10 ms·

I think you're muddling the directionality here. What is your proposed "hard choice" that results in, say, my city being net zero or even drastically reducing

by throwaway22032 5y ago

I think you're muddling the directionality here. What is your proposed "hard choice" that results in, say, my city being net zero or even drastically reducing its' emissions? I can independently do it, probably by using a lot of land, finding a favourable spot to plop my passivhaus, and wiping the balance sheet clean at some point (e.g. I pretend that all of the material going into the solar panels, the wood etc 'doesn't count'). But what do the other ten million people do? Demolish all of the existing buildings and rebuild from scratch with far more insulation etc? Move in with each other and leave half of the buildings to rot? This isn't intended as snark by the way, I just don't see the answer here. Is your point that we could slow down climate change a bit whilst we wait for the technology to catch up? Because it's definitely a hard requirement.

bumby 5y ago
I don't think there is a single person that can do that and I'm not sure anyone would suggest there is. But saying a single action doesn't matter is not the same as saying a collection of single actions don't matter. Just like people shouldn't think working out once will magically make themselves fit, but string enough of those actions together and you can make an appreciable difference. The point is those other ten million people would need to make similar choices. Saying you can't control those other people comes across as just hand-washing yourself of responsibility. My point is that I think a lot of people use the technological argument to reduce any personal responsibility. It's true that I don't think we can simply conserve ourselves to net zero, but I do think it's a part of the solution. I often see people use the technological excuse as a way to not change and just keep the status quo so they don't have to feel the pain of sacrifice. It's easier to keep the problem in the abstract where one doesn't have to make concrete personal choices. Sometimes those tough choices are supporting policies that may align against your own personal, short-term self-interest.
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  Yes, but what's the _point_? Is your position that it at least slows climate change so that we have more time for the technology and political atmosphere to catch up? If so, fine, that makes sense. But without some endgame it kind of just feels as if you're ideologically invested in the concept of personal responsibility. I don't even think we disagree, I just find it bizarre to call reliance on other advancement an "excuse". It's a hard requirement, you can't not rely on it. The personal stuff is a bonus.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Do you litter? If not, why? Littering makes your life easier and has an immediate upside at the individual level. You can easily claim that your one cigarette butt makes statistically no difference. I assume you don't because you realize if everyone makes that same choice it has a downside for everyone, because nobody wants to live in a trash heap. If the reason is simply because it's illegal, I'm not sure that's a very principled stance. Climate decisions are harder because they're more abstract in effect and the uncertainty is greater. But they should be rooted in similar principle if we consider ourselves moral agents in society. If you agree that collective conservation will have an impact (maybe that's where we disagree), then the only way it will have an impact is if people make the induvial choice unless policy forces that decision. I personally think that's a bit of an immoral choice if one recognizes it's the right thing to do but chooses not to, just like the litterer who knows better. I'm not sure what your point is? Is it that it's best to wait until everyone collectively decides to make the choice to conserve? Because, ironically, that strikes me as the scenario where your choice has marginal impact at the individual level as well. That perspective is very much stuck in an individualistic mode of thinking that doesn't recognize collective efforts take many individual choices. Circling back to the littering analogy, cultural values spring from many instances of individual choices. Having a culture of conservativism (or at least mitigated consumerism) is every bit as possible as having a culture of non-littering. But it does take the correct choices at the individual level to create the social pressure that brings along people who are less willing. That last point is important. I'm reminded of a study where they tested three different modes of convincing people of energy conservation: 1) they focused on how much money it saved, 2) they focused on the positive impact of the environment, and 3) they focused on the fact that the majority of their neighbors were already enrolled in the program. The only method that made a significant impact on energy usage was #3. We're social creatures and social pressure is important to nudge collective action. I agree, we need technology. But it shouldn't be an easy excuse for us to sit on our laurels with other choices, because, you know nuclear fusion has been 10 years away for the last 50 years.
    - throwaway22032 5y ago
      I don't litter, no. But that's an example of a tiny and trivial change which has outsized impact. If no-one litters, it's not really that hard, and the world would be super clean. This isn't at all comparable to the sorts of changes that are required to lower one's carbon footprint. You would have to take literally every single thing most of us do every second of every day and change it dramatically. I grow tired of having these debates online because it's just so frustrating, sorry. It's not a good faith debate because you're just bouncing between trivialities and non-trivialities. I use more than the global average just to heat my house. Like, that's _one thing_. And you can argue that I can change that, and I can. But my entire country is built with these houses. It's total and utter bollocks to pretend that some sort of 'culture of conservation' could change this. Technology might allow me to heat it without emitting CO2. Otherwise, we need to knock it all down and start again. I suspect we will, but not by choice.

