3 ms·

I feel like we could go a long way toward this through individual choice. You can just y'know, refuse to help ruining our planet. I bet for most people on this

I feel like we could go a long way toward this through individual choice. You can just y'know, refuse to help ruining our planet. I bet for most people on this forum that's absolutely a practical choice but the money is too good to worry about that. I don't think that's the best solution, but at least it's one I can personally enact, and if deontologically expanded it does lead to solving the problem. Don't play negative or zero sum games and ostracize those that do.

luckylion 5y ago
> You can just y'know, refuse to help ruining our planet. People don't like that. A friend of mine likes driving his car, and does so a lot to go places on the weekend and stuff. He'd like to see the government mandate reduced car usage. I've asked him: you're free not to use your car, why do you still use it if you believe it would be best if you didn't? Because he likes it and if it's not made into law, he won't do what he thinks is best. "We should outlaw personal air travel, but until that has happened, I'm going to fly around the globe" is what I see in far too many proponents of those rules. I have no idea what goes on in their head, it's completely alien to me.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  I know exactly what goes on in their head. They could abstain from things they like and make their lives more miserable, but it has absolutely zero impact unless millions of others also do the same. And there's no way the masses are doing that voluntarily. (See also how difficult it is to get people to put masks on, distance, take vaccines, etc. with or without mandates; now try get people to voluntarily give up property and hobbies they enjoy) Individual action just isn't enough. Hell, you could wipe my entire country of about 5 million people, and the impact on global CO2 output is on par with the average annual increase in CO2 output over the past two decades. A year or two later, the world would be outputting more CO2 than it did before our genocide.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    Yeah, I just don't understand that line of thought. Of course, each individual's actions are meaningless, but they're wouldn't be the only ones who do it. If only the voters of the green party in Germany would stop/sharply reduce flying, that would be ~10% of Germans (~16% projected votes, ~70-75% citizens are voting). Since they do fly more than the average person [1][2][3], and since they are more likely to be part of the upper class which tends to contribute more per capita, the impact would be even larger. They could single handedly massive reduce the pollution from air travel just by changing their own habits. Yet they don't, keep on flying at higher levels than other groups while demanding legislation to stop them. It's like a cliche movie killer who asks to be stopped. Look at vegans who are vegan for moral reasons. They don't say "we shouldn't eat animals, and the state should outlaw it, but until no one is allowed to eat animals, I'll have a steak every day". They start by themselves and then try to convince others and (sometimes) call for legislation. "Since my influence as an individual is meaningless, I'll continue to be (an outsized) part of the problem instead of being part of the solution" is just completely alien to me, I literally don't understand the reasoning behind it. Would they own slaves if it wasn't outlawed because one slave more or less doesn't change the big picture? [1] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gruenen-waehler-halten-rekord-bei-flugreisen-a-1002376.html https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gruenen-waehle..., 2014 [2] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/umfrage-zur-flugscham-gruenen-anhaenger-fliegen-am-meisten-und-haben-das-schlechteste-gewissen/24679158.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/umfrage-zur-flugscham-gr..., 2019 [3] https://www.businessinsider.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-gruene-sind-die-vielflieger-des-bundestages-2019-8/ https://www.businessinsider.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-gruene..., 2019 for green members of parliament who fly more than any other party per person
tsimionescu 5y ago
There are huge industries pumping money into making sure this doesn't happen. Modern advertising is one of the biggest industries on the planet, and it's only goal is to get people to consume more. One of the means of doing this is specifically convincing people that global warming is not that risky. Not to mention, many behaviors are in fact impractical. The vast majority of people can't afford equipment and clothes that can last a few decades, as used to be the norm, for example. In much of the west, responsibly grown sustainable food is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than fast food.

luckylion 5y ago

> You can just y'know, refuse to help ruining our planet. People don't like that. A friend of mine likes driving his car, and does so a lot to go places on the weekend and stuff. He'd like to see the government mandate reduced car usage. I've asked him: you're free not to use your car, why do you still use it if you believe it would be best if you didn't? Because he likes it and if it's not made into law, he won't do what he thinks is best. "We should outlaw personal air travel, but until that has happened, I'm going to fly around the globe" is what I see in far too many proponents of those rules. I have no idea what goes on in their head, it's completely alien to me.

foxfluff 5y ago
I know exactly what goes on in their head. They could abstain from things they like and make their lives more miserable, but it has absolutely zero impact unless millions of others also do the same. And there's no way the masses are doing that voluntarily. (See also how difficult it is to get people to put masks on, distance, take vaccines, etc. with or without mandates; now try get people to voluntarily give up property and hobbies they enjoy) Individual action just isn't enough. Hell, you could wipe my entire country of about 5 million people, and the impact on global CO2 output is on par with the average annual increase in CO2 output over the past two decades. A year or two later, the world would be outputting more CO2 than it did before our genocide.
- luckylion 5y ago
  Yeah, I just don't understand that line of thought. Of course, each individual's actions are meaningless, but they're wouldn't be the only ones who do it. If only the voters of the green party in Germany would stop/sharply reduce flying, that would be ~10% of Germans (~16% projected votes, ~70-75% citizens are voting). Since they do fly more than the average person [1][2][3], and since they are more likely to be part of the upper class which tends to contribute more per capita, the impact would be even larger. They could single handedly massive reduce the pollution from air travel just by changing their own habits. Yet they don't, keep on flying at higher levels than other groups while demanding legislation to stop them. It's like a cliche movie killer who asks to be stopped. Look at vegans who are vegan for moral reasons. They don't say "we shouldn't eat animals, and the state should outlaw it, but until no one is allowed to eat animals, I'll have a steak every day". They start by themselves and then try to convince others and (sometimes) call for legislation. "Since my influence as an individual is meaningless, I'll continue to be (an outsized) part of the problem instead of being part of the solution" is just completely alien to me, I literally don't understand the reasoning behind it. Would they own slaves if it wasn't outlawed because one slave more or less doesn't change the big picture? [1] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gruenen-waehler-halten-rekord-bei-flugreisen-a-1002376.html https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gruenen-waehle..., 2014 [2] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/umfrage-zur-flugscham-gruenen-anhaenger-fliegen-am-meisten-und-haben-das-schlechteste-gewissen/24679158.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/umfrage-zur-flugscham-gr..., 2019 [3] https://www.businessinsider.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-gruene-sind-die-vielflieger-des-bundestages-2019-8/ https://www.businessinsider.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-gruene..., 2019 for green members of parliament who fly more than any other party per person

tsimionescu 5y ago

There are huge industries pumping money into making sure this doesn't happen. Modern advertising is one of the biggest industries on the planet, and it's only goal is to get people to consume more. One of the means of doing this is specifically convincing people that global warming is not that risky. Not to mention, many behaviors are in fact impractical. The vast majority of people can't afford equipment and clothes that can last a few decades, as used to be the norm, for example. In much of the west, responsibly grown sustainable food is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than fast food.