3 ms·

Sure, I agree it requires coordination, but that doesn't absolve one's share of responsibility. One might similarly argue that there is no point in voting (or

Sure, I agree it requires coordination, but that doesn't absolve one's share of responsibility. One might similarly argue that there is no point in voting (or feeling bad for not voting in elections) as no individual voter can expect to change the outcome of an election. Elections also require coordination. Industries face the same coordination problem as individuals. Choosing to be environmentally friendly in most situations puts your company at a distinct competitive disadvantage (which often means your company goes out of business). I'm sure many companies would only be too happy to adhere to environmental regulations if all their competitors in all countries adhered to the same standards. If we want environmental change, need to stop waiting for everyone else does to clean up their act first. Why shouldn't we start with ourselves?

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> One might similarly argue that there is no point in voting (or feeling bad for not voting in elections) as no individual voter can expect to change the outcome of an election. Elections also require coordination. Yes. No individual voter can't expect to change the outcome, so if you really want to change something in your country, this is by far the least effective thing you could do. It's also very much low-cost, so you may as well do it anyway. I see voting more like ensuring your opinion is heard, with no expectation whatsoever of it making a difference. After all, the point of democracy is to weigh your opinion equally with everyone else's. > Industries face the same coordination problem as individuals. Choosing to be environmentally friendly in most situations puts your company at a distinct competitive disadvantage (which often means your company goes out of business). I'm sure many companies would only be too happy to adhere to environmental regulations if all their competitors in all countries adhered to the same standards. My point exactly! That's just the same problem one level up, and that's why the solution usually involves regulations. Free market is an extremely efficient mechanism for ensuring everyone defects on everyone else. (Then again, countries face the same problem one level up. They compete for money and influence too. Corporation exploit this to get themselves out of inconvenient regulations by threatening to move jobs they create to another country. There's no global meta-government one level above to solve those coordination issues.) > Why shouldn't we start with ourselves? But how come that we don't start with ourselves? Because it's a coordination problem. Starting with ourselves means life-quality sacrifice on individual level - and life-threatening sacrifice on company level - for zero gain, as almost nobody else bothers with that sacrifice. Proclaiming that "[we] need to stop waiting for everyone else does to clean up their act first" doesn't really make anyone stop waiting and do the changes. (And if it happens that your proclamation resonates enough to simultaneously capture minds of enough individuals, what happens is the market economy exploits it immediately. Like with every other fashion, the market will provide you with products and services that fulfill your heart's need to be environmentally friendly. Products that make you feel you did your duty, even though those products at best are environmentally negative by very virtue of existing, and at worst they do much more damage. Compare to how this plays out with "healthy" food via this subthread about restaurants from half a day ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020635. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020635.) -- Ultimately, it's not about absolving one's share of responsibility. It's about recognizing that the problem can not be realistically tackled by making individuals feel responsible and directly asking them to change their behaviour. If it could, then by the same method we could also solve poverty and world peace. I don't really see good, reliable methods of winning. Couple strong contributions I see are: - People with money and power growing a spine and putting their influence to use in solving those issues. Not democratic, but works. See cases like Gates Foundation or Tesla. - Governments growing a spine and passing environmentally sound regulations. There are basically only four that matter - the US, the EU, Russia and China. Everyone else will follow. - People inventing new tech and doing their best to ensure it's not misused. New technology means the same market incentives can result in a more environmentally friendly outcomes, without requiring any kind of spontaneous large-scale coordination. Beyond those, I have no idea.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  I think we agree it’s a coordination problem, but to me, your philosophy sounds like actively being uncoordinated. Couldn’t disagree more strongly about the voting. The cost is almost nothing (maybe half a day of effort tops), and the potential gains are massive (including potentially having a government with a “spine”).
