4 ms·

We can dance around our environmental issues all we want, we'll always reach overpopulation and overconsumption driven by cultural beliefs. Until we act on val

by spodek 5y ago

We can dance around our environmental issues all we want, we'll always reach overpopulation and overconsumption driven by cultural beliefs. Until we act on values other than growth, efficiency, comfort, convenience, extraction, and externalizing costs, we will continue this trend. Plenty of cultures have thrived with other values. We can too. People insist that individual actions don't matter and that only governments and corporations can make a difference. We accept this hogwash proven wrong by history over and over to mollify our indulgence. Acting in stewardship doesn't bring deprivation or sacrifice. It brings joy, fun, freedom, community, connection, meaning, and purpose. The greatest change we make is leading others, because it multiplies our effect, which requires leading ourselves. Still, logic, facts, and figures don't change behavior. We change when five people around us do, loosely speaking. In that spirit, I'll share that I've dropped my emissions over 90 percent with only improvements to my life. I take two years to fill a load of trash and haven't flown since March 2016, picking up litter daily since 2017, my last electrical bill $1.40 so nearly off-grid living in Manhattan, plus plenty more. All sources of joy, more time with family and friends, more control over my career, saving money, more gratitude from people with less resources who tell me their changes improve their lives and save them time, money, and the other resources they lack. The main Resistance (capitalized to refer to Steven Pressfield's relevant book The War of Art) comes from people with more resources than me, who say what I did before changing. Strangely, those with the most act like they can change the least. Resources that were supposed to improve our lives make us spoiled, entitled, needy, and dependent, the opposite of free and fun. To those who insist there's no point, you can argue against me, but now that you know someone who's done it, you're 20 percent there. Find another few who have changed and you'll change too.

