5 ms·

I thought we were past the fairy tales about individual action doing anything useful?

goatse-4-me 5y ago
This is just an excuse for being a piece of shit person. It doesn't justify the murder of sentient creatures for your pleasure. It doesn't absolve you of your role in the ongoing mass extinction event. Fuck you!
Tijdreiziger 5y ago
Please enlighten us on why that would absolve any individual from their moral duties.
- SilverRed 5y ago
  In no other area do we kindly request people not to do bad and damaging things. You don't tell the public "Drink driving is really bad, so please be considerate and don't do it". Instead you ban drink driving and vigorously enforce the ban.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    Yes, and I eagerly await the day governments around the world impose hefty CO2 taxes. Until that day comes, again - why would we be absolved of our moral duties? Is it really necessary for everyone to eat meat every day? (30% of Western Europeans already say no [1].) Is it really necessary for everyone to buy a new smartphone every year? [1] https://veganz.com/blog/veganz-nutrition-study-2020/ https://veganz.com/blog/veganz-nutrition-study-2020/
    - SilverRed 5y ago
      To be clear, I agree with you and make my best efforts but I know that there is no way that requiring individuals to apply restrictions to themselves is going to work. Seeing how little effect it has had vs tiny changes from government having massive effects.
      - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
        Yes, I agree with you too :) Government action is definitely needed and I'll be among the first to advocate as such. That notwithstanding, I think we also each have a duty to examine our own lifestyles critically. Like I wrote in a reply to another user - in 2019, 60 flights took off every day from Amsterdam to London (just a 4-hour journey by rail) - someone's taking all those flights.
- smhost 5y ago
  It doesn't. The point is that neither does recycling, or whatever.
- freshhawk 5y ago
  Because framing collective action problems caused by a very small powerful minority of people as mass moral issues is how we all fucking die. In fact, you have a moral imperative to stop doing this, since you are covering for the actual actors with bad morality by misrepresenting where the moral failing lies.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    > you are covering for the actual actors with bad morality by misrepresenting where the moral failing lies Corporations have no moral values, only a profit motive. The only way to improve them is through legislation. Legislation is written by politicians, who are elected by individuals*. Therefore, individual awareness is in fact _the only way we have*_ to lower CO2 emissions. * in functioning democracies
    - freshhawk 5y ago
      "* in functioning democracies" Who cares about this theoretical BS though? It's useless. The model isn't predictive. Those are spherical cows. At this point we know the areas where public support is most detached from policy and it always corresponds to wealth. So just start using the adult model of the world already.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        OK, wait. You said that individual action making a difference was a fairy tale. Now you're saying that democratic action is useless because it runs counter to the interests of the rich. So... what do you think is a useful, workable approach?
      - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
        Functioning democracies are theoretical? 10% of MEPs (Members of European Parliament) are already Greens. 9% of the Dutch parliament is [GreenLeft + Party for the Animals], and that's not even counting the Labour party (who have similar policies). 9% of the German Bundestag is Greens. Are all those representatives spherical cows? Were they all voted in by the wealthy? Sure, 10% of legislators isn't huge in the grand scheme of things. But again, _the only way_ to increase that percentage is for the people to go out and vote, and that road starts with awareness.
- voisin 5y ago
  Because by focusing on individual action it has the impact of absolving corporations of their moral duties. It is the same with public health.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    No, I didn't imply that at all. Legislation must come from governments and corporations must pay their part - but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look critically at our own actions. Did you know that in 2019, 60 flights departed from Amsterdam to London every day [1] - just a 4-hour journey by rail [2]? Clearly someone's taking all those flights. Re: public health - I don't exactly understand the argument you're trying to make. [1] https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/241554/londen-populairste-bestemming-vanaf-schiphol https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/241554/londen-populairste-bes... [2] https://www.nsinternational.com/en/england/london-by-train https://www.nsinternational.com/en/england/london-by-train
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SilverRed 5y ago
Those things suggested are the solution but government has to enforce them to have any effect. Recently the local government in my area banned plastic knives and forks and pretty much overnight every restaurant and takeaway place switched to reusable steel, wood/bamboo, or just not giving out cutlery by default and only when it is actually needed. A single action by the government wiped out tens of millions of plastic pieces per year effortlessly. So yes, the solution was for us to stop doing certain things. It's just enforcement that matters.
- freshhawk 5y ago
  "A single action by the government" Yeah, this is generally called "collective action" when it is contrasted with "individual action".
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  In the UK, plastic bags are no longer free in shops. In fact they keep increasing the price. It's definitely made me use far less plastic bags, it's just a case of developing a habit to take my own. (This was government action)

This is just an excuse for being a piece of shit person. It doesn't justify the murder of sentient creatures for your pleasure. It doesn't absolve you of your role in the ongoing mass extinction event. Fuck you!