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    I don't feel it's my philosophy - what I'm trying to point out is that the default state of everyone is that of not being coordinated - and this applies to everything, from environmental concerns through market decisions to voting itself. In general, you can't talk people into sacrificing individual, certain benefits for uncertain, group benefits. If you have a problem that needs such sacrifice from everyone, you need a stronger mechanism for realigning incentives. RE voting, all I'm saying is that - yes, the effects of an election are huge, but the marginal influence of an individual vote on the outcome is near-zero. Note that people don't go voting "by default", you need to either encourage them (by e.g. persuading them that it's their civil duty), or force them.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> One might similarly argue that there is no point in voting (or feeling bad for not voting in elections) as no individual voter can expect to change the outcome of an election. Elections also require coordination. Yes. No individual voter can't expect to change the outcome, so if you really want to change something in your country, this is by far the least effective thing you could do. It's also very much low-cost, so you may as well do it anyway. I see voting more like ensuring your opinion is heard, with no expectation whatsoever of it making a difference. After all, the point of democracy is to weigh your opinion equally with everyone else's. > Industries face the same coordination problem as individuals. Choosing to be environmentally friendly in most situations puts your company at a distinct competitive disadvantage (which often means your company goes out of business). I'm sure many companies would only be too happy to adhere to environmental regulations if all their competitors in all countries adhered to the same standards. My point exactly! That's just the same problem one level up, and that's why the solution usually involves regulations. Free market is an extremely efficient mechanism for ensuring everyone defects on everyone else. (Then again, countries face the same problem one level up. They compete for money and influence too. Corporation exploit this to get themselves out of inconvenient regulations by threatening to move jobs they create to another country. There's no global meta-government one level above to solve those coordination issues.) > Why shouldn't we start with ourselves? But how come that we don't start with ourselves? Because it's a coordination problem. Starting with ourselves means life-quality sacrifice on individual level - and life-threatening sacrifice on company level - for zero gain, as almost nobody else bothers with that sacrifice. Proclaiming that "[we] need to stop waiting for everyone else does to clean up their act first" doesn't really make anyone stop waiting and do the changes. (And if it happens that your proclamation resonates enough to simultaneously capture minds of enough individuals, what happens is the market economy exploits it immediately. Like with every other fashion, the market will provide you with products and services that fulfill your heart's need to be environmentally friendly. Products that make you feel you did your duty, even though those products at best are environmentally negative by very virtue of existing, and at worst they do much more damage. Compare to how this plays out with "healthy" food via this subthread about restaurants from half a day ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020635. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020635.) -- Ultimately, it's not about absolving one's share of responsibility. It's about recognizing that the problem can not be realistically tackled by making individuals feel responsible and directly asking them to change their behaviour. If it could, then by the same method we could also solve poverty and world peace. I don't really see good, reliable methods of winning. Couple strong contributions I see are: - People with money and power growing a spine and putting their influence to use in solving those issues. Not democratic, but works. See cases like Gates Foundation or Tesla. - Governments growing a spine and passing environmentally sound regulations. There are basically only four that matter - the US, the EU, Russia and China. Everyone else will follow. - People inventing new tech and doing their best to ensure it's not misused. New technology means the same market incentives can result in a more environmentally friendly outcomes, without requiring any kind of spontaneous large-scale coordination. Beyond those, I have no idea.

jaredklewis 8y ago
I think we agree it’s a coordination problem, but to me, your philosophy sounds like actively being uncoordinated. Couldn’t disagree more strongly about the voting. The cost is almost nothing (maybe half a day of effort tops), and the potential gains are massive (including potentially having a government with a “spine”).
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  I don't feel it's my philosophy - what I'm trying to point out is that the default state of everyone is that of not being coordinated - and this applies to everything, from environmental concerns through market decisions to voting itself. In general, you can't talk people into sacrificing individual, certain benefits for uncertain, group benefits. If you have a problem that needs such sacrifice from everyone, you need a stronger mechanism for realigning incentives. RE voting, all I'm saying is that - yes, the effects of an election are huge, but the marginal influence of an individual vote on the outcome is near-zero. Note that people don't go voting "by default", you need to either encourage them (by e.g. persuading them that it's their civil duty), or force them.