blfr 5y ago
Convenience has been killing fertility for decades. At present rates only Africa is heading for anything like overpopulation and I doubt they'll hold.
DFHippie 5y ago
Change through government regulation is really only compelled individual change. If everyone changed their behavior of their own free will -- well, we wouldn't need laws at all; this would be a solution for everything! So, on the one hand I agree with you, justifying one's own failure to change by claiming only federal action will work is mostly just laziness and selfishness papered over with a thin excuse. On the other, mass personal enlightenment will not occur nearly fast enough to solve the problem if it's even possible at all. And in the meantime you'll have unrepentant selfish people freeloading, some of them rolling coal to spite you because they take your virtue as a personal slight or because they're sadists. By all means, everyone should take this seriously and do what they can without compulsion. I've been striving to do this since the eighties. But honestly if we want to fix the problem the only thing that can come up to scale with sufficient speed is decisions by people who control large segments of the economy, i.e. governments and corporations.
- mahogany 5y ago
  > On the other, mass personal enlightenment will not occur nearly fast enough to solve the problem if it's even possible at all ... > ... honestly if we want to fix the problem the only thing that can come up to scale with sufficient speed is decisions by people who control large segments of the economy, i.e. governments and corporations. But isn't the first step toward changing things at a governmental level getting the individuals -- who vote for said government officials -- to care about the issues? If people are so resistant to even the idea of individual change (e.g. the parent comment is downvoted), it makes me think they might not care that much after all.
  - CaptArmchair 5y ago
    The crux of the matter is hidden in how the meaning of "caring" is defined. That's where opinions and perspectives diverge completely. Here's a big question: How much change on a personal level are you willing to make to help curb climate change? The trade offs and the compromises to be made are going to differ between groups and people. It all rides on social economic background, geographical location (where you live), mobility, opportunities, the life you've build for yourself. Concrete example. Biden shutting down Keystone XL and the ensuing social upheaval: https://www.vox.com/22306919/biden-keystone-xl-trudeau-oil-pipeline-climate-change https://www.vox.com/22306919/biden-keystone-xl-trudeau-oil-p... In reality, several thousands of workers lost out on a seasonal / temporary work: https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/22/keystone-pipeline-jobs-lost-joe-biden-executive-order-cancel-fact-check/6673822002/ https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021... Disregarding the details of this particular case, it's an example that exactly points at the glaring challenge ahead: how this affects people directly. Here you have a few thousand people directly having to figure out how to cover their living expenses, find an alternate livelihood to cover the loss of their job in the short run, adjusting their plans. This not a minor inconvenience, but quite an adjustment for many months to come. One can empathize on a personal level: losing out on a job - even if it's temp work - just sucks all round. And that's just one of many uncountable individual trade offs people are asked or forced to make by their leadership. All risking to create resentment and lose support down the line. In that regard, serious government officials and politicians do care, it's just that they can't make life-altering policy changes without consequences. The argument "If we don't change, climate change will end up costing us much, much more" is true to an extent, but hardly an argument you can readily use lest you want to lose support. People don't just look to you to enact policies regarding climate, they also look to you for leadership that ensures their lives remain relatively stable as well. That's the catch-22 which humanity faces.
ctoth 5y ago
So, um, how did you post this comment if you are paying $1.40 a month for electricity and presumably need to turn on at least one lightbulb for a couple days? Do you use someone else's electricity to charge your phone or laptop? You did one load of trash in two years. That's great. I suppose that means you received zero packages in the mail, and bought zero things in any store that might have packaging? Because Bill Gates is rich, you have no excuse not to be rich. Obviously it is possible. Now that you know one person who is rich, you are 20% of the way there!
- DFHippie 5y ago
  Did spodek claim to be doing everything humanly possible to reduce their carbon footprint? If this is so, why not just cut to the biggie: "So have you killed yourself yet? Why not?" We can make things better without making them perfect. We can value the environment without this being our sole consideration in all decisions.
- phaemon 5y ago
  Yes, it's entirely possible to generate your own electricity, use discarded electronics and not order anything new for a year. I've lived near those conditions so I know it's not particularly difficult if you're smart and healthy. On the other hand, I have no idea how I could possibly do that if I was blind. Perhaps it can't be done.
RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
So, I'll try and bite in with as much charity as I can muster. The main sentiment I want to push back against is in your final three paragraphs. To summarize: -- You, individually, have made significant motions to reduce your impact in the form of reducing emissions, picking up trash, reducing waste, and reducing energy consumption. -- The 'Resistance'* you identify comes from people with more resources than you. You argue that those pretend they can do very little to change. My summary of what you are arguing for in terms of how difference can be made is focused on individual action and change. My impression of your argument is that we, either alone or as a set, are or can be responsible for making the differences that will or could result in a significant difference regarding climate change. I think its disingenuous and irresponsible to put the onus on individuals. Most people on this planet are in a daily struggle to survive and the idea that they have the agency to make the kinds of changes you say that they need to make is presumptuous and frankly, classist. Most families and individuals on this planets are have 80-90% of their waking hours filled with activities that barely sustain them at above struggling conditions. They have 0 additional bandwidth to make the kinds of changes you are describing because even a few mistakes or wasted actions will cause their lives to tumble into collapse where they end up homeless or destitute and begging on the streets. And yes, while living in a hedgerow behind the walmart will result in an overall lower rate of population and over consumption, I don't think global impoverishment is a viable strategy towards reversing climate change. The second issue with this way of thinking is that as easily as some one changes their actions or behavior for the better, this can just as easily be reversed. A third issue, is that focusing on individual action only addresses the terminal node in a chain of consumption, the visible obvious bit. What it fails to address is the 'under-the-hood' components of a chain of consumption, when its the 'under-the-components' that represent much/ most of the real environmental impacts of over consumption. Nibbling around the edges of issues is not going to result in the kinds of change we need. The kinds of change we need have to be baked into the cake of how we engage with society, which means they'll have to be somewhat central to how society is constructed. Fundamentally, I would argue, the unit of organisation or incorporation needs to be addressed. Organisations and corporations need to be attached to the outcome of their behaviors in the same ways that individuals are. A massive overhaul of how we organize institutionally needs to make anything other than a middling difference. A final point I'll make is that we've put the onus on individuals to make their own difference for the past 60 years and the effects of this strategy are self evident. Individuals simply can not collectively make the kinds of difference required to move the needle with an issue as entire or existential as climate change. Individuals have been engaging in the kind of change implementation strategy you are describing for 60+ years. Consumption and pollution haven't gotten better they've gotten worse. My proposal to address this: Corporations and institutions need to be able to quantify and address the externalities of their productions before any profits can be made. For changes to be effective we need governments and we need the ability to create regulation which is central to they way our societies operate. Putting the onus on individuals is a short term, ineffective strategy, both in theory and in practice. It puts additional pressure on people who can barely handle it, and is easily reversed. It does nothing to address the vast majority of externalities related to consumption (the ones not visible at the supermarket shelves). It provides a psychological relief valve for people to think that they've 'done enough' and precludes the need for them to invest in institutional change. Addressing change as an individual is nibbling at the edges of something that needs to be addressed systematically at the core of how societies operates. Citing the individual as the unit over which change can or should operate is at best an anesthetic and at worst, prevents the ability to implement change at an institutional level. *I think you should define what you mean here. I'm not gonna go chase down that definition for some keyboard fencing. Also its your interpretation of that word that matters.

