4 ms·

Maybe. Maybe not? Take recycling for example. Basically well understood to be greenwashing by anyone whose done even a bit of research or thinking through the

Maybe. Maybe not? Take recycling for example. Basically well understood to be greenwashing by anyone whose done even a bit of research or thinking through the matter. But people who want to believe they are doing the 'right' things still insist on it. This is their way of 'making a difference' and it stops right after that. They recycle and the act of self identifying as having made a difference relieves the psychological pressure to do more or actually engage in making a real difference. Its a lazy way of psychological positioning oneself such that one is 'no longer a part of the problem'. I'm not sure I put stock in the strategy of individual difference or 'being the change' if you will (although this might be a step beyond what you are making an argument for). I think we're in an era where our 'elected' leadership are so distant in regards of what their constituents are asking for relative to what needs to happen to make headway on an issue like climate change. Climate change is an issue several orders of magnitude more difficult than something like covid was. Effectively, we need to undo the impacts of ~150 years of industrialization. The kinds of half-way solutions and psychological anesthetics we've been able to implement thus far are the definition of nibbling at the edges. I think fundamentally, unless we see a massive political shift in how we address these issues, we're stuck nibbling at the edges.

DFHippie 5y ago
Recycling plastic is understood to be greenwashing for most types of plastic. And arguably recycling is a gateway behavior, for some, to more substantive changes, like eating less meat or just buying less crap.
- RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
  I think just as arguably as recycling is a gateway behavior to more substantive changes, its just as likely to preclude engaging in more substantive changes. There's likely a masters thesis worth of work in our disagreement, but I see things like recycling and going vegetarian as an anesthetic that prevents engaging in additional action.
  - DFHippie 5y ago
    Going vegetarian is an anesthetic? It's the single biggest thing a meat eater can do to reduce their carbon footprint! What do you consider effective action if going vegetarian doesn't count? If you tell people nothing they do is adequate, odds are you aren't going to win them to your cause. I'm pretty sure most vegetarians are fighting for stronger action, not sitting on the sidelines saying, "nah, I've done my bit." The vegetarians are your shock troops, not sellouts.
    - RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
      Yes, I think vegetarianism as an individual response to climate change is largely an anesthetic. I think individual responses in general are done as anesthetic (you feel pressure to act, and so you do something within your purview to relieve that pressure). I have lost faith in the ideal of collective individualism's ability to move the needle on these issues based on my read of the previous 60 years of history. I also think its disingenuous and irresponsible to put the onus on individuals. I think that for collective action at the scale required to address what is happening to our global climate can only happen through government mandated changes to manufacturing and setting carbon standards at the point and process of production. If we want to deal with this, the answer is that meat needs to be much more expensive, and that expense needs to be borne by the producers. All products and consumption need to represent their real impact on climate. Arguing for individual vegetarianism is nibbling around the edge at best (see below) and a analgesic at worst. The pain of there being a problem needs to be persistent and long lasting for us to address the much more central issues at hand. In the 1970's the US rate of vegetarianism was around 1%. In 2008, the rate was around 3%. In 2015, still around 3%. There is some 2018 data that says 4% (1). These surveys have margins of error, but lets be charitable and say they are spot on. Based on these data, we could expect to see a 20% adoption of vegetarianism by the year 2210. We could expect to see a 50% adoption by around 2600. Simply put, individual action is not enough to make even a bug-splat on a windshields difference to this issue. Individuals who make personal decisions to eat less meat may be the shock troops and I do believe those are also the ones going above and beyond to make additional change happen. However, its not adequate. Its not enough. And I am arguing that advocating for solving or addressing this issue through individual change is counter-productive, because even being ridiculously charitable regarding rates of adoption, it simple wont be enough to even nudge the needle on climate change. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#:~:text=Older%20governmental%20data%20from%201997,%25%20vegetarians%20and%203%25%20vegans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#:~:te....
mahogany 5y ago
If I'm reading your first paragraph correctly, you are making a claim that people who care about individual action will, generally speaking, stop at that and go no further because they think their work is done. That is a bit baffling to me and does not resonate with my personal experience. Is this a feeling or do you have anything to back it up? Secondly, you flippantly reject recycling as greenwashing and leave it at that. Even if I accept this claim (time to stop recycling aluminum), what about other activities? Why wouldn't it be helpful to convince your friends to think about where they spend their money? Note for example how many more vegan protein options there are at the grocery store or restaurants now compared to even 5 years ago. Capitalism responds to consumer demand. If I know that certain types of fish are way over-fished, should I just say "individual change doesn't do much until we get the government involved, so oh well, let's eat it anyway"? What about growing more of your food (perhaps a community garden) or trying to produce less waste? To me, it's better to act, and also show my friends and family my actions, so maybe one of them can do it and show their friends, and so on, so that ideas about e.g. sustainability permeate throughout society. Only then do they make it to the political domain. All I see is criticism but no alternative given in return, so I'm curious what your view is. How do you think can we accomplish a "massive political shift in how we address these issues"? My opinion is that large-scale cultural change must start at an individual level, and it starts with individuals who actually do what they believe should be done, because people in general respond more by seeing action rather than only hearing ideas.
- RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
  I think I addressed most of your issues in my response to DFHippie above, but I think I can at least address your more specific issues. To be clear, my central issue is with putting the onus on individuals to make the difference. I don't see sufficient evidence to suggest that individual voluntary collective action is capable of making a difference in regards to global carbon emissions, and I think that communicating so is not appropriate. I see it as largely misguided virtue signalling that is largely counter productive. >My opinion is that large-scale cultural change must start at an individual level I formerly held this belief, but I do not hold this belief currently. As far as I've seen, large-scale cultural change appears to be most readily demonstrated through forced coercion, systematic changes to the central governments, and massive advances in technology. Its a nice idea that we can all be the change we want to see and that we can change the world that way. I haven't seen evidence of it in my lifetime. Individual collective actions in the forms of protest movements have largely failed to accomplish their goals (Seattle 99, Protests against the war in Iraq/Agh, Occupy, Hong Kong, BLM). Things aren't getting better, they're largely getting worse, and those who are predisposed to take action keep focusing on types and modes of action which are demonstrated to be ineffective (advocating for people to individually become vegetarian, as opposed to finding ways of gaining power either within or over the system). People take to these modes of action because they're accessible. I can stop eating meat. I can recycle. I can not eat some about to go extinct fish. My argument is that individual action doesn't appear to be making any difference at all. There is effectively no reduction to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere based on the % of people who have adopted vegetarianism in the previous 60 years. Arguing that people should, as individuals, go vegetarian to protect the environment, is like arguing that we should turn a fan on while the room is on fire because its getting hot in here.

