Confronted with the likelihood that we cannot achieve climate goals, confront socioeconomic inequality, and ultimately build a better world without significant personal sacrifice: How much are you personally capable and willing to lose? I mean this in the most earnest way possible. Acknowledging the likely possibility of working for an unethical organization while simultaneously supporting family who rely on you financially. Do you believe the amount we can and will bear aligns with the amount we must bear?
The first major issue is “How do I know it will work? How do I know the sacrifice won’t be in vain?”
Even if I just up commit suicide, cutting my carbon emissions to zero, private planes will still fly, we’ll still ship plastic trinkets across the pacific, still destroy habitat, etc.
Its defeatist, but unless we get the rich on board, shit sucks.
Well, I’ve heard people say that rich people are pretty delicious, so that could be an alternate plan…
I would sacrifice my left arm if I thought it would prevent a climate catastrophe. But it won’t. Literally nothing I can give will improve any of the problems you listed.
What should I be willing to sacrifice? Hamburgers? My personal car? Money? My kid’s college fund? Give me an outcome, and I’ll tell you if it’s worth it.
Ya, I was going to “offer” much more than my left arm. But it wouldn’t do anything. The changes need to be much more systemic(?) than that.
I wouldn’t give up cheeseburgers, though. But if I only had them once a year, I’d probably survive.
If you already knew the outcome, it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice would it. Sometimes we need to do something because it’s the right thing to do, not because it guarantees success.
It would because it would still be a choice. One would have to make it or choose not to. Yes it makes the sacrifice smaller but it’s a valid point. I also share that concern.
It wouldn’t need to be guaranteed but right now many scarifices are basically insignificant
Insignificant in the wider picture, maybe. But as you imply we have little to no control over that. All we can influence is our own actions, and hope that will be enough. The problem with the defeatist attitude that so often surrounds any discourse regarding, for example, climate change is that by declaring success impossible before you even try, all you do is guarantee failure.
All one need do is chose what changes one wishes to make and then make them to the best of one’s abilities. That’s it. If you can look yourself in the eye and say ‘I did all I could. I did my best’ then you have succeeded. Will it achieve everything we want it to? Maybe not, but it’ll achieve 100% more than not trying. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to do what we can. So I argue we should all try and do just that and be content that we did our best, because I will not except defeat. How about you?
I’d argue that effort is better spent fighting for broader change. Ideally you’d do both but one is more significant than the other imo
I have no interest in being a modern day martyr. Both of us could end our lives right now and it would be the most eco friendly action possible, but it would wouldn’t even begin to move the needle. Insignificant is not even close to describing it. So I won’t severely impact my lifestyle just so that I can feel good about it. I will and have make compromises and reductions to help with this, up to a certain point and I have and will continue to push for broader changes that will affect groups of people even if I’m included in those groups because there the proposition is different.
Imagine you live with a couple of roommates and they completely trash the place every single night. We’re talking like shitting in the middle of the living room, trash everywhere etc etc I won’t contribute to that mess at that scale but I won’t lose sleep if I left the my dishes undone overnight.
Then it sounds like you’ve made your choices, and you should be satisfied with them. That’s a good thing. Those compromises and reductions have moved the needle. A little, maybe, but it’s still doing something. Good for you. 👍.
I mean, yes, it would be? If I can solve world hunger by sacrificing my left arm to the elder gods or some shit, I’m still losing my left arm. It’s still a sacrifice.
You mention ‘solve world hunger’, implying you know that’s the outcome already. That’s an easier choice then, isn’t it. The point I’m making is that doing something because it’s the right thing to do regardless of whether you know it’s going to work is what makes it a bigger sacrifice. The person I was replying to was also implying they would only consider sacrificing something if they knew the outcome first. If we all did that we’d never achieve anything.
Killing a billionaire would reduce carbon emissions more than anything else I could personally do, so let’s start there and see how it goes. We can talk about me giving things up when those efforts won’t be undone by some asshole flying to Chamonix for the weekend or whatever those fucks are doing.
Yeah the old lie that we are all in it together and should try our best was, yeah, a lie, and some just took all our efforts.
There shouldn’t be billionaires, it’s a morally wrong concept. Money is not meant for hoarding.
We could just confiscate everything over 100 millions and they’d probably wouldn’t even notice. An upper limit of 10 millions seems fair, until no one starves on the planet, have access to health care, education.
And no heritages. Get your money as everybody else.
An upper limit of 10 millions seems fair, until no one starves on the planet, have access to health care, education.
I actually really like this idea. They all seem to have some sort of God complex, so let’s put them to the test. You provide clean drinking water to everyone, you unlock another 50 Mil to your cap. Feed the world, you unlock more to your cap. You get the idea.
I’d additionally like to propose a change to corporate tax code. Any full-time employees at your company that are on food stamps or other financial hardship support programs have 2x the cost that the government pays for those benefits added directly to the company’s overall tax bill as a final adjustment. The adjustments will not be deferrable or offset by any other portion of tax code. If your company cannot pay those adjustments, your company now belongs to the government.
