4 ms·

No, it's really not, because individual choice is a relatively small proportion of the damage done by corporate entities and aggregations of people that serve o

No, it's really not, because individual choice is a relatively small proportion of the damage done by corporate entities and aggregations of people that serve other masters and don't have either the will or the ability to amend their own behavior. By all means do all those things: I go in that direction myself. But also vote, because there are damages that will not be remedied short of large-scale wielding of power, and voting has some chance of directing the large-scale power that can remedy the institutional bad actors.

Ancalagon 6y ago
I guess I hit a nerve with my comment and it came off a little harsh. I mean those points I said in all sincerity because it’s been 40-50 years and the top-down approach really has not come about in the timeliness required to prevent the worst case scenarios. I don’t actually believe every one of the people of the world will change their standards of living to meet what I said, however... I don’t think this is a similar scenario to banning lead gas or aerosols harmful to ozone. These changes, if implemented by the government, would effect families’ dinner plates, the way they get around, how much and what they can buy and how they throw things away when they’re already used to things the way they are. It would severely limit their ability to travel freely. And we can say that new technologies will arise to take the place of those things that were lost but there will almost certainly be a gap between when we would need to lose access to those things like cheap transport and meat and when the new tech came out (high speed electric planes, lab grown meat, etc.). Basically any way you look at it, the average person NEEDS to have a lower standard of living for the foreseeable future to prevent the worst of climate change. This plan of action is not popular anywhere, so obviously it will never be implemented by any top-down approach. Again just my thoughts. Didn’t mean to hit a nerve here.

Ancalagon 6y ago

I guess I hit a nerve with my comment and it came off a little harsh. I mean those points I said in all sincerity because it’s been 40-50 years and the top-down approach really has not come about in the timeliness required to prevent the worst case scenarios. I don’t actually believe every one of the people of the world will change their standards of living to meet what I said, however... I don’t think this is a similar scenario to banning lead gas or aerosols harmful to ozone. These changes, if implemented by the government, would effect families’ dinner plates, the way they get around, how much and what they can buy and how they throw things away when they’re already used to things the way they are. It would severely limit their ability to travel freely. And we can say that new technologies will arise to take the place of those things that were lost but there will almost certainly be a gap between when we would need to lose access to those things like cheap transport and meat and when the new tech came out (high speed electric planes, lab grown meat, etc.). Basically any way you look at it, the average person NEEDS to have a lower standard of living for the foreseeable future to prevent the worst of climate change. This plan of action is not popular anywhere, so obviously it will never be implemented by any top-down approach. Again just my thoughts. Didn’t mean to hit a nerve here.