Tijdreiziger 5y ago

Please enlighten us on why that would absolve any individual from their moral duties.

SilverRed 5y ago
In no other area do we kindly request people not to do bad and damaging things. You don't tell the public "Drink driving is really bad, so please be considerate and don't do it". Instead you ban drink driving and vigorously enforce the ban.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  Yes, and I eagerly await the day governments around the world impose hefty CO2 taxes. Until that day comes, again - why would we be absolved of our moral duties? Is it really necessary for everyone to eat meat every day? (30% of Western Europeans already say no [1].) Is it really necessary for everyone to buy a new smartphone every year? [1] https://veganz.com/blog/veganz-nutrition-study-2020/ https://veganz.com/blog/veganz-nutrition-study-2020/
  - SilverRed 5y ago
    To be clear, I agree with you and make my best efforts but I know that there is no way that requiring individuals to apply restrictions to themselves is going to work. Seeing how little effect it has had vs tiny changes from government having massive effects.
    - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
      Yes, I agree with you too :) Government action is definitely needed and I'll be among the first to advocate as such. That notwithstanding, I think we also each have a duty to examine our own lifestyles critically. Like I wrote in a reply to another user - in 2019, 60 flights took off every day from Amsterdam to London (just a 4-hour journey by rail) - someone's taking all those flights.
smhost 5y ago
It doesn't. The point is that neither does recycling, or whatever.
freshhawk 5y ago
Because framing collective action problems caused by a very small powerful minority of people as mass moral issues is how we all fucking die. In fact, you have a moral imperative to stop doing this, since you are covering for the actual actors with bad morality by misrepresenting where the moral failing lies.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  > you are covering for the actual actors with bad morality by misrepresenting where the moral failing lies Corporations have no moral values, only a profit motive. The only way to improve them is through legislation. Legislation is written by politicians, who are elected by individuals*. Therefore, individual awareness is in fact _the only way we have*_ to lower CO2 emissions. * in functioning democracies
  - freshhawk 5y ago
    "* in functioning democracies" Who cares about this theoretical BS though? It's useless. The model isn't predictive. Those are spherical cows. At this point we know the areas where public support is most detached from policy and it always corresponds to wealth. So just start using the adult model of the world already.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      OK, wait. You said that individual action making a difference was a fairy tale. Now you're saying that democratic action is useless because it runs counter to the interests of the rich. So... what do you think is a useful, workable approach?
    - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
      Functioning democracies are theoretical? 10% of MEPs (Members of European Parliament) are already Greens. 9% of the Dutch parliament is [GreenLeft + Party for the Animals], and that's not even counting the Labour party (who have similar policies). 9% of the German Bundestag is Greens. Are all those representatives spherical cows? Were they all voted in by the wealthy? Sure, 10% of legislators isn't huge in the grand scheme of things. But again, _the only way_ to increase that percentage is for the people to go out and vote, and that road starts with awareness.
voisin 5y ago
Because by focusing on individual action it has the impact of absolving corporations of their moral duties. It is the same with public health.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  No, I didn't imply that at all. Legislation must come from governments and corporations must pay their part - but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look critically at our own actions. Did you know that in 2019, 60 flights departed from Amsterdam to London every day [1] - just a 4-hour journey by rail [2]? Clearly someone's taking all those flights. Re: public health - I don't exactly understand the argument you're trying to make. [1] https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/241554/londen-populairste-bestemming-vanaf-schiphol https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/241554/londen-populairste-bes... [2] https://www.nsinternational.com/en/england/london-by-train https://www.nsinternational.com/en/england/london-by-train

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

SilverRed 5y ago

Those things suggested are the solution but government has to enforce them to have any effect. Recently the local government in my area banned plastic knives and forks and pretty much overnight every restaurant and takeaway place switched to reusable steel, wood/bamboo, or just not giving out cutlery by default and only when it is actually needed. A single action by the government wiped out tens of millions of plastic pieces per year effortlessly. So yes, the solution was for us to stop doing certain things. It's just enforcement that matters.

freshhawk 5y ago
"A single action by the government" Yeah, this is generally called "collective action" when it is contrasted with "individual action".
CodeGlitch 5y ago
In the UK, plastic bags are no longer free in shops. In fact they keep increasing the price. It's definitely made me use far less plastic bags, it's just a case of developing a habit to take my own. (This was government action)