4 ms·

i'm not trying to attack you personally, and i don't think you're a bad person, but i think you're mistaken. we are living in sodom, and you have the choice to

by igor47 7y ago

i'm not trying to attack you personally, and i don't think you're a bad person, but i think you're mistaken. we are living in sodom, and you have the choice to be Lot or to be a random citizen, and you chose to be a random citizen because "everyone else is doing it". i understand the resistance to unilateral action, but that doesn't change what the right thing to do is.

rlpb 7y ago
> and you chose to be a random citizen because "everyone else is doing it". You're projecting. That is not the reason I gave. The reason I gave is that it would cause me either economic harm or reduce my enjoyment of life to do so, for what I perceive to be no practical gain (it does not, IMHO, advance the environmental cause).
- igor47 7y ago
  doing a little market research for a side project i'm working on -- https://spaceshipearth.org https://spaceshipearth.org -- if you thought that taking individual action actually does advance the environmental cause, would you take the action? in our project, we hope to get you to take individual action with a group of your friends, so your collective impact is amplified. we're also hoping to show you the quantitative impact of your contribution. would this help to change your mind at all? or do you a-priori think individual action has no benefit?
  - rlpb 7y ago
    > if you thought that taking individual action actually does advance the environmental cause, would you take the action? That's a very general question. We were talking about merely modifying behaviour to reduce consumption. Now it seems that you're talking about something else. It depends on if you're asking me to modify existing behaviour or take some new action, the actual details, the cost to me (including social cost) for taking that action, and the quantified expected benefit to the environment. "You deferred climate catastrophe by one year" would probably be worth doing. "You deferred climate catastrophe by 0.00004 seconds" would probably not - I'd rather have spent that effort convincing one other person to vote differently.

by igor47 7y ago

rlpb 7y ago

> and you chose to be a random citizen because "everyone else is doing it". You're projecting. That is not the reason I gave. The reason I gave is that it would cause me either economic harm or reduce my enjoyment of life to do so, for what I perceive to be no practical gain (it does not, IMHO, advance the environmental cause).

igor47 7y ago
doing a little market research for a side project i'm working on -- https://spaceshipearth.org https://spaceshipearth.org -- if you thought that taking individual action actually does advance the environmental cause, would you take the action? in our project, we hope to get you to take individual action with a group of your friends, so your collective impact is amplified. we're also hoping to show you the quantitative impact of your contribution. would this help to change your mind at all? or do you a-priori think individual action has no benefit?
- rlpb 7y ago
  > if you thought that taking individual action actually does advance the environmental cause, would you take the action? That's a very general question. We were talking about merely modifying behaviour to reduce consumption. Now it seems that you're talking about something else. It depends on if you're asking me to modify existing behaviour or take some new action, the actual details, the cost to me (including social cost) for taking that action, and the quantified expected benefit to the environment. "You deferred climate catastrophe by one year" would probably be worth doing. "You deferred climate catastrophe by 0.00004 seconds" would probably not - I'd rather have spent that effort convincing one other person to vote differently.