4 ms·

Then obviously no one will sacrifice much of anything, because some subset will always be willing to cheat or ignore the call to these sorts of sacrifices. This

Then obviously no one will sacrifice much of anything, because some subset will always be willing to cheat or ignore the call to these sorts of sacrifices. This is why collective action efforts at changing major problems are so fraught with difficulty. Instead, fundamental practical changes in the direction of better ways at doing things that also happen to be easier and more convenient are what really drives positive innovation in many cases. Example: the digitization of most documents just made it convenient for more people to stop using vast reams of paper in certain contexts.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> some subset will always be willing to cheat I think a more charitable way to interpret the parent post is that they want a good faith effort made to enforce the mandates, without requiring that those efforts be 100% effective at achieving compliance. Personally I think that if someone cares about an issue which requires collective action, then their moral obligation is only to contribute to the solution more than the median person. Of course it is impossible for most people to do better than the median, but if most people pursue this goal, it would bring the median down, while creating a democratic mandate for reducing the maximum.
jka 5y ago
If behvaiours cause damage to (inter)national safety, then cheating - in ways that are generally hard to hide - should become a lot less socially acceptable. People will also, I reckon, begin to realize that a lot of the externalities from CO2-emitting activities (car noise, pollution, traffic and lack of exercise, for example) are things that they won't want to return to.