4 ms·

I don’t understand these attempts to wave away personal responsibility, and pin the whole thing on corporations. It’s both. We need corporations to emit less,

I don’t understand these attempts to wave away personal responsibility, and pin the whole thing on corporations. It’s both. We need corporations to emit less, and they are the biggest emitters, and they do what they do for two reasons: 1. They are permitted to. Yes, government needs to intervene and prevent some of the things they do. 2. People keep giving them money, rewarding their bad behavior and providing them the means and motive to keep doing it. We need the populace to want to make change, by voting for legislators that pass laws limiting corporations and by voting with their wallets. These usually go hand in hand. I know there are people who vote for legislators/laws that limit consumption, who don’t make any effort to limit consumption themselves, but I don’t think there’s that many. People generally don’t want laws that change the way they are living, they want laws that make other people live the way they are living. We don’t need to shame people for consumption, that isn’t helpful, but writing off personal responsibility is also unhelpful.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> I know there are people who vote for legislators/laws that limit consumption, who don’t make any effort to limit consumption themselves, but I don’t think there’s that many. People generally don’t want laws that change the way they are living, they want laws that make other people live the way they are living. There is nothing wrong with this behavior. I will vote today for everyone to curb consumption, but I see no reason to make the sacrifice alone.
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  I am not coming at it from a moral view, simply a practical one: I don’t think many people can sustain this dissonance. I don’t think people are very motivated to vote for things that would make them change their daily life. There are examples that would show me wrong, like plastic grocery bag bans. But on the other hand, there haven’t been very many such bans, and banning plastic bags is a relatively minor inconvenience, and does very little to slow climate change.
  - layer8 2y ago
    > I am not coming at it from a moral view, simply a practical one: I don’t think many people can sustain this dissonance. This is assuming that the dissonance is hurting more than the renunciation. People are already quite good at ignoring dissonances. And the causal effects are so removed from daily experience that often there isn’t that great of a dissonance in the first place.
    - Vegenoid 2y ago
      > This is assuming that the dissonance is hurting more than the renunciation. It’s not about “the dissonance is painful, so they seek to correct it by not voting for reduced consumption”. It’s “voting to reduce consumption takes effort, in knowing what to vote for and in actually casting a vote, and people are unlikely to put in that effort if they are not putting in any effort elsewhere”. “Dissonance” was a poor choice of words for what I was trying to communicate.
      - layer8 2y ago
        I thought you were talking about the dissonance of voting for renunciation while not voluntarily renouncing until forced by the system. I don’t think it’s uncommon.
layer8 2y ago
This is basically Downs’ paradox. Only systemic change can turn things around, but any given individual’s responsibility for systemic change is generally negligible.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

> I know there are people who vote for legislators/laws that limit consumption, who don’t make any effort to limit consumption themselves, but I don’t think there’s that many. People generally don’t want laws that change the way they are living, they want laws that make other people live the way they are living. There is nothing wrong with this behavior. I will vote today for everyone to curb consumption, but I see no reason to make the sacrifice alone.

Vegenoid 2y ago
I am not coming at it from a moral view, simply a practical one: I don’t think many people can sustain this dissonance. I don’t think people are very motivated to vote for things that would make them change their daily life. There are examples that would show me wrong, like plastic grocery bag bans. But on the other hand, there haven’t been very many such bans, and banning plastic bags is a relatively minor inconvenience, and does very little to slow climate change.
- layer8 2y ago
  > I am not coming at it from a moral view, simply a practical one: I don’t think many people can sustain this dissonance. This is assuming that the dissonance is hurting more than the renunciation. People are already quite good at ignoring dissonances. And the causal effects are so removed from daily experience that often there isn’t that great of a dissonance in the first place.
  - Vegenoid 2y ago
    > This is assuming that the dissonance is hurting more than the renunciation. It’s not about “the dissonance is painful, so they seek to correct it by not voting for reduced consumption”. It’s “voting to reduce consumption takes effort, in knowing what to vote for and in actually casting a vote, and people are unlikely to put in that effort if they are not putting in any effort elsewhere”. “Dissonance” was a poor choice of words for what I was trying to communicate.
    - layer8 2y ago
      I thought you were talking about the dissonance of voting for renunciation while not voluntarily renouncing until forced by the system. I don’t think it’s uncommon.

layer8 2y ago

This is basically Downs’ paradox. Only systemic change can turn things around, but any given individual’s responsibility for systemic change is generally negligible.