3 ms·

>There's no threshold under which it's not worth to do anything about it. I'm pretty sure there is, if we're interested in any specific outcome. Below some thr

>There's no threshold under which it's not worth to do anything about it. I'm pretty sure there is, if we're interested in any specific outcome. Below some threshold not only it wont get that outcome, but it wont even be statistically significant.

stavros 3y ago
Statistical significance is relevant when you're trying to find correlations, not when you're trying to figure out whether it's worth removing a few grains to make a cup of sand lighter. If you don't want to try, don't try. If you're looking for an excuse to say "fuck it, I won't do anything, since that's what most people are doing", you won't, because it's always worth doing something right, no matter how small.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Statistical significance is relevant when you're trying to find correlations, not when you're trying to figure out whether it's worth removing a few grains to make a cup of sand lighter. You got it backwards. It's relevant when you're trying to find correlations, precisely because it helps measure the impact of a change. This is true whether the change is some variable change in research space searching for correlations, or real world accessment of the impact of something... >because it's always worth doing something right, no matter how small. This one is different argument though. This one is moral, the previous one (I responded to) was about efficacy. But it, too, is problematic: even in moral terms, it's not "always worth doing something right, no matter how small", given opportunity cost.
- samatman 3y ago
  At the margin, individual efforts to abstain from this or that product are useless, let me elaborate. Let's say in an effort to reduce your carbon footprint, you abstain from beef. The effect that has, however small it may be, is to reduce demand for beef. That brings the price of beef down, making it more affordable for beef enjoyers, who buy more. The only net effect here is that you no longer eat beef. It hasn't moved the needle on your reason for doing so. You might reply that if enough people join you, this will result in supply reduction. This is a coordination problem involving the whole planet, including a few billion people who will very happily eat more beef if it were a bit cheaper. It won't work.
  - stavros 3y ago
    I get your general point, though I disagree with it, but the beef issue is very US-centric. Beef isn't such a staple in most countries, even ones that can afford it.
    - samatman 3y ago
      It isn't in any sense US centric. Most countries do eat less than the US, some eat more, but this too is not relevant to my point. Beef is esteemed in Africa, yet they eat very little of it. As African countries become wealthier they eat more of it, so it stands to reason they also eat more of it when it becomes more affordable. The billion-ish people in India who never eat it have no effect on beef production, why would one person in the US abstaining, or a few tens of thousands, change this dynamic? The answer is that it doesn't.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Beef consumption is high among Muslims in Asia, and of course in South America where beef culture is very strong (Brazilian and Argentina steak houses aren’t just a misunderstanding). Australia, New Zealand, and Canada also eat lots of beef (as new world countries with lots of land for grazing).
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        South Africa also lots of beef consumption! Mince on toast for breakfast was something I could never bring myself to try.
tharkun__ 3y ago
With that attitude nothing would ever change unless there is immediate visible change from a very small group of people making said change. Instead the point here would be to try and "go viral" so to speak. Start small and grow your group of supporters "around the edges". At some point you may achieve exponential change. Of course certain things that affect the entire planet make such things exponentially hard to pull off in the end. Also, you are very unlikely to convert literally everyone to whatever it is you are trying to change. You usually only need to reach a certain level to have an effect. And in the end not all endeavors will succeed either but it doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying. That said I will definitely never switch to these commercial meatless meat alternatives. Given what they do to make those that's one of the least healthiest things you can do.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >With that attitude nothing would ever change unless there is immediate visible change from a very small group of people making said change. It's more the opposite: unless there is immediate visible change from a very small group of people making said change, nothing will change in the end. Which is precisely where all the "personal responsibility", "do it and others will follow" wishful thinking mottos have gotten us thus far: nothing ever changed.

stavros 3y ago

Statistical significance is relevant when you're trying to find correlations, not when you're trying to figure out whether it's worth removing a few grains to make a cup of sand lighter. If you don't want to try, don't try. If you're looking for an excuse to say "fuck it, I won't do anything, since that's what most people are doing", you won't, because it's always worth doing something right, no matter how small.

coldtea 3y ago
>Statistical significance is relevant when you're trying to find correlations, not when you're trying to figure out whether it's worth removing a few grains to make a cup of sand lighter. You got it backwards. It's relevant when you're trying to find correlations, precisely because it helps measure the impact of a change. This is true whether the change is some variable change in research space searching for correlations, or real world accessment of the impact of something... >because it's always worth doing something right, no matter how small. This one is different argument though. This one is moral, the previous one (I responded to) was about efficacy. But it, too, is problematic: even in moral terms, it's not "always worth doing something right, no matter how small", given opportunity cost.
samatman 3y ago
At the margin, individual efforts to abstain from this or that product are useless, let me elaborate. Let's say in an effort to reduce your carbon footprint, you abstain from beef. The effect that has, however small it may be, is to reduce demand for beef. That brings the price of beef down, making it more affordable for beef enjoyers, who buy more. The only net effect here is that you no longer eat beef. It hasn't moved the needle on your reason for doing so. You might reply that if enough people join you, this will result in supply reduction. This is a coordination problem involving the whole planet, including a few billion people who will very happily eat more beef if it were a bit cheaper. It won't work.
- stavros 3y ago
  I get your general point, though I disagree with it, but the beef issue is very US-centric. Beef isn't such a staple in most countries, even ones that can afford it.
  - samatman 3y ago
    It isn't in any sense US centric. Most countries do eat less than the US, some eat more, but this too is not relevant to my point. Beef is esteemed in Africa, yet they eat very little of it. As African countries become wealthier they eat more of it, so it stands to reason they also eat more of it when it becomes more affordable. The billion-ish people in India who never eat it have no effect on beef production, why would one person in the US abstaining, or a few tens of thousands, change this dynamic? The answer is that it doesn't.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Beef consumption is high among Muslims in Asia, and of course in South America where beef culture is very strong (Brazilian and Argentina steak houses aren’t just a misunderstanding). Australia, New Zealand, and Canada also eat lots of beef (as new world countries with lots of land for grazing).
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      South Africa also lots of beef consumption! Mince on toast for breakfast was something I could never bring myself to try.

tharkun__ 3y ago

With that attitude nothing would ever change unless there is immediate visible change from a very small group of people making said change. Instead the point here would be to try and "go viral" so to speak. Start small and grow your group of supporters "around the edges". At some point you may achieve exponential change. Of course certain things that affect the entire planet make such things exponentially hard to pull off in the end. Also, you are very unlikely to convert literally everyone to whatever it is you are trying to change. You usually only need to reach a certain level to have an effect. And in the end not all endeavors will succeed either but it doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying. That said I will definitely never switch to these commercial meatless meat alternatives. Given what they do to make those that's one of the least healthiest things you can do.

coldtea 3y ago
>With that attitude nothing would ever change unless there is immediate visible change from a very small group of people making said change. It's more the opposite: unless there is immediate visible change from a very small group of people making said change, nothing will change in the end. Which is precisely where all the "personal responsibility", "do it and others will follow" wishful thinking mottos have gotten us thus far: nothing ever changed.