8 ms·

I am always a bit baffled when, after decades of living in a globalized economy, people who are part of advanced economies claim they have no connections to eve

I am always a bit baffled when, after decades of living in a globalized economy, people who are part of advanced economies claim they have no connections to events, driven by economics, occurring on the other side of the world. If you eat meat regularly, you are connected to Brazil's deforestation, either for cattle or for soy feed. If you have invested in the stock market, you are most likely connected to the international flow of capital, which is also driving said deforestation. Even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago
The problem with a post like this is that it tries to guilt the individual and their consumerism - but individuals cannot have enough of an impact. It's up to our chosen representatives to e.g. ban the import of soy and beef from Brazil. The net effect to the individual will be that beef is either more expensive or simply no longer available - and that's fine, there's plenty of local and renewable alternatives. No, focusing on and guilting the individual is, pardon my conspiracy theory language, what They want. They want you to buy more expensive organic produce, They want you to buy a new lower-emissions car at a premium price, and most importantly, They want to blame you for what They are doing - They don't care about the amazon in particular, They care about profits, and if you're too distracted with changing your own lifestyle, They can push forward with their own policies to make more money. If a whole country stops e.g. consuming soy from Brazil, there's going to be ten others that will buy it anyway because profits or deals will almost always beat morals. And even if a country bans importing soy from Brazil, there's plenty of produce laundering going on - China will move their products to e.g. Malaysia and rebrand it as "made in Malaysia" to avoid trade tariffs or quotas. And it doesn't stop there. A country can claim to recycle plastic in a renewable fashion for example, but what they aren't aware of - or turn a blind eye to - is that the recycling company they trust just bales up the plastics and ships it off to Asia, where they just burn it or chuck it in landfills. As soon as it crosses the border, it's no longer their problem. (Trash exports should be banned worldwide)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- oddeyed 7y ago
  I'm curious how you think that a country would ever stop consuming soy from Brazil unless there was a strong desire from the populace of the country to stop doing so. Markets allow you to vote every time you buy something on what your values are. Every time you choose to buy something from, say Brazil, that will be read as an endorsement of Brazil whenever someone looks at a balance sheet of imports and decides whether they can afford to instigate some kind of ban. I think that people making personal choices about their own consumption is a very reasonable way for them to signal their desires and so the changes you say (and I agree) are required can be worked towards through grassroots community (e.g. asking people to individually boycott products).
  - distances 7y ago
    I don't think consumer choices are good for this at all. Society has to have structure where you can buy the things you need without doing a background check on everything. I don't want to research that each and every piece of electronics I buy is free of conflict minerals and slavery! It's a job for our chosen representatives. We've given the mandate, it's up to them to create market frameworks with this through policies and trade agreements. And it works: EU doesn't import hormone laden meat, and could similarly decide on environmental requirements too. Policy can be affected by voting, public discourse, and demonstrations, whereas active consumer choice would be very poor driver for that.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    > Every time you choose to buy something from, say Brazil, that will be read as an endorsement of Brazil But that decision was not made by the consumer. It was made by the executives of Burger King who decided to buy beef from a factory farm that has decided to buy soy from Brazil which has farmers that have decided to exploit the rain forest because the government has decided to not do anything against it.
rimliu 7y ago
You make a lot of assumptions how meat is grown in Europe.
Mordisquitos 7y ago
That reasoning is problematic, as it amounts to reviving the concept of "original sin" to apply it to anyone who happens to live in a developed economy. By throwing blanket statements such as that, it is discouraging even the small changes that may help (for we are all "sinners" regardless), and diffuses responsibility from those who truly could make an impact. I believe a lot of hand-wringing on these topics comes from positions of economic privilege, usually in the richer end of developed economies. I see little awareness of the lifestyles of individuals of mid-to-lower socio-economic status in the developed world, how little their share of impact is compared to those of the middle and upper class, and how little room of manoeuvrer they may have to make a difference even if they had the time and energy to.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >That reasoning is problematic, as it amounts to reviving the concept of "original sin" to apply it to anyone who happens to live in a developed economy. Well, the original sin never really went away. People are inherently flawed creatures (which is what the original sin myth meant to capture). And "anyone who happens to live in a developed economy" contributes to today's climate problem, whether they want/link it or not. They don't even have to be on the top of the hierarchy (although there's probably a powerlaw/pareto distribution of harm).
