4 ms·

Fascinating to see how these comment threads debate the relative facility of different diets, and even armchair evolutionary biology... while conveniently avoid

Fascinating to see how these comment threads debate the relative facility of different diets, and even armchair evolutionary biology... while conveniently avoiding the critical topic: the choices we continue to make are defacing the planet, destabilizing ecologies, and exterminating other species at a scale that is hard to imagine. We’re all ok with this? So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the consequences of your decisions, to really think about the meaning of your actions (much less to resolve to change your habits)? Not to put too fine a point on it, but for all of you who ate a burger for dinner tonight, were you thinking about the devastation you’re a part of? (And of course the list of destructive-yet-normalized ways of living is long; try picking one relevant to you).

nicbou 6y ago
Because it's a coordination problem. You can make lifestyle changes to reduce the waste and emissions you produce, but half of the people in your building can't be arsed to separate their trash. That's in Germany, where people seemingly care about the environment. Go to southern Europe and you'll see roads lined with trash. Go to Turkey and you'll undo all of your work in a week or two. It feels pointless.
tomhoward 6y ago
The answer is similar to the one for those who retort to the suggestion that taxation should be higher with: "if you love paying tax so much why don't you just send a big cheque to the government?". In both cases, it is that an individual's actions don't move the needle. Even a low-to-mid double-digit percentage of the population's actions don't move the needle that much. So, to address your accusatory question: no, thinking people are not OK with the destructions of ecosystems, the decline in animal populations or the extinction of many species. And if it were the case that through my own avoidance of consuming meat for the rest of my life I could significantly abate these problems, I'd happily make that choice. But thinking people also know it's not remotely as simple as the question implies. I could avoid meat for the rest of my life, and it would make zero difference to these problems. Even worse, everyone in the world could avoid eating meat, but that would still leave (indeed possibly exacerbate) the issue of land and resource use for the production of plant-based foods. And it would also have no bearing on the issue of animal poaching for medicinal or ornamental uses, of which I'm pretty sure just about nobody on this website is an advocate or customer. None of this is to say it's a lost cause, that there's nothing that can or should be done to improve things. Plenty is being done, and plenty more should be done. To the extent that heathy ecosystems are necessary for human survival, self-interest will ensure that more efforts go into that, and social/political pressure will continue to see benevolent efforts being undertaken. But for solutions to be truly effective, they have to be co-ordinated across society, and that is the great challenge we face. I often observe that people who choose to avoid meat for environmental reasons and finger-wag at others for not following suit are avoiding confronting the deeper realities and challenges involved with solving these problems.
- aporetics 6y ago
  My question is not accusatory, though I did frame it quite specifically, so maybe it feels confining. But, in reading your response I’m not sure what question you’re answering. I didn’t ask why people don’t behave differently. I asked the question that comes before it. Why is it hard to think about the meaning of your actions? In a way, your response does answer it: you said people see that their actions won’t be effective unless they are a coordinated with other’s on a scale that can make a difference. I think that’s the same as saying: your actions are meaningless in themselves. What an interesting idea. But I’m sure you don’t feel that way about everything. A better analog than people sending the Federal Reserve more money than they owe to the IRS would be voting: does your vote not matter unless it is the decisive one? Which vote is decisive? Is the meaningfulness of a vote or of voting found only in its effectiveness? But that’s still not a good enough analog. The points that you and other commenters have made all point to the need for collective, coordinated action. I won’t dispute that; but if we’re talking about effectiveness and not meaningfulness (or, again, do you think they’re the same thing?) then the dynamic of collective action is fundamentally a social dynamic: people are neither provoked by nor affirmed by what they see the people around them doing. If you made visible, ethical choices (as I’m sure you do) you find that a friend or colleague is starting to make similar choices. The visibility encourages others. Maybe the very same arguments about the futility of action make it all the more critical. I should be explicit about one other thing. I may be wrong, but my assumption in asking my question about how thinking about the meaning of your actions is hard is that that thoughtfulness is what will change your behavior.
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    The central question of your original comment seemed to me to be: "We’re all ok with this?" You've followed up pointing out that the actual central question was "So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the consequences of your decisions, to really think about the meaning of your actions". As I said in the my first reply, I think it's pretty clear that people in this discussion thread, and most people frequenting this website, are not OK with this. And in response to the more recent comment: plenty of people in this thread are demonstrating that they are thinking about the consequences of their decisions. But as I, and plenty of others here have pointed out, no amount of "thinking about consequences" will change the fact that the consequences of an individual's actions in insolation are profoundly different to the consequences of the same action co-ordinated across the entire society. The voting system works (to the extent that it does work - and I must say where I live, in Australia, it works much better through being legally compulsory and therefore not subject to manipulation of eligibility+attendance), because the cost is low (take a few hours out of your day once every couple/few years) and the payoff relatively high (feel you have a stake in your democracy/society, influence policy, celebrate the victory if your candidate/party wins). Other forms of co-ordinated activity all have equivalent factors of cost vs. payoff that lead to the intended outcome. So I guess there's your answer: to solve this problem, there needs to be a cost vs. benefit formulation that leads to a widespread change in behaviour.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
>So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the consequences of your decisions, to really think about the meaning of your actions (much less to resolve to change your habits)? The statistics show most people can't keep themselves from eating excess calories and developing diabetes and hypertension. They certainly know their eating habits will cause them pain in the long run. Yet they still do it. Because it's obviously hard to choose the long term benefit over the short term benefit. If people can't control themselves from binging on sugar, salt, alcohol, in order to prevent harm to themselves, there's not much chance they're going to do it for their kids or grandkids, and definitely not for great grandkids.