by spodek 5y ago

blfr 5y ago

Convenience has been killing fertility for decades. At present rates only Africa is heading for anything like overpopulation and I doubt they'll hold.

DFHippie 5y ago

Change through government regulation is really only compelled individual change. If everyone changed their behavior of their own free will -- well, we wouldn't need laws at all; this would be a solution for everything! So, on the one hand I agree with you, justifying one's own failure to change by claiming only federal action will work is mostly just laziness and selfishness papered over with a thin excuse. On the other, mass personal enlightenment will not occur nearly fast enough to solve the problem if it's even possible at all. And in the meantime you'll have unrepentant selfish people freeloading, some of them rolling coal to spite you because they take your virtue as a personal slight or because they're sadists. By all means, everyone should take this seriously and do what they can without compulsion. I've been striving to do this since the eighties. But honestly if we want to fix the problem the only thing that can come up to scale with sufficient speed is decisions by people who control large segments of the economy, i.e. governments and corporations.

mahogany 5y ago
> On the other, mass personal enlightenment will not occur nearly fast enough to solve the problem if it's even possible at all ... > ... honestly if we want to fix the problem the only thing that can come up to scale with sufficient speed is decisions by people who control large segments of the economy, i.e. governments and corporations. But isn't the first step toward changing things at a governmental level getting the individuals -- who vote for said government officials -- to care about the issues? If people are so resistant to even the idea of individual change (e.g. the parent comment is downvoted), it makes me think they might not care that much after all.
- CaptArmchair 5y ago
  The crux of the matter is hidden in how the meaning of "caring" is defined. That's where opinions and perspectives diverge completely. Here's a big question: How much change on a personal level are you willing to make to help curb climate change? The trade offs and the compromises to be made are going to differ between groups and people. It all rides on social economic background, geographical location (where you live), mobility, opportunities, the life you've build for yourself. Concrete example. Biden shutting down Keystone XL and the ensuing social upheaval: https://www.vox.com/22306919/biden-keystone-xl-trudeau-oil-pipeline-climate-change https://www.vox.com/22306919/biden-keystone-xl-trudeau-oil-p... In reality, several thousands of workers lost out on a seasonal / temporary work: https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/22/keystone-pipeline-jobs-lost-joe-biden-executive-order-cancel-fact-check/6673822002/ https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021... Disregarding the details of this particular case, it's an example that exactly points at the glaring challenge ahead: how this affects people directly. Here you have a few thousand people directly having to figure out how to cover their living expenses, find an alternate livelihood to cover the loss of their job in the short run, adjusting their plans. This not a minor inconvenience, but quite an adjustment for many months to come. One can empathize on a personal level: losing out on a job - even if it's temp work - just sucks all round. And that's just one of many uncountable individual trade offs people are asked or forced to make by their leadership. All risking to create resentment and lose support down the line. In that regard, serious government officials and politicians do care, it's just that they can't make life-altering policy changes without consequences. The argument "If we don't change, climate change will end up costing us much, much more" is true to an extent, but hardly an argument you can readily use lest you want to lose support. People don't just look to you to enact policies regarding climate, they also look to you for leadership that ensures their lives remain relatively stable as well. That's the catch-22 which humanity faces.

ctoth 5y ago

So, um, how did you post this comment if you are paying $1.40 a month for electricity and presumably need to turn on at least one lightbulb for a couple days? Do you use someone else's electricity to charge your phone or laptop? You did one load of trash in two years. That's great. I suppose that means you received zero packages in the mail, and bought zero things in any store that might have packaging? Because Bill Gates is rich, you have no excuse not to be rich. Obviously it is possible. Now that you know one person who is rich, you are 20% of the way there!

