4 ms·

We've been seriously discussing solutions. The real question is at what point do people start actually applying what they learn in these serious discussions in

We've been seriously discussing solutions. The real question is at what point do people start actually applying what they learn in these serious discussions in how they live their own lives? I don't think it ever happens on a large enough scale to matter before it's too late to avert massive loss of life and global conflict. Things will naturally sort itself out, the population collapses, lots of lives suffer, but life goes on.

crispinb 8y ago
> The real question is at what point do people start actually applying what they learn in these serious discussions in how they live their own lives? But they can't. People live in systems with affordances and restrictions. What about their lives can a lower-middle-class family living in an outer Sydney suburb meaningfully change? Little, and only at the margins (a bit of recycling, some solar panels). Certainly not even approaching the ballpark of what our situation requires. Any strategy for change demanding that we should on average become exceptional is mathematically doomed to failure.
CalRobert 8y ago
Well, I think that some people, at least, are trying to do that. But it's about as big a tragedy of the commons as you'll find. What we need is for most people to eat less meat, live in walking and cycling-friendly city in a modern flat built without concrete, use renewable energy for electric, heating, and cooling, and take the train or slow-ish boat places (or a very expensive flight with audited carbon offsetting). All of these things are feasible - hell, downright easy, technologically. Not a bad life really. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have among the highest quality of life in the world. I am envious every time I visit. Instead all of the people doing that are essentially making things slightly better for the one's building bunkers in New Zealand (with enormous emissions to boot). Sooner or later you realize individual action is just a bandaid on a shotgun wound, and to some extent you're just making things cheaper for you gas-guzzling meat-loving cousin. Change MUST be organized at a governmental level. Governments exist to solve problems just like this one! Lighthouses are a common economic example (any one person not paying can still reap the benefit, so you have to enforce/organize action on the construction of said lighthouse). Of course, it doesn't help that much of the world, especially the US, forced every city built in the last 100 years to be horrible by law. (Parking minimums, zoning, Robert Moses types, redlining, etc. etc.)

crispinb 8y ago

> The real question is at what point do people start actually applying what they learn in these serious discussions in how they live their own lives? But they can't. People live in systems with affordances and restrictions. What about their lives can a lower-middle-class family living in an outer Sydney suburb meaningfully change? Little, and only at the margins (a bit of recycling, some solar panels). Certainly not even approaching the ballpark of what our situation requires. Any strategy for change demanding that we should on average become exceptional is mathematically doomed to failure.

CalRobert 8y ago

Well, I think that some people, at least, are trying to do that. But it's about as big a tragedy of the commons as you'll find. What we need is for most people to eat less meat, live in walking and cycling-friendly city in a modern flat built without concrete, use renewable energy for electric, heating, and cooling, and take the train or slow-ish boat places (or a very expensive flight with audited carbon offsetting). All of these things are feasible - hell, downright easy, technologically. Not a bad life really. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have among the highest quality of life in the world. I am envious every time I visit. Instead all of the people doing that are essentially making things slightly better for the one's building bunkers in New Zealand (with enormous emissions to boot). Sooner or later you realize individual action is just a bandaid on a shotgun wound, and to some extent you're just making things cheaper for you gas-guzzling meat-loving cousin. Change MUST be organized at a governmental level. Governments exist to solve problems just like this one! Lighthouses are a common economic example (any one person not paying can still reap the benefit, so you have to enforce/organize action on the construction of said lighthouse). Of course, it doesn't help that much of the world, especially the US, forced every city built in the last 100 years to be horrible by law. (Parking minimums, zoning, Robert Moses types, redlining, etc. etc.)