4 ms·

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 thro

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
- luckylion 7y ago
  > They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected. That doesn't say anything though. Everybody is connected to everything. It may be direct, indirect, with one or two or twenty hops, but everybody is connected. You can make an argument that the last few uncontacted tribes aren't connected, but everybody else is, especially by the "you're living in a society that reaps the benefits" idea, because pretty much everybody does that to varying degrees (but still connected) with technology, medical advances etc.
- johnisgood 7y ago
  > 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. He replied to "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.". Does this not assume "guilty"? There is the implication in that message that if you are in any way connected to the destruction of X (deforestation in this particular example), then you are at fault (i.e. guilty). Then the person he replied to went on to "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.", i.e. "everyone who is connected is still at fault". I read "being "connected" to deforestation" as contributing to it. Is this incorrect? Are we just arguing over words? I believe that in this context "connected" really just means "contributing" (to deforestation, which I assume is "bad"). Now my question is, how do we become unconnected? The part where he says even if we do not eat meat and so forth, we are still contributing to these problems. What is the solution, then? Is there a solution? Am I supposed to live anywhere but not "in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits"? What if everyone did this, would it not lead to the same problem? I do not think that being fatalistic is of any help here.
  - propater 7y ago
    Stop thinking in terms of individual guilt and how to avoid it, think in terms of collective responsibility. What do we need to do to solve the problem, not what do I need to do to exculpate myself from it.

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

luckylion 7y ago
> They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected. That doesn't say anything though. Everybody is connected to everything. It may be direct, indirect, with one or two or twenty hops, but everybody is connected. You can make an argument that the last few uncontacted tribes aren't connected, but everybody else is, especially by the "you're living in a society that reaps the benefits" idea, because pretty much everybody does that to varying degrees (but still connected) with technology, medical advances etc.
johnisgood 7y ago
> 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. He replied to "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.". Does this not assume "guilty"? There is the implication in that message that if you are in any way connected to the destruction of X (deforestation in this particular example), then you are at fault (i.e. guilty). Then the person he replied to went on to "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.", i.e. "everyone who is connected is still at fault". I read "being "connected" to deforestation" as contributing to it. Is this incorrect? Are we just arguing over words? I believe that in this context "connected" really just means "contributing" (to deforestation, which I assume is "bad"). Now my question is, how do we become unconnected? The part where he says even if we do not eat meat and so forth, we are still contributing to these problems. What is the solution, then? Is there a solution? Am I supposed to live anywhere but not "in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits"? What if everyone did this, would it not lead to the same problem? I do not think that being fatalistic is of any help here.
- propater 7y ago
  Stop thinking in terms of individual guilt and how to avoid it, think in terms of collective responsibility. What do we need to do to solve the problem, not what do I need to do to exculpate myself from it.