bumby 5y ago

I don't think there is a single person that can do that and I'm not sure anyone would suggest there is. But saying a single action doesn't matter is not the same as saying a collection of single actions don't matter. Just like people shouldn't think working out once will magically make themselves fit, but string enough of those actions together and you can make an appreciable difference. The point is those other ten million people would need to make similar choices. Saying you can't control those other people comes across as just hand-washing yourself of responsibility. My point is that I think a lot of people use the technological argument to reduce any personal responsibility. It's true that I don't think we can simply conserve ourselves to net zero, but I do think it's a part of the solution. I often see people use the technological excuse as a way to not change and just keep the status quo so they don't have to feel the pain of sacrifice. It's easier to keep the problem in the abstract where one doesn't have to make concrete personal choices. Sometimes those tough choices are supporting policies that may align against your own personal, short-term self-interest.

throwaway22032 5y ago
Yes, but what's the _point_? Is your position that it at least slows climate change so that we have more time for the technology and political atmosphere to catch up? If so, fine, that makes sense. But without some endgame it kind of just feels as if you're ideologically invested in the concept of personal responsibility. I don't even think we disagree, I just find it bizarre to call reliance on other advancement an "excuse". It's a hard requirement, you can't not rely on it. The personal stuff is a bonus.
- bumby 5y ago
  Do you litter? If not, why? Littering makes your life easier and has an immediate upside at the individual level. You can easily claim that your one cigarette butt makes statistically no difference. I assume you don't because you realize if everyone makes that same choice it has a downside for everyone, because nobody wants to live in a trash heap. If the reason is simply because it's illegal, I'm not sure that's a very principled stance. Climate decisions are harder because they're more abstract in effect and the uncertainty is greater. But they should be rooted in similar principle if we consider ourselves moral agents in society. If you agree that collective conservation will have an impact (maybe that's where we disagree), then the only way it will have an impact is if people make the induvial choice unless policy forces that decision. I personally think that's a bit of an immoral choice if one recognizes it's the right thing to do but chooses not to, just like the litterer who knows better. I'm not sure what your point is? Is it that it's best to wait until everyone collectively decides to make the choice to conserve? Because, ironically, that strikes me as the scenario where your choice has marginal impact at the individual level as well. That perspective is very much stuck in an individualistic mode of thinking that doesn't recognize collective efforts take many individual choices. Circling back to the littering analogy, cultural values spring from many instances of individual choices. Having a culture of conservativism (or at least mitigated consumerism) is every bit as possible as having a culture of non-littering. But it does take the correct choices at the individual level to create the social pressure that brings along people who are less willing. That last point is important. I'm reminded of a study where they tested three different modes of convincing people of energy conservation: 1) they focused on how much money it saved, 2) they focused on the positive impact of the environment, and 3) they focused on the fact that the majority of their neighbors were already enrolled in the program. The only method that made a significant impact on energy usage was #3. We're social creatures and social pressure is important to nudge collective action. I agree, we need technology. But it shouldn't be an easy excuse for us to sit on our laurels with other choices, because, you know nuclear fusion has been 10 years away for the last 50 years.
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    I don't litter, no. But that's an example of a tiny and trivial change which has outsized impact. If no-one litters, it's not really that hard, and the world would be super clean. This isn't at all comparable to the sorts of changes that are required to lower one's carbon footprint. You would have to take literally every single thing most of us do every second of every day and change it dramatically. I grow tired of having these debates online because it's just so frustrating, sorry. It's not a good faith debate because you're just bouncing between trivialities and non-trivialities. I use more than the global average just to heat my house. Like, that's _one thing_. And you can argue that I can change that, and I can. But my entire country is built with these houses. It's total and utter bollocks to pretend that some sort of 'culture of conservation' could change this. Technology might allow me to heat it without emitting CO2. Otherwise, we need to knock it all down and start again. I suspect we will, but not by choice.