3 ms·

We have enough resources to provide heating and running water for every living person on Earth, it is just not allocated fairly and smartly (e.g. in my country

by kaba0 3y ago

We have enough resources to provide heating and running water for every living person on Earth, it is just not allocated fairly and smartly (e.g. in my country we flush the toilet with very good grade water meant for drinking, because historically we don’t have separate piping for less potable water and we are rich in waters). But do we really need to be able to order some bullshit plastic shit from China for 2 dollars? I think it is only fair to give up that for local production, even if that costs 10 dollars for the same thing. Similarly, do I have to eat argentine beef in Europe? Sure, make it available for a hefty price for the rare occasion, but it really should not be generally available. Fruit that is local and is out of season? Don’t import it from Peru, simply wait for it to be in season, or buy some product that was made locally when it was in season, like jam. Strengthening local production would already massively decrease the number of ships we need for minimal inconvenience (hell, it might just be beneficial for the local economy). Do I even have to eat meat each day? Similary, why don’t we ban most kinds of single-use plastics? How often do you buy milk that you plan on drinking while you walk somewhere? Couldn’t it be stored inside a container you have to bring back to the shop the next time, or buy again if not? Hell, most liquids meant for drinking could easily come in a few sizes of these reusable bottles. We have goddamn shops that can auto-subtract your bought items simply by camera imaging, don’t tell me we don’t have the tech to safely and hygienically refill containers, something we had 100 years ago. As for societal change: do my parents have to live in a separate house with way too much space for them, having them see their grandchildren only occasionally (making parents having to pay for babysitters)? Only so that they can later be cared for by some random person? Sure, not everyone has parents worth living together with, but this tendency that it is somehow a failure to not move out of your parents home is imo very harmful to everyone involved - parent not having enough self-time, grandparents being alone, slowly deteriorating mentally, children not seeing grandparents enough (also, parents having to figure out parenting from zero). These are not big sacrifices, but we will do them, one way or another. The question is, do we want to do it with self-agency, or let nature run its course?

tticvs 3y ago
But none of the examples you give move the needle enough with regards to climate change. You're just following what feels like it would be good for the environment (and maybe it is good for your local environment) but isn't actually impactful at a large scale. You write eloquently, but futilely.
- cutemonster 3y ago
  I think it's not meant to be an exhaustive list of things to do. Instead, what if it's a mindset: Doing such things, and 1000 others, some of them vastly more important than others. And you can add to the list (instead of just saying "it won't work"). E.g. high car gas taxes, so there'll be trains, buses and bike lanes instead for everyone.
  - tticvs 3y ago
    > Doing such things, and 1000 others, some of them vastly more important than others. That doesn't make any sense why would we make sacrifices that are not important.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    Eating less beef will reduce the market price and make it cheaper for everyone else, increasing their consumption accordingly. The whole point of a capitalist economy is to “route around inefficiency”, in the same way the internet is designed to “route around damage”. Any single player or even a large contingent of players, who act inefficiently, are only increasing the alpha available for another player to exploit. “Inefficiency” in this sense is anything that doesn’t maximize personal benefit - profit or other quality of life. Anything that is legal according to the rules of the game (or tolerated by society) is going to happen whether it’s you that does it or someone else. The only long term solution is that if this is what needs to happen, we have to encode that into “the rules” so everyone plays by that rule. Personal recycling or personal consumption reduction does nothing at a social level, and in fact is pushed as a deliberate stalling tactic to avoid and stall those political actions which could have a real impact. This is also the problem with bitcoin - any one player choosing not to participate in mining only increases the reward for the remaining players who will continue to participate. If there is only one person on the planet willing to mine, she gets all the rewards. So simply choosing not to mine does nothing, you’re just transferring profit to someone else. Humanity has already built the first AIs, they are emergent paperclip-maximizers encoded into the bylaws of corporations and market structures. And they will route around any attempt to un-maximize paperclip production according to whatever levers we continue to give them. If you don’t want people to eat as much beef, you have to build that rule into the system, it’ll never happen due to personal-level changes in behavior.
montroser 3y ago
That all sounds okay at an individual level, but to affect the massive change we need, relying on moral self-agency is not going to suffice. So do you want governments to legislate that you must live with your parents? Or that you must not eat meat? Otherwise it's fine and good that a small share of the populace will make these choices on their own, but we need an order of magnitude more.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Carbon tax incentivizes many of my points, but it’s not like my points are the sacred script on what to follow. That and some others do require government legislations (which are a good thing in most cases, and ideally are there to protect and serve the people!), e.g. mandating a standard container, others like living with your parents would need a social change, but that can also be influenced by the government, e.g. much less tax on rent in case of multi-generational homes.
vel0city 3y ago
> Hell, most liquids meant for drinking could easily come in a few sizes of these reusable bottles Oh how I wish I could just bring a reusable bottle to some dispenser at the store and refill directly. Milk, common juices, soaps, etc. So many bottles going into trash/recycling all the time.
TatersGonnaT8 3y ago
Just tax carbon and everyone can decide with their wallets just how much they want to eat meat or imported Peruvian fruits
- kaba0 3y ago
  Yes, that’s definitely one of the most realistic ways going forward, though the recyclable bottles part would need separate government standards and laws.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
The problem is that absent technology we need to reach 0 carbon emissions. Not just what it was in 1950 or 1900 but actually 0. This implies a standard of living far worse than you suggest. And even at 0 it will take hundreds of years to undo current warming. It’s not going to be politically feasible since 99% of people don’t want to live that way. Thus we have to pursue alternatives.
- kaba0 3y ago
  We are currently accelerating towards a cliff. We may not stop the car before the cliff, but the next best thing we can do is getting our legs off the pedal. Maybe technology will help us achieve that last minute stop we so need, but we have to start somewhere.
smolder 3y ago
Meanwhile, I encountered an adult the other day who only drinks from plastic disposable cups so that they don't have to wash dishes.

