4 ms·

What about at scale? Meaning many individuals?

anm89 5y ago
Let's say it was a million individuals you were directly controlling (whereas in reality I doubt you could effect the eating habits of more than 2 or 3, but let's say a million) At that scale it really doesn't matter at all. It's a percentage of a percentage. The reverse of orders of magnitudes. I guess when you are running a G20 country let me know and then at that point I would still say you're in for a struggle. I won't hold my breath. So yeah. Your and my individual actions don't mean the slightest thing for climate change regardless of how you frame it. I'm sorry if that narrative doesn't make you feel good.
- foundron 5y ago
  Thank you. No need to be sorry. Not everyone needs to spin a narrative to justify their actions to make themselves feel good. Looks like you do agree that at real scale it would have an impact. But whether you're an individual or a G20 leader, none of what we do matters? I do agree we're locked into a web of incentives that discourages us from making sustainable choices. It's not any single person's fault. A few individuals giving up meat won't slow down climate change. At the same time, consuming more and more meat like we do now certainly helps accelerate it. Not to mention what we eat is only a small part of the equation. Now we're looking at changing our behaviours in many other areas too. It's a predicament indeed. What can people actually do? They can continue business as usual, or worse, double down and consume even more, or they can change their behaviour. Each action is a vote. Just like in elections, one vote doesn't matter, a lot of votes do. Yes it may not matter. Yes they might be hypocrites and just doing it to make their egos feel good. Or maybe they just want to be more compassionate and do what they can to contribute no matter how small. And in a violent world like ours, if there are people wanting to make compassionate choices, we should encourage them.

Let's say it was a million individuals you were directly controlling (whereas in reality I doubt you could effect the eating habits of more than 2 or 3, but let's say a million) At that scale it really doesn't matter at all. It's a percentage of a percentage. The reverse of orders of magnitudes. I guess when you are running a G20 country let me know and then at that point I would still say you're in for a struggle. I won't hold my breath. So yeah. Your and my individual actions don't mean the slightest thing for climate change regardless of how you frame it. I'm sorry if that narrative doesn't make you feel good.

foundron 5y ago
Thank you. No need to be sorry. Not everyone needs to spin a narrative to justify their actions to make themselves feel good. Looks like you do agree that at real scale it would have an impact. But whether you're an individual or a G20 leader, none of what we do matters? I do agree we're locked into a web of incentives that discourages us from making sustainable choices. It's not any single person's fault. A few individuals giving up meat won't slow down climate change. At the same time, consuming more and more meat like we do now certainly helps accelerate it. Not to mention what we eat is only a small part of the equation. Now we're looking at changing our behaviours in many other areas too. It's a predicament indeed. What can people actually do? They can continue business as usual, or worse, double down and consume even more, or they can change their behaviour. Each action is a vote. Just like in elections, one vote doesn't matter, a lot of votes do. Yes it may not matter. Yes they might be hypocrites and just doing it to make their egos feel good. Or maybe they just want to be more compassionate and do what they can to contribute no matter how small. And in a violent world like ours, if there are people wanting to make compassionate choices, we should encourage them.