DFHippie 5y ago
Did spodek claim to be doing everything humanly possible to reduce their carbon footprint? If this is so, why not just cut to the biggie: "So have you killed yourself yet? Why not?" We can make things better without making them perfect. We can value the environment without this being our sole consideration in all decisions.
phaemon 5y ago
Yes, it's entirely possible to generate your own electricity, use discarded electronics and not order anything new for a year. I've lived near those conditions so I know it's not particularly difficult if you're smart and healthy. On the other hand, I have no idea how I could possibly do that if I was blind. Perhaps it can't be done.

RosanaAnaDana 5y ago

So, I'll try and bite in with as much charity as I can muster. The main sentiment I want to push back against is in your final three paragraphs. To summarize: -- You, individually, have made significant motions to reduce your impact in the form of reducing emissions, picking up trash, reducing waste, and reducing energy consumption. -- The 'Resistance'* you identify comes from people with more resources than you. You argue that those pretend they can do very little to change. My summary of what you are arguing for in terms of how difference can be made is focused on individual action and change. My impression of your argument is that we, either alone or as a set, are or can be responsible for making the differences that will or could result in a significant difference regarding climate change. I think its disingenuous and irresponsible to put the onus on individuals. Most people on this planet are in a daily struggle to survive and the idea that they have the agency to make the kinds of changes you say that they need to make is presumptuous and frankly, classist. Most families and individuals on this planets are have 80-90% of their waking hours filled with activities that barely sustain them at above struggling conditions. They have 0 additional bandwidth to make the kinds of changes you are describing because even a few mistakes or wasted actions will cause their lives to tumble into collapse where they end up homeless or destitute and begging on the streets. And yes, while living in a hedgerow behind the walmart will result in an overall lower rate of population and over consumption, I don't think global impoverishment is a viable strategy towards reversing climate change. The second issue with this way of thinking is that as easily as some one changes their actions or behavior for the better, this can just as easily be reversed. A third issue, is that focusing on individual action only addresses the terminal node in a chain of consumption, the visible obvious bit. What it fails to address is the 'under-the-hood' components of a chain of consumption, when its the 'under-the-components' that represent much/ most of the real environmental impacts of over consumption. Nibbling around the edges of issues is not going to result in the kinds of change we need. The kinds of change we need have to be baked into the cake of how we engage with society, which means they'll have to be somewhat central to how society is constructed. Fundamentally, I would argue, the unit of organisation or incorporation needs to be addressed. Organisations and corporations need to be attached to the outcome of their behaviors in the same ways that individuals are. A massive overhaul of how we organize institutionally needs to make anything other than a middling difference. A final point I'll make is that we've put the onus on individuals to make their own difference for the past 60 years and the effects of this strategy are self evident. Individuals simply can not collectively make the kinds of difference required to move the needle with an issue as entire or existential as climate change. Individuals have been engaging in the kind of change implementation strategy you are describing for 60+ years. Consumption and pollution haven't gotten better they've gotten worse. My proposal to address this: Corporations and institutions need to be able to quantify and address the externalities of their productions before any profits can be made. For changes to be effective we need governments and we need the ability to create regulation which is central to they way our societies operate. Putting the onus on individuals is a short term, ineffective strategy, both in theory and in practice. It puts additional pressure on people who can barely handle it, and is easily reversed. It does nothing to address the vast majority of externalities related to consumption (the ones not visible at the supermarket shelves). It provides a psychological relief valve for people to think that they've 'done enough' and precludes the need for them to invest in institutional change. Addressing change as an individual is nibbling at the edges of something that needs to be addressed systematically at the core of how societies operates. Citing the individual as the unit over which change can or should operate is at best an anesthetic and at worst, prevents the ability to implement change at an institutional level. *I think you should define what you mean here. I'm not gonna go chase down that definition for some keyboard fencing. Also its your interpretation of that word that matters.