- oddeyed 7y ago
  Your comment reads like you are projecting your own guilt onto the parent. They said that you are "connected" to deforestation if you are living in a developed economy - you interpreted that as implying that all people in developed economies are sinning. They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected. They then made two conditions predicated on having high socio-economic status (eating meat regularly, investing in a stock market) and stated that these do imply some level of guilt. I think that does account for the difference in lifestyle between income levels in the global economy and read it as implying that those with the most impactful lifestyle should make the most reductions - agreeing with your statement amount relative room for maneuvering. EDIT: You said "I believe a lot of hand-wringing on these topics comes from positions of economic privilege" - many agree. Many see environmentalism as a "bourgeois playground" to its detriment. You might find this interesting: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/naomi-klein/let-them-drown https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/naomi-klein/let-them-drown
lagadu 7y ago
I guess I am your boogeyman: I eat meat regularly, have investments, grew up and live in the middle of a western society. By default I'm inclined to stop doing exactly zero of those, and by saying "you're at fault no matter what you do or don't do" you've just removed the sole remaining incentive for me to stop doing it: being able to say "it's not my fault". If I'm to blame no matter what I do, I might as well enjoy it and let the other suckers do the sacrifices for no gain that I'm unwilling to make, completely guilt-free.
- sls 7y ago
  Tbh it sounds like you're guilt-free either way. You're saying that it doesn't matter at all to you when your actions harm others. You would like to be able to say they didn't, but don't feel guilty if they do. Also fwiw as many people who have tried it will tell you, there is a gain in acting selflessly, and it's better than the gain from acting selfishly. The idea that altruism is for suckers is actually harmful to your self-interest.
  - tremon 7y ago
    No, he's saying he is guilt-laden either way. Therefore, it makes no sense to put in effort because it will not absolve him of that perceived yoke.
  - lagadu 7y ago
    Human behavior is economic behavior, which is a fancy way of saying "people do things because there's a perceived benefit to doing so". Altruistic behavior usually carries at least a social benefit, besides the "I did good" feeling which is also a personal benefit. Blaming someone for something outside their control and saying that they're always to blame no matter what nullifies both of those incentives: you stop reaping their rewards. This is a good example: if you're still shamed despite altruistic behavior, why would I possibly keep making sacrifices that I gain nothing for (including feeling good about having done them) when I can go back to my VASTLY more rewarding hedonistic lifestyle? If you put someone in a situation where they're supposed to feel shame no matter what, they're going to become 100% insensitive to it in record time. In other words: yes, I am guilt-free because there's no other possible state under this framework of inescapable blame.
nec4b 7y ago
No need to be baffled. Eastern Europe is mostly self sufficient in regards to meat production.
depressedpanda 7y ago
> If you eat meat regularly, you are connected to Brazil's deforestation, either for cattle or for soy feed. That's an obviously false conclusion. If I only eat locally sourced meat that's not fed inferior soy feed, how does that in any way contribute to Brazil's deforestation?
COGlory 7y ago
I disagree. All that these types of articles do is attempt to shift responsibility and blame from the people actually capable of doing something about it to a vague and distant "bad actor" elsewhere: the irresponsible consumer, who is somehow expected to deconvolute foreign supply chains, as well as stay abreast of the environmental happenings in the entire world. The truth is, whether we like it or not, the only people capable of effectively tracking and addressing the responsibility of Brazil's economy and ecology are people living in Brazil. And this isn't some excuse I've invented for myself. I buy 100% of my groceries from a farmers co-op where everything is sourced within about 500 miles or so. But the fact of the matter is, Brazil needs to do a better job and address their own problems, regardless of the world economy, and this is just an attempt to shift blame. Every single environmental regulation that has been passed, in any country in the world, 1st or 3rd world, occurred at financial loss to that country. Brazil is no exception.
dwild 7y ago
> Even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivize said deforestation. Then they are also responsible because their government profit from it? Everything is connected... the fact that it's connected doesn't means anything. Your comment won't show anything, it won't change anything, it won't help anyone. You are simply making blanket accusation, like if even someone could simply no longer depends on the economy... that's so absurd.
- addicted 7y ago
  Except “their government”, in this case, is actively fighting against them. The whole point is that Bolsonaro has declared open season on the Amazon and the tribes living in it.
  - dwild 7y ago
    > Except “their government”, in this case, is actively fighting against them. It's not because the government is working against them over the Amazon that they don't profit at all from it. All you need is using the government resource once to say that they did profit from it.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

