Solutions
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
Good idea.
There are two components to your argument. First off, is that the damage will happen eventually anyway, and this 100% means that we need a systemic change. It's not like the crisis will be mitigated by the low footprints of people concerned about the problem. But the individual consumption patterns buy time to allow political change. And also enables market changes.
The second is the assumption that they don't affect the long-term trend. My dollars that I'm spending are actually a commodified legal entity. Obviously, at the margin basically nobody is going to notice what I'm doing. But we're talking about a crisis where every single piece of damage is done at the margin and has exponential effects.
Every dollar I spend on beef is the same dollar being denied the supplier, the supplier who risks bankruptcy, of alternatives. Every dollar that I spend on beef goes on to subsidize the next year's cattle production.
Changing my personal consumption habits isn't enough, but to deny that dollars are fundamentally the mechanism by which we are destroying the planet ...
I am more than willing to acknowledge that at the personal level there is nuance due to specific nutritional needs or financial burdens. So, I cannot judge any specific case without having a lot more details.
I don't have good analogies that aren't vulgar. For me, it's like claiming that I'm a feminist while having a pimp on speed dial. Sure, whether or not it's me, someone is getting coerced tonight. But those very same dollars are being spent in ways that create alternative employment. It's because the dollars are a legal entity, that literally create alternative employment if they're spent differently.
Analogies struggle primarily because food is inextricably linked in ways to peoples' livelihoods that other things aren't. I'm not saying giving up beef once a night is going to kill anyone, right? I simply think it's putting pressure in the wrong place.
You're equating a dollar not being spent, all the way through the chain of consumption, when it doesn't actually work like that. In mean, in theory, sure, but realistically even a few hundred dollars here and there is a drop in the ocean compared to what supermarkets process on a weekly basis (or perhaps even daily basis). If this adds to up an undeniable amount over time, they're going to make up the deficit in other ways, i.e. by operating at a loss on that particular foodstuff in order to keep it competitive, while jacking up prices elsewhere.
In an ideal world, dare I say (not being trite), in a more socialist world, business would be more accountable to the direct actions of consumers. But that isn't how it works, and there are a lot of systemic protections in place to keep chains that are beneficial for business float. When I say business I mean the international conglomerates that own these individual supermarket franchises. Like how the government bailed out national banks in the UK, but repeatedly cut funding to local government councils, the arts, and so on. The same applies for supermarkets, because it's a two-way dependency on the farms that produce these animals, and the stores that sell them. Neither can exist as effectively (under capitalism) without the other.
I'm not trying to put a downer on your activism either. I think any personal activism is to be applauded, because like you said earlier, it can get people more politically-engaged. That's great! I just personally put my activist efforts in different areas (also, I must stress, I barely eat beef as it is - and I know I'm not someone you're directly trying to convince here, I'm just saying than my own morals aren't really relevant haha), and I honestly think so long as someone isn't earning a buttload of money, then if they want to splash out on meat in their diet? So be it. The benefit to someone's health and wellbeing is more than the damage it does to the environment (directly and indirectly).
As a related example, I think giving up meat for a week or month, coordinated nationally, or in a large enough local area? That'd be more beneficial. You're more likely to get people on-board, and it'll have a concerted effect for that time. The problem, as with all cases relating to personal choice, is keeping that pressure on. I don't have any smart answers, and heaven knows sharing critical articles on how to save our planet don't exactly translate to effective activisim either (which is a fair amount of what I do, hah - just signal boosting, really).
You're equating a dollar not being spent, all the way through the chain of consumption, when it doesn't actually work like that. In mean, in theory, sure, but realistically even a few hundred dollars here and there is a drop in the ocean compared to what supermarkets process on a weekly basis (or perhaps even daily basis). If this adds to up an undeniable amount over time, they're going to make up the deficit in other ways, i.e. by operating at a loss on that particular foodstuff in order to keep it competitive, while jacking up prices elsewhere.
In an ideal world, dare I say (not being trite), in a more socialist world, business would be more accountable to the direct actions of consumers. But that isn't how it works, and there are a lot of systemic protections in place to keep chains that are beneficial for business float. When I say business I mean the international conglomerates that own these individual supermarket franchises. Like how the government bailed out national banks in the UK, but repeatedly cut funding to local government councils, the arts, and so on. The same applies for supermarkets, because it's a two-way dependency on the farms that produce these animals, and the stores that sell them. Neither can exist as effectively (under capitalism) without the other.
I'm not trying to put a downer on your activism either. I think any personal activism is to be applauded, because like you said earlier, it can get people more politically-engaged. That's great! I just personally put my activist efforts in different areas (also, I must stress, I barely eat beef as it is - and I know I'm not someone you're directly trying to convince here, I'm just saying than my own morals aren't really relevant haha), and I honestly think so long as someone isn't earning a buttload of money, then if they want to splash out on meat in their diet? So be it. The benefit to someone's health and wellbeing is more than the damage it does to the environment (directly and indirectly).
As a related example, I think giving up meat for a week or month, coordinated nationally, or in a large enough local area? That'd be more beneficial. You're more likely to get people on-board, and it'll have a concerted effect for that time. The problem, as with all cases relating to personal choice, is keeping that pressure on. I don't have any smart answers, and heaven knows sharing critical articles on how to save our planet don't exactly translate to effective activisim either (which is a fair amount of what I do, hah - just signal boosting, really).
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
carbon tax
international financial transaction tax
will never happen anyway though so why bother dreaming
international financial transaction tax
will never happen anyway though so why bother dreaming
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
Hey, you're supposed to get more optimistic after taking a step back from OT, not less!
Similar threads
