3 ms·

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 ca

by 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'm sorry you don't feel it's in good faith; it absolutely is. Ironically, I feel you were underscoring this strawman of zero emissions when I've stated early on that shouldn't be the goal but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were engaging in good faith. Littering was used as an example not because it's a trivial gotcha but because it's trivial enough to understand immediately. I think analogies work best that way. Your claim about an "outsized impact" is exactly what I'm talking about with climate being more abstract and thus harder to connect individual choices to impact. Littering only seems like an outsized impact because you can literally see it change over the course of days or weeks on a small enough scale we can wrap our minds around. IMO we need policy to drive these issues because we did not evolve to think on the scale of worldwide effects. That doesn't negate individual responsibility though. >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. Ok. Maybe that's fine for you. But please understand there are other parts of the world that are having these exact conversations. Some are limiting single family homes because they are inefficient. They recognize their previous assumptions have all kinds of externalities that need to be addressed. Interestingly, facility energy conservation is one of the easiest areas to make an impact. Maybe that doesn't fit with your culture but that may be, at least in part, about what your cultural values are. And one way of defending those values is to say "I'll wait for technology so I don't have to change." That's what my whole point is about. So if you're banking on technology so much have you actually done anything about it? Do you invest in companies that are working on that tech, or maybe quit your job to focus on ushering it into being? Or is that someone else's responsibility too so you wouldn't have to change the status quo? The world is full of people who are comfortable saying the big problems are someone else's problem. I'm saying those aren't the type of people I'd want my children to grow up to emulate. That means they would seek to take some ownership of the problem, even if it's on a small scale.

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'm sorry you don't feel it's in good faith; it absolutely is. Ironically, I feel you were underscoring this strawman of zero emissions when I've stated early on that shouldn't be the goal but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were engaging in good faith. Littering was used as an example not because it's a trivial gotcha but because it's trivial enough to understand immediately. I think analogies work best that way. Your claim about an "outsized impact" is exactly what I'm talking about with climate being more abstract and thus harder to connect individual choices to impact. Littering only seems like an outsized impact because you can literally see it change over the course of days or weeks on a small enough scale we can wrap our minds around. IMO we need policy to drive these issues because we did not evolve to think on the scale of worldwide effects. That doesn't negate individual responsibility though. >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. Ok. Maybe that's fine for you. But please understand there are other parts of the world that are having these exact conversations. Some are limiting single family homes because they are inefficient. They recognize their previous assumptions have all kinds of externalities that need to be addressed. Interestingly, facility energy conservation is one of the easiest areas to make an impact. Maybe that doesn't fit with your culture but that may be, at least in part, about what your cultural values are. And one way of defending those values is to say "I'll wait for technology so I don't have to change." That's what my whole point is about. So if you're banking on technology so much have you actually done anything about it? Do you invest in companies that are working on that tech, or maybe quit your job to focus on ushering it into being? Or is that someone else's responsibility too so you wouldn't have to change the status quo? The world is full of people who are comfortable saying the big problems are someone else's problem. I'm saying those aren't the type of people I'd want my children to grow up to emulate. That means they would seek to take some ownership of the problem, even if it's on a small scale.