There’s nothing wrong with encouraging individual action, only in suggesting that in doing so they’re solving the problem.
I stopped driving 20 years ago, cycle or transit everywhere, drastically reduced plastic and meat consumption, etc. etc. and while this all makes me feel good/righteous, it hasn’t actually solved anything. There are perhaps 1 million people in the world applying similar efforts. They too probably feel good about themselves, but the world is still on fire.
The vast, vast amount of people will never change on ideology alone. Partially due to things like financial or class limitations, but also just limited knowledge. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to explain to people just which plastics are recyclable, which tech is more sustainable, which foods are more environmentally healthy, and what the best options are for heating your home. It’s just too much for most people. Their minds are busy with other things like, “how will I pay rent this month?”. You gotta remember how many people vote based on lies they hear on TV or even just which party uses their favourite colour.
It’s a constant battle that cannot be won by individuals and allowing ourselves to think that we’ve accomplished something by “doing our part” is precisely why we’re still having this conversation 50 years after global warming was identified. We need collective action that limits harmful acts while promoting helpful ones and you can’t do that alone.
You’re right, you can’t achieve collective action alone, but I’d argue that individual action, such as what you’re doing is part of that collective action, no?
I can make different choices tomorrow: buy a Ford F-150, swap my heat pump for a gas boiler, and start buying more disposable crap and the resulting impact on the problem would be negligible. It’s nice to think that my individual choices matter, but on the scale that matters, they don’t even move the needle.
The Ford F-150 should be illegal and gas boilers should be banned or at least more expensive than heat pumps. That moves the needle 'cause it’s collectively applied to the wider public and (more importantly) the economy as a whole.
The problem comes with the idea that “I’m one of the people who needs to change, therefore my changing is progress”. While this is technically true, it’s effectively irrelevant because at the scale we’re talking about, individual contributions are statistically insignificant.
This is exactly why companies like BP & Shell have pushed the idea of personal responsibility so hard. They’ve reframed the debate into something about personal virtue rather than collective responsibility to ensure that nothing changes.
It’s one of the most insidious ideas around activism, that “voting with your wallet” works.
If I understand your comment correctly you are implying that individual actions matter little because it’s only on a large, collective scale that change can be implemented? My counter to that is you can do both. Personal responsibility and collective responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Plus I’d argue you’re more likely to foster collective responsibility from the actions of individuals, than you are waiting for a group to spontaneously decide to act as a whole.
Finally I’d also point out that there are degrees of change. My picking up litter on my daily walk is not going to make the world a better place, but it will make my neighbourhood a better place, and that’s valuable to. And in doing so it may inspire others to do the same, and from there you generate that collective responsibility you mention.
danielquinn@lemmy.ca 2 years ago
There’s nothing wrong with encouraging individual action, only in suggesting that in doing so they’re solving the problem.
I stopped driving 20 years ago, cycle or transit everywhere, drastically reduced plastic and meat consumption, etc. etc. and while this all makes me feel good/righteous, it hasn’t actually solved anything. There are perhaps 1 million people in the world applying similar efforts. They too probably feel good about themselves, but the world is still on fire.
The vast, vast amount of people will never change on ideology alone. Partially due to things like financial or class limitations, but also just limited knowledge. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to explain to people just which plastics are recyclable, which tech is more sustainable, which foods are more environmentally healthy, and what the best options are for heating your home. It’s just too much for most people. Their minds are busy with other things like, “how will I pay rent this month?”. You gotta remember how many people vote based on lies they hear on TV or even just which party uses their favourite colour.
It’s a constant battle that cannot be won by individuals and allowing ourselves to think that we’ve accomplished something by “doing our part” is precisely why we’re still having this conversation 50 years after global warming was identified. We need collective action that limits harmful acts while promoting helpful ones and you can’t do that alone.
YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 2 years ago
You’re right, you can’t achieve collective action alone, but I’d argue that individual action, such as what you’re doing is part of that collective action, no?
danielquinn@lemmy.ca 2 years ago
Nope, it’s the complete opposite.
I can make different choices tomorrow: buy a Ford F-150, swap my heat pump for a gas boiler, and start buying more disposable crap and the resulting impact on the problem would be negligible. It’s nice to think that my individual choices matter, but on the scale that matters, they don’t even move the needle.
The Ford F-150 should be illegal and gas boilers should be banned or at least more expensive than heat pumps. That moves the needle 'cause it’s collectively applied to the wider public and (more importantly) the economy as a whole.
The problem comes with the idea that “I’m one of the people who needs to change, therefore my changing is progress”. While this is technically true, it’s effectively irrelevant because at the scale we’re talking about, individual contributions are statistically insignificant.
This is exactly why companies like BP & Shell have pushed the idea of personal responsibility so hard. They’ve reframed the debate into something about personal virtue rather than collective responsibility to ensure that nothing changes.
It’s one of the most insidious ideas around activism, that “voting with your wallet” works.
YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 2 years ago
If I understand your comment correctly you are implying that individual actions matter little because it’s only on a large, collective scale that change can be implemented? My counter to that is you can do both. Personal responsibility and collective responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Plus I’d argue you’re more likely to foster collective responsibility from the actions of individuals, than you are waiting for a group to spontaneously decide to act as a whole.
Finally I’d also point out that there are degrees of change. My picking up litter on my daily walk is not going to make the world a better place, but it will make my neighbourhood a better place, and that’s valuable to. And in doing so it may inspire others to do the same, and from there you generate that collective responsibility you mention.