DFHippie 5y ago

Recycling plastic is understood to be greenwashing for most types of plastic. And arguably recycling is a gateway behavior, for some, to more substantive changes, like eating less meat or just buying less crap.

RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
I think just as arguably as recycling is a gateway behavior to more substantive changes, its just as likely to preclude engaging in more substantive changes. There's likely a masters thesis worth of work in our disagreement, but I see things like recycling and going vegetarian as an anesthetic that prevents engaging in additional action.
- DFHippie 5y ago
  Going vegetarian is an anesthetic? It's the single biggest thing a meat eater can do to reduce their carbon footprint! What do you consider effective action if going vegetarian doesn't count? If you tell people nothing they do is adequate, odds are you aren't going to win them to your cause. I'm pretty sure most vegetarians are fighting for stronger action, not sitting on the sidelines saying, "nah, I've done my bit." The vegetarians are your shock troops, not sellouts.
  - RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
    Yes, I think vegetarianism as an individual response to climate change is largely an anesthetic. I think individual responses in general are done as anesthetic (you feel pressure to act, and so you do something within your purview to relieve that pressure). I have lost faith in the ideal of collective individualism's ability to move the needle on these issues based on my read of the previous 60 years of history. I also think its disingenuous and irresponsible to put the onus on individuals. I think that for collective action at the scale required to address what is happening to our global climate can only happen through government mandated changes to manufacturing and setting carbon standards at the point and process of production. If we want to deal with this, the answer is that meat needs to be much more expensive, and that expense needs to be borne by the producers. All products and consumption need to represent their real impact on climate. Arguing for individual vegetarianism is nibbling around the edge at best (see below) and a analgesic at worst. The pain of there being a problem needs to be persistent and long lasting for us to address the much more central issues at hand. In the 1970's the US rate of vegetarianism was around 1%. In 2008, the rate was around 3%. In 2015, still around 3%. There is some 2018 data that says 4% (1). These surveys have margins of error, but lets be charitable and say they are spot on. Based on these data, we could expect to see a 20% adoption of vegetarianism by the year 2210. We could expect to see a 50% adoption by around 2600. Simply put, individual action is not enough to make even a bug-splat on a windshields difference to this issue. Individuals who make personal decisions to eat less meat may be the shock troops and I do believe those are also the ones going above and beyond to make additional change happen. However, its not adequate. Its not enough. And I am arguing that advocating for solving or addressing this issue through individual change is counter-productive, because even being ridiculously charitable regarding rates of adoption, it simple wont be enough to even nudge the needle on climate change. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#:~:text=Older%20governmental%20data%20from%201997,%25%20vegetarians%20and%203%25%20vegans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#:~:te....