The problem with a post like this is that it tries to guilt the individual and their consumerism - but individuals cannot have enough of an impact. It's up to our chosen representatives to e.g. ban the import of soy and beef from Brazil. The net effect to the individual will be that beef is either more expensive or simply no longer available - and that's fine, there's plenty of local and renewable alternatives. No, focusing on and guilting the individual is, pardon my conspiracy theory language, what They want. They want you to buy more expensive organic produce, They want you to buy a new lower-emissions car at a premium price, and most importantly, They want to blame you for what They are doing - They don't care about the amazon in particular, They care about profits, and if you're too distracted with changing your own lifestyle, They can push forward with their own policies to make more money. If a whole country stops e.g. consuming soy from Brazil, there's going to be ten others that will buy it anyway because profits or deals will almost always beat morals. And even if a country bans importing soy from Brazil, there's plenty of produce laundering going on - China will move their products to e.g. Malaysia and rebrand it as "made in Malaysia" to avoid trade tariffs or quotas. And it doesn't stop there. A country can claim to recycle plastic in a renewable fashion for example, but what they aren't aware of - or turn a blind eye to - is that the recycling company they trust just bales up the plastics and ships it off to Asia, where they just burn it or chuck it in landfills. As soon as it crosses the border, it's no longer their problem. (Trash exports should be banned worldwide)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
oddeyed 7y ago
I'm curious how you think that a country would ever stop consuming soy from Brazil unless there was a strong desire from the populace of the country to stop doing so. Markets allow you to vote every time you buy something on what your values are. Every time you choose to buy something from, say Brazil, that will be read as an endorsement of Brazil whenever someone looks at a balance sheet of imports and decides whether they can afford to instigate some kind of ban. I think that people making personal choices about their own consumption is a very reasonable way for them to signal their desires and so the changes you say (and I agree) are required can be worked towards through grassroots community (e.g. asking people to individually boycott products).
- distances 7y ago
  I don't think consumer choices are good for this at all. Society has to have structure where you can buy the things you need without doing a background check on everything. I don't want to research that each and every piece of electronics I buy is free of conflict minerals and slavery! It's a job for our chosen representatives. We've given the mandate, it's up to them to create market frameworks with this through policies and trade agreements. And it works: EU doesn't import hormone laden meat, and could similarly decide on environmental requirements too. Policy can be affected by voting, public discourse, and demonstrations, whereas active consumer choice would be very poor driver for that.
- imtringued 7y ago
  > Every time you choose to buy something from, say Brazil, that will be read as an endorsement of Brazil But that decision was not made by the consumer. It was made by the executives of Burger King who decided to buy beef from a factory farm that has decided to buy soy from Brazil which has farmers that have decided to exploit the rain forest because the government has decided to not do anything against it.

rimliu 7y ago

You make a lot of assumptions how meat is grown in Europe.

Mordisquitos 7y ago

That reasoning is problematic, as it amounts to reviving the concept of "original sin" to apply it to anyone who happens to live in a developed economy. By throwing blanket statements such as that, it is discouraging even the small changes that may help (for we are all "sinners" regardless), and diffuses responsibility from those who truly could make an impact. I believe a lot of hand-wringing on these topics comes from positions of economic privilege, usually in the richer end of developed economies. I see little awareness of the lifestyles of individuals of mid-to-lower socio-economic status in the developed world, how little their share of impact is compared to those of the middle and upper class, and how little room of manoeuvrer they may have to make a difference even if they had the time and energy to.