I am very fucking sick of companies socializing their losses to the rest of the country and keeping all the profit for themselves.
Also no wage gap bigger than ten times (including bonuses, shares etc).
So are you willing to murder a billionaire and face the consequnces?
The consequences should be a parade
Yeah, but unfortunately they own the law enforcment system.
He doesn’t need to get caught. He could poison him as like a food caterer or something. It would probably be a higher chance of success then just trying to break through a crowd and getting some shots off with a pistol. People survive shootings everyday.
deleted by creator
I think people are willing to sacrifice more than even they would expect, but no one wants to be the only one sacrificing, especially if it puts them at a disadvantage compared to others. But collectively, if people sacrificed together, it could even become a point of pride. It’s why countries develop strong solidarity in times of war.
i want to see jeff bezos living with a median wage. then we can talk.
I don’t want to see him living personally
I’ll sacrifice enough of my time to help build the guillotines we’ll need to deal with the root cause of these problems.
In case it’s not apparent already none of these problems are things that can be solved by personal sacrifices of average individual citizens. We need sweeping government and economic reforms if we’re going to do anything except kick the can down the road for another generation or three while the wealthy continue to loot the planet for their own benefit. If anyone needs to make sacrifices right now it’s the 0.01% sitting on top of enough money and influence to solve all of these problems.
We can do it as an arts and crafts project for our YouTube channels
I’ll sacrifice enough of my time to help build the guillotines we’ll need to deal with the root cause of these problems.
Billions of guillotines??
I do not want to know your dreams at night…
It’s always crazy to come into threads like these and see people say “I would murder as many elites as possible” without batting an eye, and in the same comment say “I could never give up hamburgers.” It’s some kind of insane self-soothing to throw all of the responsibility for a global issue onto a few scapegoats. It also shows that people have no intention of doing fuck all about climate change beyond typing up snarky comments on the internet.
People can misquote all kinds of studies they half remember to pretend that they have no responsibility for making changes, but that doesn’t make it true. Just as one example, first world countries’ per-capita rate of meat consumption alone is enough to push the world over our 1.5C warming target. But because it’s an inconvenience to make any changes to my life, I’m going to pretend I would personally kill scores of people rather than make a new recipe for dinner. We’re fucked
first world countries’ per-capita rate of meat consumption alone is enough to push the world over our 1.5C warming target
Gee, I wonder who lives there
The CO2 impact of one member of the Parasite Class is usually in excess of 100,000 working-class people, and if a personal jets and yachts are involved, can exceed the impact of 1,000,000 working-class people.
So yes, violently denuding the Parasite Class (which can also be done via effective taxation; just saying) is an effective way to combat climate change, provided the outcome doesn’t involve the working class adopting more excessive lifestyles due to more a equitable distribution of wealth.
i love corn(?)-based meat patties, but i haven’t really seen any meat replacements like the impossible burger anywhere for sale where i live. people just don’t want to never taste meat again, a replacement would work fine. probably.
I would actually sacrifice everything I have, up to and including my life.
It wouldn’t do a damn thing, but if it would, you wouldn’t even have to ask.
My husband and I don’t have kids, and we’ve severely cut back (not fully cut out yet), but really cut back on our meat consumption. I also avoid buying plastic whenever possible, and buy things like toilet paper/paper towels/regular linens made from recycled materials. Actually, if I have the option to buy anything made from recycled materials I’ll typically opt for that. That’s about it right now.
Only tangentially related to your question, but I’m also in a Master degree program for Public Administration so when I retire from the military I can roll right into law school. My goal is to become a Public Defender, which, I know, is fucking hard work with a lot of burn out for little pay, but I do have confidence that I can be an extra pair of hands for an overburdened industry. Everyone in the US is entitled to competent representation, and I’ve no interest in representing those who can afford their own lawyers.
And it burns me up that the rich can often get away with paying simple fines while the poor who can’t afford it go to jail and become essentially legalized slave labor. Fuck that. Anyone I can help save from losing their livelihood, home, family, car, etc, is a big fucking W in my book.
Thank you for sharing. Good luck with studies and career ambitions!
Nothing, I’m only making a better world if I can make my own life better at the same time. I do live an extreme frugal existence and avoid working for any unethical organization, but it’s not a sacrifice.
What we can “bear” is the wrong question for a couple reasons:
-
Consumer luxuries don’t actually make for a better life.
-
Altruistic scheming isn’t anyone’s actual motivation for doing things.
-
“sacrifice” is irrational bargaining; reality doesn’t care whether you’ve made yourself enough of a martyr, and people who want to be martyrs don’t care if what they’re sacrificing actually makes much of a difference.
An effective solution will involve changes we can be happy about and a lifestyle that is actually better than what we have now. Commutes and lives spent stressing over money are a shit trade for what people get from it anyway, it won’t be hard to do better with less.
Consumer luxuries don’t actually make for a better life.
The fundamental luxuries do.
