4 ms·

You know, waste, the common definition: I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. I wasted food. (There are starving peop

by ohyes 16y ago

You know, waste, the common definition: I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. I wasted food. (There are starving people in x country) I malloc a gigabyte of memory and don't do anything with it. I wasted memory. (but you should see what a memory hog Photoshop is, it hardly matters). I cut down a bunch of trees, and turn them into paper. I then put the paper in a big pile and don't do anything with it. I wasted paper. (I had to cut down more trees, instead of reusing the ones I already cut down). I turned that into waste, which need not be. How does economic cost-benefit analysis and share-holder value even factor into this? The fact is that we have the technology to do this, it reduces our need to cut down and process timbre, and reduces environmental impact of our consumption (and in doing so helps survival of future generations). 'The market' is incredibly short sighted in terms of planning for our future. Ethically, we should conserve resources.

jessriedel 16y ago
> I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. >How does economic cost-benefit analysis...even factor into this? Suppose we lived in a universe where tupper-ware containers cost $X and there was no cheaper substitute. If $X = $1 million, you would just throw the left-overs away. If $X = $0, you would save them. How would you decide if it's morally necessary to use tuppaware for arbitrary X without a cost-benefit analysis? (The answer probably depends on factors other than just the cost X. For the sake of moral clarity, suppose that the cost was derived purely from paying people to build the tupperware. The people who are building them consume resources like all people do, but the actual construction of the tupperware requires no inputs other than labor.)
- ohyes 16y ago
  Suppose we lived in a universe with a limited amount of food. Every time you make food, there is slightly less food available in the future. (It is kind of a function where some of it gets replaced, but not all of it, so as you proceed, the function approaches an infinitesimal number). At what point on that timeline does the finiteness of the food outweigh the cost of a tupper-ware? It seems that the answer would be right at the beginning, because the sooner we start conserving the food, the longer we would be able to sustain our supply. If I had $1 million for the tupperware, I would pay it, because it is a matter of longterm survival vs. money.
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    > If I had $1 million for the tupperware, I would pay it, because it is a matter of longterm survival vs. money. No you wouldn't. You could have eaten gruel today for breakfast, but you didn't. Unless you're really going to bite that bullet (that survival is the only morally valuable thing, so no one is allowed any non-survival-promoting fun) then you need to allow that other things, like happiness, are important. In particular, you need to allow for people to sacrifice some future survival (i.e. waste) for some happiness in some cases. How would you determine when this is OK? A cost-benefit analysis...
    - ohyes 16y ago
      If I had data that told me we were running out of food, come hell or high water, I'd find some way to conserve it. I had strawberry yogurt for breakfast. I had it because it tastes good, and is relatively good for me. I could have gone with the cheap plain yogurt, but instead I had the slightly tastier more expensive stuff, on the chance that it is actually healthier and tastier. But the morality of my breakfast isn't at question here. (I could be totally amoral and still make a good argument for what should be done). I never said there wasn't an element of cost-benefit analysis, I said that it (waste specifically) wasn't a purely economic cost-benefit analysis (which is what was argued initially). It seems that you are agreeing with me, as you have 'allowed' for other things like 'happiness'. (Which would be an emotional cost-benefit analysis). It makes me happy to think that future generations will be able to enjoy the things that I enjoy currently. Glad to have changed your mind. Please Recycle.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]

by ohyes 16y ago

jessriedel 16y ago

> I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. >How does economic cost-benefit analysis...even factor into this? Suppose we lived in a universe where tupper-ware containers cost $X and there was no cheaper substitute. If $X = $1 million, you would just throw the left-overs away. If $X = $0, you would save them. How would you decide if it's morally necessary to use tuppaware for arbitrary X without a cost-benefit analysis? (The answer probably depends on factors other than just the cost X. For the sake of moral clarity, suppose that the cost was derived purely from paying people to build the tupperware. The people who are building them consume resources like all people do, but the actual construction of the tupperware requires no inputs other than labor.)

ohyes 16y ago
Suppose we lived in a universe with a limited amount of food. Every time you make food, there is slightly less food available in the future. (It is kind of a function where some of it gets replaced, but not all of it, so as you proceed, the function approaches an infinitesimal number). At what point on that timeline does the finiteness of the food outweigh the cost of a tupper-ware? It seems that the answer would be right at the beginning, because the sooner we start conserving the food, the longer we would be able to sustain our supply. If I had $1 million for the tupperware, I would pay it, because it is a matter of longterm survival vs. money.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  > If I had $1 million for the tupperware, I would pay it, because it is a matter of longterm survival vs. money. No you wouldn't. You could have eaten gruel today for breakfast, but you didn't. Unless you're really going to bite that bullet (that survival is the only morally valuable thing, so no one is allowed any non-survival-promoting fun) then you need to allow that other things, like happiness, are important. In particular, you need to allow for people to sacrifice some future survival (i.e. waste) for some happiness in some cases. How would you determine when this is OK? A cost-benefit analysis...
  - ohyes 16y ago
    If I had data that told me we were running out of food, come hell or high water, I'd find some way to conserve it. I had strawberry yogurt for breakfast. I had it because it tastes good, and is relatively good for me. I could have gone with the cheap plain yogurt, but instead I had the slightly tastier more expensive stuff, on the chance that it is actually healthier and tastier. But the morality of my breakfast isn't at question here. (I could be totally amoral and still make a good argument for what should be done). I never said there wasn't an element of cost-benefit analysis, I said that it (waste specifically) wasn't a purely economic cost-benefit analysis (which is what was argued initially). It seems that you are agreeing with me, as you have 'allowed' for other things like 'happiness'. (Which would be an emotional cost-benefit analysis). It makes me happy to think that future generations will be able to enjoy the things that I enjoy currently. Glad to have changed your mind. Please Recycle.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]