nicbou 6y ago

Because it's a coordination problem. You can make lifestyle changes to reduce the waste and emissions you produce, but half of the people in your building can't be arsed to separate their trash. That's in Germany, where people seemingly care about the environment. Go to southern Europe and you'll see roads lined with trash. Go to Turkey and you'll undo all of your work in a week or two. It feels pointless.

tomhoward 6y ago

The answer is similar to the one for those who retort to the suggestion that taxation should be higher with: "if you love paying tax so much why don't you just send a big cheque to the government?". In both cases, it is that an individual's actions don't move the needle. Even a low-to-mid double-digit percentage of the population's actions don't move the needle that much. So, to address your accusatory question: no, thinking people are not OK with the destructions of ecosystems, the decline in animal populations or the extinction of many species. And if it were the case that through my own avoidance of consuming meat for the rest of my life I could significantly abate these problems, I'd happily make that choice. But thinking people also know it's not remotely as simple as the question implies. I could avoid meat for the rest of my life, and it would make zero difference to these problems. Even worse, everyone in the world could avoid eating meat, but that would still leave (indeed possibly exacerbate) the issue of land and resource use for the production of plant-based foods. And it would also have no bearing on the issue of animal poaching for medicinal or ornamental uses, of which I'm pretty sure just about nobody on this website is an advocate or customer. None of this is to say it's a lost cause, that there's nothing that can or should be done to improve things. Plenty is being done, and plenty more should be done. To the extent that heathy ecosystems are necessary for human survival, self-interest will ensure that more efforts go into that, and social/political pressure will continue to see benevolent efforts being undertaken. But for solutions to be truly effective, they have to be co-ordinated across society, and that is the great challenge we face. I often observe that people who choose to avoid meat for environmental reasons and finger-wag at others for not following suit are avoiding confronting the deeper realities and challenges involved with solving these problems.

aporetics 6y ago
My question is not accusatory, though I did frame it quite specifically, so maybe it feels confining. But, in reading your response I’m not sure what question you’re answering. I didn’t ask why people don’t behave differently. I asked the question that comes before it. Why is it hard to think about the meaning of your actions? In a way, your response does answer it: you said people see that their actions won’t be effective unless they are a coordinated with other’s on a scale that can make a difference. I think that’s the same as saying: your actions are meaningless in themselves. What an interesting idea. But I’m sure you don’t feel that way about everything. A better analog than people sending the Federal Reserve more money than they owe to the IRS would be voting: does your vote not matter unless it is the decisive one? Which vote is decisive? Is the meaningfulness of a vote or of voting found only in its effectiveness? But that’s still not a good enough analog. The points that you and other commenters have made all point to the need for collective, coordinated action. I won’t dispute that; but if we’re talking about effectiveness and not meaningfulness (or, again, do you think they’re the same thing?) then the dynamic of collective action is fundamentally a social dynamic: people are neither provoked by nor affirmed by what they see the people around them doing. If you made visible, ethical choices (as I’m sure you do) you find that a friend or colleague is starting to make similar choices. The visibility encourages others. Maybe the very same arguments about the futility of action make it all the more critical. I should be explicit about one other thing. I may be wrong, but my assumption in asking my question about how thinking about the meaning of your actions is hard is that that thoughtfulness is what will change your behavior.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  The central question of your original comment seemed to me to be: "We’re all ok with this?" You've followed up pointing out that the actual central question was "So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the consequences of your decisions, to really think about the meaning of your actions". As I said in the my first reply, I think it's pretty clear that people in this discussion thread, and most people frequenting this website, are not OK with this. And in response to the more recent comment: plenty of people in this thread are demonstrating that they are thinking about the consequences of their decisions. But as I, and plenty of others here have pointed out, no amount of "thinking about consequences" will change the fact that the consequences of an individual's actions in insolation are profoundly different to the consequences of the same action co-ordinated across the entire society. The voting system works (to the extent that it does work - and I must say where I live, in Australia, it works much better through being legally compulsory and therefore not subject to manipulation of eligibility+attendance), because the cost is low (take a few hours out of your day once every couple/few years) and the payoff relatively high (feel you have a stake in your democracy/society, influence policy, celebrate the victory if your candidate/party wins). Other forms of co-ordinated activity all have equivalent factors of cost vs. payoff that lead to the intended outcome. So I guess there's your answer: to solve this problem, there needs to be a cost vs. benefit formulation that leads to a widespread change in behaviour.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

>So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the consequences of your decisions, to really think about the meaning of your actions (much less to resolve to change your habits)? The statistics show most people can't keep themselves from eating excess calories and developing diabetes and hypertension. They certainly know their eating habits will cause them pain in the long run. Yet they still do it. Because it's obviously hard to choose the long term benefit over the short term benefit. If people can't control themselves from binging on sugar, salt, alcohol, in order to prevent harm to themselves, there's not much chance they're going to do it for their kids or grandkids, and definitely not for great grandkids.