2 ms·

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 unle

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

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