because no one wants to give up the things that they enjoy
AtomAndAether on
It’s because being “a problem” doesn’t answer “how much of a problem.” You could solve all the world’s consumption based problems by simply never consuming, but that’s like saying the solution to life’s problems is death. Its a relative game of cost/benefit and what’s achievable versus what is so beneficial it has to be made achievable even at greater difficulty.
Messing with the climate has the advantage of being a very big problem that could theoretically call for very big changes in action, but it’s so abstract and far-off in people’s minds that drastic, rather than more marginal, action seems too extreme. This paired with a lot of the inter-person rhetoric on climate change being about “personal decisions” and flipping one person on aggregate demand at personal utility cost.
The author wants to push that the same – “don’t worry about death by division, do everything!” – and that’s not an economically considered answer, even if Redditors like to point at [other thing] whenever you mention [thing], or at Taylor Swift jetting back and forth to New York just to take a nap when they’re told to not take their once in a year flight.
KipchakVibeCheck on
Just because someone recognizes a problem doesn’t mean they have a good solution.
Jokerang on
Because a message of “you will accept de facto lower living standards and like it” is a great way to hand the GOP their next trifecta.
Global warming will only be solved when the cost of green technology is the same as the more carbon intensive norms.
5 Comments
!ping eco
because no one wants to give up the things that they enjoy
It’s because being “a problem” doesn’t answer “how much of a problem.” You could solve all the world’s consumption based problems by simply never consuming, but that’s like saying the solution to life’s problems is death. Its a relative game of cost/benefit and what’s achievable versus what is so beneficial it has to be made achievable even at greater difficulty.
Messing with the climate has the advantage of being a very big problem that could theoretically call for very big changes in action, but it’s so abstract and far-off in people’s minds that drastic, rather than more marginal, action seems too extreme. This paired with a lot of the inter-person rhetoric on climate change being about “personal decisions” and flipping one person on aggregate demand at personal utility cost.
The author wants to push that the same – “don’t worry about death by division, do everything!” – and that’s not an economically considered answer, even if Redditors like to point at [other thing] whenever you mention [thing], or at Taylor Swift jetting back and forth to New York just to take a nap when they’re told to not take their once in a year flight.
Just because someone recognizes a problem doesn’t mean they have a good solution.
Because a message of “you will accept de facto lower living standards and like it” is a great way to hand the GOP their next trifecta.
Global warming will only be solved when the cost of green technology is the same as the more carbon intensive norms.