4 ms·

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

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.
- mahogany 5y ago
  I agree with you that individual change shouldn't be the only or the end goal -- anyone selling this idea is wrong or potentially malicious (e.g. corporations selling the idea of plastic recycling), and if that is your central issue, then I think we're mostly on the same page. We need to have changes at the governmental level and hold corporations responsible. Things like taxing negative externalities and legislating forms of extended producer responsibility seem like musts to me. What doesn't sit with me is negativity toward the idea of individual action. Individual change is often simply a side effect of believing in something dearly. It's quite alien to me that one could feel strongly enough about an issue to fight for it at a political level, and at the same time not at least attempt to live and act according to those beliefs. The two go hand in hand in my world view, and I think both are needed. And those who originate and begin the spread of radical ideas, long before they make it to the political layer, almost surely were already acting according to those ideas. So I do see -- and I think agree with -- your broader point, but unfortunately, I'm not sure how to actually gain this power within the system that you mention. What does that look like? What are the steps?

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.

mahogany 5y ago
I agree with you that individual change shouldn't be the only or the end goal -- anyone selling this idea is wrong or potentially malicious (e.g. corporations selling the idea of plastic recycling), and if that is your central issue, then I think we're mostly on the same page. We need to have changes at the governmental level and hold corporations responsible. Things like taxing negative externalities and legislating forms of extended producer responsibility seem like musts to me. What doesn't sit with me is negativity toward the idea of individual action. Individual change is often simply a side effect of believing in something dearly. It's quite alien to me that one could feel strongly enough about an issue to fight for it at a political level, and at the same time not at least attempt to live and act according to those beliefs. The two go hand in hand in my world view, and I think both are needed. And those who originate and begin the spread of radical ideas, long before they make it to the political layer, almost surely were already acting according to those ideas. So I do see -- and I think agree with -- your broader point, but unfortunately, I'm not sure how to actually gain this power within the system that you mention. What does that look like? What are the steps?