the short term interests are going to win out or have at least significant enough effects that in the longer term we're going to be paying a very hefty price indeed. Individuals changing their habits will do plenty, if enough individuals are involved. It's a sales and marketing job. If you can get 100's of millions of people to download a stupid game then you probably could get 100's of millions of people to think about whether or not they really need to make that trip, about whether or not they need a new car or not and whether or not they really need to have the AC running 24/7, and to vote for parties that have an eye out for the environment (never mind that in a two party system that's a pipe dream but in countries with coalition governments those parties do tend to get into positions of relative power and the changes they cause are large enough to matter).
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It's not a cop-out, it's simply acknowledging reality. My individual choices don't matter. What matters is convincing billions of people to all make those individual choices. Changing my own behavior does nothing to convince those others. It seems paradoxical on the surface, but that's how it is. Someone who spends his time flying around the world while successfully convincing the masses to be environmentally conscious will have a much greater positive impact than someone who reduces his own carbon emissions to zero but does nothing else. Flying to see the Eiffel Tower, or not, doesn't do squat.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      It's just a way to do whatever you want to do 'because it doesn't make a difference anyway'. But it does make a difference: because you chose not to fly and by telling others that you chose not to fly and why you are setting an example. That act, multiplied by thousands does have an effect. So your individual choices do matter, because you are not only affecting yourself but also those around you, who in turn may affect those around them and so on. Virality is at every scale made up of small connections. I could easily afford a new car. Instead, I've bought an old one which will last me at least another 5 years at a very small fraction of the price and the environmental impact of buying a new one. Anybody that challenges me on why I drive an old boat like that is a primary candidate for a lesson on what the environmental impact of a new vehicle - even one that is more energy efficient than this old one - is. And so on, hopefully with a replication factor > 1.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Talking down to people about their choices because you see it as a cop-out is a great way to reduce your replication factor. If you think that it's useful to set an example, then fine. But if I honestly think that my example isn't going to change anybody else's mind, then it's not a "cop-out" to take a flight anyway because the marginal contribution to climate change is down in the noise.
        10y ago
- jayjay71 10y ago
  No raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Yes, because no raindrop is responsible for the flood. If you want to stop floods, you need to invest in dams and levees which can influence the behavior of all of the raindrops. Going to the individual raindrops and suggesting that they should change course doesn't work.
antisthenes 10y ago
I won't be able to afford kids in my lifetime, so the people who can have to pay me in order to not pollute if they care about the quality of life of their kids. Want your little offspring to have fun in Florida before it goes underwater? Pay for my solar panels or screw off. It is far too costly for me to employ a strategy that takes into account future generations and someone's going to have to pay that cost, because I can't afford it.

by spodek 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mikeash 10y ago

Individual actions don't make any noticeable difference. Climate change won't be affected if I fly to Europe next month versus staying home. It's a massive collective action problem, and collective action is hard. Individuals changing their habits won't do anything to help.

jacquesm 10y ago
That's the biggest cop-out ever. Of course 'individual actions don't make any noticeable difference'. But every collective action is ultimately enacted by lots of individual actors the sum of whose actions is making a noticeable difference. The bigger problem is that there are so many people in the pay of those who'd rather watch the world burn that the short term interests are going to win out or have at least significant enough effects that in the longer term we're going to be paying a very hefty price indeed. Individuals changing their habits will do plenty, if enough individuals are involved. It's a sales and marketing job. If you can get 100's of millions of people to download a stupid game then you probably could get 100's of millions of people to think about whether or not they really need to make that trip, about whether or not they need a new car or not and whether or not they really need to have the AC running 24/7, and to vote for parties that have an eye out for the environment (never mind that in a two party system that's a pipe dream but in countries with coalition governments those parties do tend to get into positions of relative power and the changes they cause are large enough to matter).
- mikeash 10y ago
  It's not a cop-out, it's simply acknowledging reality. My individual choices don't matter. What matters is convincing billions of people to all make those individual choices. Changing my own behavior does nothing to convince those others. It seems paradoxical on the surface, but that's how it is. Someone who spends his time flying around the world while successfully convincing the masses to be environmentally conscious will have a much greater positive impact than someone who reduces his own carbon emissions to zero but does nothing else. Flying to see the Eiffel Tower, or not, doesn't do squat.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    It's just a way to do whatever you want to do 'because it doesn't make a difference anyway'. But it does make a difference: because you chose not to fly and by telling others that you chose not to fly and why you are setting an example. That act, multiplied by thousands does have an effect. So your individual choices do matter, because you are not only affecting yourself but also those around you, who in turn may affect those around them and so on. Virality is at every scale made up of small connections. I could easily afford a new car. Instead, I've bought an old one which will last me at least another 5 years at a very small fraction of the price and the environmental impact of buying a new one. Anybody that challenges me on why I drive an old boat like that is a primary candidate for a lesson on what the environmental impact of a new vehicle - even one that is more energy efficient than this old one - is. And so on, hopefully with a replication factor > 1.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Talking down to people about their choices because you see it as a cop-out is a great way to reduce your replication factor. If you think that it's useful to set an example, then fine. But if I honestly think that my example isn't going to change anybody else's mind, then it's not a "cop-out" to take a flight anyway because the marginal contribution to climate change is down in the noise.
      - 10y ago
jayjay71 10y ago
No raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Yes, because no raindrop is responsible for the flood. If you want to stop floods, you need to invest in dams and levees which can influence the behavior of all of the raindrops. Going to the individual raindrops and suggesting that they should change course doesn't work.

antisthenes 10y ago

I won't be able to afford kids in my lifetime, so the people who can have to pay me in order to not pollute if they care about the quality of life of their kids. Want your little offspring to have fun in Florida before it goes underwater? Pay for my solar panels or screw off. It is far too costly for me to employ a strategy that takes into account future generations and someone's going to have to pay that cost, because I can't afford it.