coldtea 7y ago
>That reasoning is problematic, as it amounts to reviving the concept of "original sin" to apply it to anyone who happens to live in a developed economy. Well, the original sin never really went away. People are inherently flawed creatures (which is what the original sin myth meant to capture). And "anyone who happens to live in a developed economy" contributes to today's climate problem, whether they want/link it or not. They don't even have to be on the top of the hierarchy (although there's probably a powerlaw/pareto distribution of harm).
oddeyed 7y ago
Your comment reads like you are projecting your own guilt onto the parent. They said that you are "connected" to deforestation if you are living in a developed economy - you interpreted that as implying that all people in developed economies are sinning. They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected. They then made two conditions predicated on having high socio-economic status (eating meat regularly, investing in a stock market) and stated that these do imply some level of guilt. I think that does account for the difference in lifestyle between income levels in the global economy and read it as implying that those with the most impactful lifestyle should make the most reductions - agreeing with your statement amount relative room for maneuvering. EDIT: You said "I believe a lot of hand-wringing on these topics comes from positions of economic privilege" - many agree. Many see environmentalism as a "bourgeois playground" to its detriment. You might find this interesting: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/naomi-klein/let-them-drown https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/naomi-klein/let-them-drown

lagadu 7y ago

I guess I am your boogeyman: I eat meat regularly, have investments, grew up and live in the middle of a western society. By default I'm inclined to stop doing exactly zero of those, and by saying "you're at fault no matter what you do or don't do" you've just removed the sole remaining incentive for me to stop doing it: being able to say "it's not my fault". If I'm to blame no matter what I do, I might as well enjoy it and let the other suckers do the sacrifices for no gain that I'm unwilling to make, completely guilt-free.

sls 7y ago
Tbh it sounds like you're guilt-free either way. You're saying that it doesn't matter at all to you when your actions harm others. You would like to be able to say they didn't, but don't feel guilty if they do. Also fwiw as many people who have tried it will tell you, there is a gain in acting selflessly, and it's better than the gain from acting selfishly. The idea that altruism is for suckers is actually harmful to your self-interest.
- tremon 7y ago
  No, he's saying he is guilt-laden either way. Therefore, it makes no sense to put in effort because it will not absolve him of that perceived yoke.
- lagadu 7y ago
  Human behavior is economic behavior, which is a fancy way of saying "people do things because there's a perceived benefit to doing so". Altruistic behavior usually carries at least a social benefit, besides the "I did good" feeling which is also a personal benefit. Blaming someone for something outside their control and saying that they're always to blame no matter what nullifies both of those incentives: you stop reaping their rewards. This is a good example: if you're still shamed despite altruistic behavior, why would I possibly keep making sacrifices that I gain nothing for (including feeling good about having done them) when I can go back to my VASTLY more rewarding hedonistic lifestyle? If you put someone in a situation where they're supposed to feel shame no matter what, they're going to become 100% insensitive to it in record time. In other words: yes, I am guilt-free because there's no other possible state under this framework of inescapable blame.

nec4b 7y ago

No need to be baffled. Eastern Europe is mostly self sufficient in regards to meat production.

depressedpanda 7y ago

> If you eat meat regularly, you are connected to Brazil's deforestation, either for cattle or for soy feed. That's an obviously false conclusion. If I only eat locally sourced meat that's not fed inferior soy feed, how does that in any way contribute to Brazil's deforestation?

COGlory 7y ago

I disagree. All that these types of articles do is attempt to shift responsibility and blame from the people actually capable of doing something about it to a vague and distant "bad actor" elsewhere: the irresponsible consumer, who is somehow expected to deconvolute foreign supply chains, as well as stay abreast of the environmental happenings in the entire world. The truth is, whether we like it or not, the only people capable of effectively tracking and addressing the responsibility of Brazil's economy and ecology are people living in Brazil. And this isn't some excuse I've invented for myself. I buy 100% of my groceries from a farmers co-op where everything is sourced within about 500 miles or so. But the fact of the matter is, Brazil needs to do a better job and address their own problems, regardless of the world economy, and this is just an attempt to shift blame. Every single environmental regulation that has been passed, in any country in the world, 1st or 3rd world, occurred at financial loss to that country. Brazil is no exception.

dwild 7y ago

> Even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivize said deforestation. Then they are also responsible because their government profit from it? Everything is connected... the fact that it's connected doesn't means anything. Your comment won't show anything, it won't change anything, it won't help anyone. You are simply making blanket accusation, like if even someone could simply no longer depends on the economy... that's so absurd.

addicted 7y ago
Except “their government”, in this case, is actively fighting against them. The whole point is that Bolsonaro has declared open season on the Amazon and the tribes living in it.
- dwild 7y ago
  > Except “their government”, in this case, is actively fighting against them. It's not because the government is working against them over the Amazon that they don't profit at all from it. All you need is using the government resource once to say that they did profit from it.