Humans spend a third of their life asleep. A good mattress makes a big difference in the quality of sleep, but it being a Cali King sure isn’t going to change much.
Modern life requires a high degree of physical mobility. Public transportation (Europe, etc) and cars allow us to cover distances in hours that would have taken days even a century and a half ago. A decent-quality vehicle can make a big difference in the reliability of said transportation and our ability to get around, but it being a Mercedes or a Bentley sure isn’t going to change much.
And the list could easily run to hundreds of examples, if not thousands.
We live in a world where most any first-world consumer item is a luxury compared to the global poor, or pretty much anything comparable from a century and a half ago.
What doesn’t have much of a positive impact, however, is the delta between an affordable item and a high-end item that costs many multiples more. People can and should aim for those “luxuries” that don’t yet tip over into deminishing returns, as opposed to those luxuries that are excessive purely for the purpose of producing excessive displays of wealth.
Like vehicles - both of mine (sedan, utility pickup) are approaching a quarter century of age. Could I afford brand-new vehicles? Sure. But why would I waste my money and planetary resources like that? The ones I have still work just fine with only basic maintenance, and are perfectly adequate in getting me (and cargo) from point A to point B. I have absolutely no ego that demands newer or fancier.
Modern life requires a high degree of physical mobility
It doesn’t have to be that way, and I’m not convinced it’s strictly better that way.
We live in a world where most any first-world consumer item is a luxury compared to the global poor
Idk about that, even people without electricity or running water can get a cheap cell phone and solar charger now.
What doesn’t have much of a positive impact, however, is the delta between an affordable item and a high-end item that costs many multiples more. People can and should aim for those “luxuries” that don’t yet tip over into deminishing returns
Definitely. No need to be giving up things like regular bathing and functional cooking utensils that make a big difference for little expense.
-
Less and less as time goes on. Spent far too much of my youth sacrificing hoping a difference would be made only for it to leave me in a materially much worse situation. I should have just stayed in the major that would have gotten me a high paying job making weapons for the military and harming the environment rather than going into a science more designed to help people. If I were going to judge by personal outcomes and no other measure, that was the worst mistake of my life. I wish I could have been happy being part of the problem, because being part of the solution hasn’t helped myself or even materially advanced the solution.
Damn, I feel this comment so much.
I don’t have kids. Both a personal sacrifice and a way to massively minimize my carbon footprint.
And I don’t even get to claim that I want a better climate for my offspring.
I do get to shamelessly do everything I want to do in my lifetime, though. Can recommend.
I’m not one of those ‘I hate children’ child free people, but I really love not having any kids of my own. There’s plenty of kids out there that need parental figures who’s need I can meet. My partner’s daughter is one of them, and I love the hell out of that kid.
But at the end of the day, I’ve still done better for the world by not bringing one of my own into it, for a multitude of reasons including climate change.
No, I’m not a hardcore no child person. Just didn’t happen to find someone to have them with, and when I found someone, turns out we can’t.
I do think more people should try out the dinky lifestyle, for a variety of reasons, but I’m not proselytizing.
Honest answer, I cut my meat consumption to a few splurge meals a year. I have been working from home so I drive very little (granted I didn’t opt for WFH just for carbon emission reduction). I compost, and recycle EVERYTHING I can. that means cleaning out every recyclable container and make sure to note what my county recycles vs. throws away. I buy the vast majority of my stuff second hand, I’m always looking for something that’s slightly broken so I can fix it for a steal. I don’t plan on having children so that’s a plus, and I also vote for progressives that are fighting for tougher climate control standards.
All-in-all it’s not a whole lot, but I’m just one of millions of struggling americans just trying to get their basic needs met while navigating this complex, shitty oligarchy I inherited from my parents.
I think there’s a fundamental problem with the question that goes to the heart of the climate crisis and which makes a significant contribution to why I think we will not solve it.
There’s two versions of this question. The first is the one you asked - how much are individuals and families willing to give up in order to make the climate problem go away (whatever that means at this point). The second is “If you knew with 100% accuracy that by you going vegan (or ditching your car or installing solar or composting…), that the climate crisis would definitely be solved, would you do it?
Let’s pretend that I don’t want to go vegan. I eat Big Macs every night. Porterhouse steaks every weekend. I drive an F-350 to the ice cream store down the block. All of that. Let’s say I love those things. If I personally give them up, it will make no difference if we don’t reorganize the entire global economy. You might convince me to vote for politicians who would pass laws to make that happen, but you’d have a harder time selling me on sacrificing something I see as a core benefit for zero gain. It’s the difference between “How much would you give to get a homeless person off the streets and a new start” and “How much would you give a homeless person if you knew they were just going to set the cash on fire” if you see where I’m going with that.
We are humans. We are cooperators. That’s how we got where we are. Unfortunately there’s also other dynamics in play as well. I honestly have no idea how far back we’d need to rewind the tape in order to have a chance at a better outcome. I do think any progress we can make is good. This just feels like a boulder rolling towards your house kind of thing where all you can do is watch.
deleted by creator
