5 ms·

I like thinking of it as waste, as opposed to bad. Good-bad is the moral realm. Waste is the realm of practicality. The danger is in causing defensiveness, due

by dmos62 7y ago

I like thinking of it as waste, as opposed to bad. Good-bad is the moral realm. Waste is the realm of practicality. The danger is in causing defensiveness, due to judgment, in people whose open-mindedness would be beneficial. I'm not being apologetic of anyone. It's just that this doesn't have to happen through a dramatic conflict of good v. evil (which probably wouldn't work anyway); there are much better alternatives. I agree with everything you said. Just wanted to stack my rant on yours there.

licebmi__at__ 7y ago
I would like to agree with you as I also think trying to find a pragmatic solution is easier than thinking in abstract terms like good/bad, but ultimately waste just takes us to questions about what is being wasted, and wasteful to who. It's a no brainer than relocating to somewhere to avoid emissions can be seen as wasteful for some industries. Besides, framing waste in purely monetary terms, just means that we need to balance the equation for profit, not to what is best for people. The question of alignment between profit and human welfare is still am ethical one. You haven't reduced the complexity, just hidden it behind the facade of taking "pragmatic economic decisions".
- dmos62 7y ago
  I'd argue that talking about waste exposes the complexity (reality in simpler terms), while ethics or morals obscure it. When I say waste, I mean the waste in the widest sense: potential, future, life, etc. For what it's worth, since you mention it, I don't think that capitalism isn't compatible with an ecological society. It's just that if you're gonna replace all values with a price tag, you have to be accurate with your pricing. For example, the price of diesel has to reflect, among other things, the full effect on the environment.
11235813213455 7y ago
it's just that the amount of waste is way too large for the environment to digest Solution: everyone must consume less, cut unnecessary things, and there are many in most people lifestyles

by dmos62 7y ago

licebmi__at__ 7y ago

I would like to agree with you as I also think trying to find a pragmatic solution is easier than thinking in abstract terms like good/bad, but ultimately waste just takes us to questions about what is being wasted, and wasteful to who. It's a no brainer than relocating to somewhere to avoid emissions can be seen as wasteful for some industries. Besides, framing waste in purely monetary terms, just means that we need to balance the equation for profit, not to what is best for people. The question of alignment between profit and human welfare is still am ethical one. You haven't reduced the complexity, just hidden it behind the facade of taking "pragmatic economic decisions".

dmos62 7y ago
I'd argue that talking about waste exposes the complexity (reality in simpler terms), while ethics or morals obscure it. When I say waste, I mean the waste in the widest sense: potential, future, life, etc. For what it's worth, since you mention it, I don't think that capitalism isn't compatible with an ecological society. It's just that if you're gonna replace all values with a price tag, you have to be accurate with your pricing. For example, the price of diesel has to reflect, among other things, the full effect on the environment.

11235813213455 7y ago

it's just that the amount of waste is way too large for the environment to digest Solution: everyone must consume less, cut unnecessary things, and there are many in most people lifestyles