This Tumblr post (and the comments and tags in its reblogs) got me thinking about this.
Obviously, we saw during the pandemic that there was a lot of reluctance to give up luxuries in order to help others people, perhaps nowhere more than in America. Then we get to the global problem of climate change (which the post above is about). I’ve expressed the opinion in the past that the reduction of quality of life in the western world required to be environmentally sustainable is so severe (even above most of what the commenters on the post are envisioning) that 95% of first world countries’ populations would be horrified and absolutely refuse to go along with it (especially the cessation of any good not 100% produced with resources available in a limited immediate geographic radius). This sometimes, as in the quoted post, leads to talk of a “climate Stalin,” as some in the post put it, being necessary for the survival of the species and global civilization.
I’m wondering about the truth of this belief, especially since I frankly don’t trust anyone with the power needed to pull this off. But again, the pandemic has made it harder to deny that it may be the only way to produce the required change, even if it’s less severe than I think, without being forced to by larger forces. And, of course, another big problem is that we can’t seem to agree on what practically and objectively IS necessary. If I’m wrong about the quality of life reduction, and I go ahead with the more severe plan anyway, I become more the bad guy, and end up being counterproductive.
And I do understand this. Reducing quality of life with no apparent benefit to the self is unpopular, especially when that disagreement over the severity necessary exists. But, barring that “climate Stalin,” we DO need buy in to make serious change.
So what’s the solution here? How do we get buy in from the entire planet, or at least the average citizen of the countries that matter? If America disappeared tomorrow, would it be significantly easier? This doesn’t necessarily have to be about climate change or anything as serious, even; issues that would take objectively less sacrifice, like global labor exploitation, are fair game.
It’s very hard to get humans to do this when the community surpasses a certain critical mass of size. In a small community it works; in large ones it becomes “those anonymous others.”
So the whole question isn’t worth thinking about or making any effort toward? Conversation over, just like that? (Any agreement I may have notwithstanding.)
This situation is, I think, the mega-example of the tragedy of the commons. The environment is a shared resource that has no owner who has the power to take care of it. Therefore its use is not well managed (or managed at all), and this results (at least theoretically) in its total ruin.
If you are asking how to get close enough to unanimity of opinion in first-world countries to make the necessary changes, I have no idea. I am not optimistic that it is even possible, let alone likely.
Not possible except on a small scale (a limited community) or a one-time event. We are altruistic on a small scale only. We cannot become less tribal, less fearful, less grasping, less shortsighted. It’s hard wiring, cannot be changed. We are magnificent occasionally, as individuals. There are billions of us. It can be done with hundreds, even thousands perhaps. Not more.
Turns out, the brains we are so proud of aren’t worth much after all.
The problem isn’t that people are not willing to sacrifice for the greater good-it is that they won’t all sacrifice the same thing for the same reason, and they know that this is such a problem that they refuse to take a step in a “right” direction because no one agrees on that step or that direction. Forget the generic “collective good” vagueness and name specific steps we should all take.
Seems to me that before asking ordinary people to “sacrifice for the greater good” we should do something about the capitalist vultures who are blowing through massive amounts of energy to create profit for themselves with crypto and AI.
I think that the traits that allowed humans to become the apex species of earth are also the traits that ensure our destruction. It’s probably why we haven’t been contacted by other planets. Intelligence is overreacted as an evolutionary trait.
Back then we had a common enemy nearly everyone agreed was a threat to all, as well as respect for our leaders that they had our collective interests in mind. Today we aren’t close to agreement that there is even a problem, much less alignment on what to do about it, as well as an unhealthy suspicion that when our leaders tell us we need to do something, they want to destroy us rather than help us.
Some steps that I think I remember from the linked post:
Veganism
Curtailing the availability (or increasing the price) of products that take a lot of resources to produce and/or ship that aren’t necessary to life
Curtailing the use and production of plastic
Shutting down certain industries that take up unnecessary resources purely for entertainment (cruises and golf courses are two potential examples) or forcing them to be less convenient (barring next day shipping, for example)
Ending capitalism (okay, that one is significantly more work)
Enforced changes to urban and suburban planning laws to greatly reduce the need for personal vehicles
Enforced reduction of Western consumption (maybe especially American?) in general
There are more, of course, both in the linked thread and elsewhere. As is probably typical, there are some suggestions I can easily take and some that I kinda twitch at even thinking about.
You’ll probably get shot if you try and take people’s coffee from them, just sayin’.
Overall, I think there do need to be lifestyle changes, but I don’t know that they need to be as dramatic as some make out. Merely making produce more seasonal and higher-priced when it comes from afar (taxation, I would think) would go a long way toward reducing the carbon footprint without being draconian about it.
A sense that the burden is being equally shared is also important. The idea that the first-world countries should bear most of it isn’t likely to be politically successful or socially successful.
Sure. People can still eat meat- but no longer in such qualities.
There is lots of silage and waste that can be used to feed meat animals, and wool is still superior, And sure- cow farts are a thing, but so would bison farts.
