2 ms·

> Let's say you made the mess the next day, and the next, and the one after... and each day you pay someone to clean it up. You're not off the hook. Somewhat li

> Let's say you made the mess the next day, and the next, and the one after... and each day you pay someone to clean it up. You're not off the hook. Somewhat like the broken window fallacy, you're still creating a net loss to society. Unless you think those cleaners have nothing better to do with their lives than labour cleaning up your mess. We do pay people to clean up our messes. There's entire industries of janitors, street sweepers, repairmen and garbage disposal. Which provides additional jobs, increases time for everyone else to do other things and increases the economic pie. Do carbon offsets work differently? > it does not impact the Kantian moral argument Do we care about some moral argument, or do we care about mitigating climate change?

nonrandomstring 5y ago
> We do pay people to clean up our messes. That X has happened in the past is not a moral argument for X > Do we care about some moral argument, or do we care about mitigating climate change? That's a false dichotomy since the two are not mutually exclusive. Yes, we do care about some moral argument, and indeed all moral arguments. They often get down to the root causes quicker than 5Y analysis. For a gentle introduction to the intersection of ethics and systems theory see [1]. [1] https://donellameadows.org/donella-meadows-legacy/danas-teaching/ https://donellameadows.org/donella-meadows-legacy/danas-teac...