2 ms·

Thanks for the reality check, buddy. You're right that nothing any of us does ever really matters in the grand scheme of things. There is no way we could ever t

Thanks for the reality check, buddy. You're right that nothing any of us does ever really matters in the grand scheme of things. There is no way we could ever try to get others to change their behavior by first changing our own. Collective action has never, ever worked. I'd been keeping my used batteries and motor oil for a special trip to the recycling center, but I just threw them in the river behind my house, because it turns out nothing we do matters because climate change actually can't be fixed unless we fix corrupt multinational corporations or governments or China, or maybe climate change is all a hoax, or whatever lets you sleep at night and feel morally superior to all the other sheep. Thanks for the inspiration, friend.

Dylan16807 2y ago
> Collective action has never, ever worked. This is a gross misreading of what they said. They said that one particular collective isn't big enough.
- Cheer2171 2y ago
  No, they said that one fewer butt in one particular seat won't make a difference. That's true about everything any one particular individual can do about climate change. You could commit euthanasia and never be responsible for another gram of carbon emitted, and that would not have a measurable effect on CO2 levels. OP is trying to force a very narrow utilitarian framework in which actions are evaluated based only on their immediate consequences. By that logic, nothing any ordinary, median individual does will directly have a measurable impact on climate change. The fallacy is that these kinds of boycotts and self-restrictions, which are part of the "religion" OP is objecting to in other replies, is the way to get large numbers of individuals to change their behavior collectively in ways that do measurably impact the bottom line. If demand for air travel drops, fewer planes will burn carbon. The other fallacy is that utilitarianism is only one way of considering how to act ethically in the world.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    So if the UK banned all airplanes - what changes for the world? Oh, that's right. Still nothing. You are hyper-focused on a meaningless gesture that you were told to believe by people who continue to fly private jets around the world - like the academics this very thread is about. Seriously... let that sink in for a few moments. You should suffer, while they enjoy the lavishes of life. Kind of like a tv megachurch evangelist. If you want to be principled and refuse to ever fly again - fine. It doesn't harm anyone but yourself. The world won't even thank you for this meaningless gesture and countless wasted hours. Just don't stand on a busy street corner shouting "repent" into your megaphone.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure the UK banning all airplanes would make a measurable difference. Especially since other countries would be reducing air travel along with them if this scenario is supposed to be at least semi-plausible.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        It would not. Those people would still travel - just by far less efficient means.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        You think long distance travel demand is completely inelastic? It's not. Also what's "far less efficient means", please be specific. Most of these people are not going to take solo car trips super long distances.
        Alupis 2y ago
        Unless the UK is going to totally isolate themselves from the entire world - people and goods will still travel in and out. Only by vastly less efficient means. The UK is not isolated, and will never be. In this implausible scenario, people fly into France, drive to a ferry, cross the channel by boat, drive to the train station, etc. Increased traffic, idling, etc all adds up. People still have business that needs to be done and they will do it. Evidenced by this hypocritical academics.

Dylan16807 2y ago

> Collective action has never, ever worked. This is a gross misreading of what they said. They said that one particular collective isn't big enough.

Cheer2171 2y ago
No, they said that one fewer butt in one particular seat won't make a difference. That's true about everything any one particular individual can do about climate change. You could commit euthanasia and never be responsible for another gram of carbon emitted, and that would not have a measurable effect on CO2 levels. OP is trying to force a very narrow utilitarian framework in which actions are evaluated based only on their immediate consequences. By that logic, nothing any ordinary, median individual does will directly have a measurable impact on climate change. The fallacy is that these kinds of boycotts and self-restrictions, which are part of the "religion" OP is objecting to in other replies, is the way to get large numbers of individuals to change their behavior collectively in ways that do measurably impact the bottom line. If demand for air travel drops, fewer planes will burn carbon. The other fallacy is that utilitarianism is only one way of considering how to act ethically in the world.
- Alupis 2y ago
  So if the UK banned all airplanes - what changes for the world? Oh, that's right. Still nothing. You are hyper-focused on a meaningless gesture that you were told to believe by people who continue to fly private jets around the world - like the academics this very thread is about. Seriously... let that sink in for a few moments. You should suffer, while they enjoy the lavishes of life. Kind of like a tv megachurch evangelist. If you want to be principled and refuse to ever fly again - fine. It doesn't harm anyone but yourself. The world won't even thank you for this meaningless gesture and countless wasted hours. Just don't stand on a busy street corner shouting "repent" into your megaphone.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure the UK banning all airplanes would make a measurable difference. Especially since other countries would be reducing air travel along with them if this scenario is supposed to be at least semi-plausible.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      It would not. Those people would still travel - just by far less efficient means.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        You think long distance travel demand is completely inelastic? It's not. Also what's "far less efficient means", please be specific. Most of these people are not going to take solo car trips super long distances.
        Alupis 2y ago
        Unless the UK is going to totally isolate themselves from the entire world - people and goods will still travel in and out. Only by vastly less efficient means. The UK is not isolated, and will never be. In this implausible scenario, people fly into France, drive to a ferry, cross the channel by boat, drive to the train station, etc. Increased traffic, idling, etc all adds up. People still have business that needs to be done and they will do it. Evidenced by this hypocritical academics.