2 ms·

This kind of argument is often made, but it is wrong. >> As an individual, there isn't really anything you can do. Going vegetarian doesn't help. These words

This kind of argument is often made, but it is wrong. >> As an individual, there isn't really anything you can do. Going vegetarian doesn't help. These words are expressed as absolute. "isn't really anything" ... "doesn't help" Yet the reality is such activities are positive in a small way. They may be far from sufficient, but they are not nothing. To be clear I am not arguing that individual action alone will be sufficient, nor am I against collective action enforced by rules where appropriate. It's just the tenor of your post is wrong. We can have both individual and collective action. And individual action alone, even if insufficient, is certainly not nothing. Less GHG emitted is better than more. Even at micro-scale this remains true.

Taek 5y ago
Humans psychologically keep an internal karma counter, this has been established in scientific studies. People who performed small acts of kindness earlier in the day were less likely to take responsibility during bigger problems later in the day. We can apply that to global warming. If you do your part by recycling, this makes you less likely to feel the need to participate in bigger discussions around controlling emissions. If you are going to spend energy every day on climate change, spend it in pursuit of bigger wins. We aren't going to solve climate change without bigger wins, and if we do get the bigger wins we probably will solve it without the smaller efforts
- lovemenot 5y ago
  Thanks for replying. I thought that might be your reasoning. Without agreeing or disagreeing with your rationale, for me it would be better if you'd make this more clear from the outset. Something like: individuals can only make very limited positive impact, which in many instances is confounded by psychological factors driving behaviour in the wrong direction. Your understanding is better than your initial communication. There are in fact aspects of your argument that I disagree with concerning the Overton Window, but we needn't go there for now. At least you are no longer infuriating to me.

Taek 5y ago

Humans psychologically keep an internal karma counter, this has been established in scientific studies. People who performed small acts of kindness earlier in the day were less likely to take responsibility during bigger problems later in the day. We can apply that to global warming. If you do your part by recycling, this makes you less likely to feel the need to participate in bigger discussions around controlling emissions. If you are going to spend energy every day on climate change, spend it in pursuit of bigger wins. We aren't going to solve climate change without bigger wins, and if we do get the bigger wins we probably will solve it without the smaller efforts

lovemenot 5y ago
Thanks for replying. I thought that might be your reasoning. Without agreeing or disagreeing with your rationale, for me it would be better if you'd make this more clear from the outset. Something like: individuals can only make very limited positive impact, which in many instances is confounded by psychological factors driving behaviour in the wrong direction. Your understanding is better than your initial communication. There are in fact aspects of your argument that I disagree with concerning the Overton Window, but we needn't go there for now. At least you are no longer infuriating to me.