mahogany 5y ago

If I'm reading your first paragraph correctly, you are making a claim that people who care about individual action will, generally speaking, stop at that and go no further because they think their work is done. That is a bit baffling to me and does not resonate with my personal experience. Is this a feeling or do you have anything to back it up? Secondly, you flippantly reject recycling as greenwashing and leave it at that. Even if I accept this claim (time to stop recycling aluminum), what about other activities? Why wouldn't it be helpful to convince your friends to think about where they spend their money? Note for example how many more vegan protein options there are at the grocery store or restaurants now compared to even 5 years ago. Capitalism responds to consumer demand. If I know that certain types of fish are way over-fished, should I just say "individual change doesn't do much until we get the government involved, so oh well, let's eat it anyway"? What about growing more of your food (perhaps a community garden) or trying to produce less waste? To me, it's better to act, and also show my friends and family my actions, so maybe one of them can do it and show their friends, and so on, so that ideas about e.g. sustainability permeate throughout society. Only then do they make it to the political domain. All I see is criticism but no alternative given in return, so I'm curious what your view is. How do you think can we accomplish a "massive political shift in how we address these issues"? My opinion is that large-scale cultural change must start at an individual level, and it starts with individuals who actually do what they believe should be done, because people in general respond more by seeing action rather than only hearing ideas.

RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
I think I addressed most of your issues in my response to DFHippie above, but I think I can at least address your more specific issues. To be clear, my central issue is with putting the onus on individuals to make the difference. I don't see sufficient evidence to suggest that individual voluntary collective action is capable of making a difference in regards to global carbon emissions, and I think that communicating so is not appropriate. I see it as largely misguided virtue signalling that is largely counter productive. >My opinion is that large-scale cultural change must start at an individual level I formerly held this belief, but I do not hold this belief currently. As far as I've seen, large-scale cultural change appears to be most readily demonstrated through forced coercion, systematic changes to the central governments, and massive advances in technology. Its a nice idea that we can all be the change we want to see and that we can change the world that way. I haven't seen evidence of it in my lifetime. Individual collective actions in the forms of protest movements have largely failed to accomplish their goals (Seattle 99, Protests against the war in Iraq/Agh, Occupy, Hong Kong, BLM). Things aren't getting better, they're largely getting worse, and those who are predisposed to take action keep focusing on types and modes of action which are demonstrated to be ineffective (advocating for people to individually become vegetarian, as opposed to finding ways of gaining power either within or over the system). People take to these modes of action because they're accessible. I can stop eating meat. I can recycle. I can not eat some about to go extinct fish. My argument is that individual action doesn't appear to be making any difference at all. There is effectively no reduction to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere based on the % of people who have adopted vegetarianism in the previous 60 years. Arguing that people should, as individuals, go vegetarian to protect the environment, is like arguing that we should turn a fan on while the room is on fire because its getting hot in here.