by kaba0 3y ago

tticvs 3y ago

But none of the examples you give move the needle enough with regards to climate change. You're just following what feels like it would be good for the environment (and maybe it is good for your local environment) but isn't actually impactful at a large scale. You write eloquently, but futilely.

cutemonster 3y ago
I think it's not meant to be an exhaustive list of things to do. Instead, what if it's a mindset: Doing such things, and 1000 others, some of them vastly more important than others. And you can add to the list (instead of just saying "it won't work"). E.g. high car gas taxes, so there'll be trains, buses and bike lanes instead for everyone.
- tticvs 3y ago
  > Doing such things, and 1000 others, some of them vastly more important than others. That doesn't make any sense why would we make sacrifices that are not important.
- paulmd 3y ago
  Eating less beef will reduce the market price and make it cheaper for everyone else, increasing their consumption accordingly. The whole point of a capitalist economy is to “route around inefficiency”, in the same way the internet is designed to “route around damage”. Any single player or even a large contingent of players, who act inefficiently, are only increasing the alpha available for another player to exploit. “Inefficiency” in this sense is anything that doesn’t maximize personal benefit - profit or other quality of life. Anything that is legal according to the rules of the game (or tolerated by society) is going to happen whether it’s you that does it or someone else. The only long term solution is that if this is what needs to happen, we have to encode that into “the rules” so everyone plays by that rule. Personal recycling or personal consumption reduction does nothing at a social level, and in fact is pushed as a deliberate stalling tactic to avoid and stall those political actions which could have a real impact. This is also the problem with bitcoin - any one player choosing not to participate in mining only increases the reward for the remaining players who will continue to participate. If there is only one person on the planet willing to mine, she gets all the rewards. So simply choosing not to mine does nothing, you’re just transferring profit to someone else. Humanity has already built the first AIs, they are emergent paperclip-maximizers encoded into the bylaws of corporations and market structures. And they will route around any attempt to un-maximize paperclip production according to whatever levers we continue to give them. If you don’t want people to eat as much beef, you have to build that rule into the system, it’ll never happen due to personal-level changes in behavior.

montroser 3y ago

That all sounds okay at an individual level, but to affect the massive change we need, relying on moral self-agency is not going to suffice. So do you want governments to legislate that you must live with your parents? Or that you must not eat meat? Otherwise it's fine and good that a small share of the populace will make these choices on their own, but we need an order of magnitude more.

kaba0 3y ago
Carbon tax incentivizes many of my points, but it’s not like my points are the sacred script on what to follow. That and some others do require government legislations (which are a good thing in most cases, and ideally are there to protect and serve the people!), e.g. mandating a standard container, others like living with your parents would need a social change, but that can also be influenced by the government, e.g. much less tax on rent in case of multi-generational homes.

vel0city 3y ago

> Hell, most liquids meant for drinking could easily come in a few sizes of these reusable bottles Oh how I wish I could just bring a reusable bottle to some dispenser at the store and refill directly. Milk, common juices, soaps, etc. So many bottles going into trash/recycling all the time.

TatersGonnaT8 3y ago

Just tax carbon and everyone can decide with their wallets just how much they want to eat meat or imported Peruvian fruits

kaba0 3y ago
Yes, that’s definitely one of the most realistic ways going forward, though the recyclable bottles part would need separate government standards and laws.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

The problem is that absent technology we need to reach 0 carbon emissions. Not just what it was in 1950 or 1900 but actually 0. This implies a standard of living far worse than you suggest. And even at 0 it will take hundreds of years to undo current warming. It’s not going to be politically feasible since 99% of people don’t want to live that way. Thus we have to pursue alternatives.

kaba0 3y ago
We are currently accelerating towards a cliff. We may not stop the car before the cliff, but the next best thing we can do is getting our legs off the pedal. Maybe technology will help us achieve that last minute stop we so need, but we have to start somewhere.

smolder 3y ago

Meanwhile, I encountered an adult the other day who only drinks from plastic disposable cups so that they don't have to wash dishes.