Asking this is akin to asking an individual about their personal problems — Xtrix

This is the key premise! How does an individual deal with faer own problems? Not very intelligently as far as I can tell. Can we blame the world then, if it is an individual as you say it is?

Is there something about being an individual that keeps one from making good decisions about one's own life? Certainly yes, what it is is a mystery to me, but more to the point, the same something maybe holding back the world too, preventing it from making the right choices.

Yet, individualism is as old as the hills and the world's problems are fairly recent developments. Is it a question of creating the right environment - the modern world - for individualism to do its damage or is individualism the fall guy?

Are we on the same page here?

But I really don't see why we should buy into the notion that going green will harm our economy or weaken our country.
This is straight out of conservative media. — Xtrix

Not for me, though. I'm extrapolating from my own example. For instance, in terms of clothing: I buy about 5 quality clothing items per year and I intend to be able to wear them for at least three years. And once the clothes are so worn that they can't be mended and worn for dirty work around the house and in the garden anymore, I make blankets for cats out of them or use them as cleaning rags. I do this not out of frugality, nor out of concern for ecology, but out of an old-fashioned sense for making good use of things. I extrapolate that if more people would do that, the textile industry as we know it (which is a major polluter, and employer) would collapse, because people would buy only a fraction of the clothing items they do now.

It's similar with other products. For example, I expect washing machines and refrigerators should last at least 10 years. And there was a time when they did, they lasted even 20 or 30 years. But this way, too few were sold to keep the industry profitable, so the manufacturers began to decrease the quality and build in weaknesses, so that now, we're lucky if a washing machine lasts 5 years. But they get to make more money!

So how do you propose to change this?

The big problem for global governance that I see though, is bureaucracy. If structures get that big, you get a whole new layer of logistic and administrative problems.
— ChatteringMonkey

The only thing I can currently think of in regard to this is that for it to stand a chance of working there must first be an ideal that is aimed at; one that most folks are not opposed to. Headaches will occur one way or another. But in the absence of such ideal that serves as a common cause for most, I can't foresee the possibility of good results. And I think this is where Xtrix's notion of a global awakening comes into play. Still, in seeing how many have had big problems with the wearing of face masks during the current pandemic, it will take considerable effort to bring such global ideal about. — javra

I would think we need something more concrete at this point. An awakening, a shared ideal would help no doubt, but as I said a bit earlier, that kind of general cultural shift takes time... and a lot of time is something we don't have in this case.

I've been thinking about global governance... So the problem with a real global government is I think it gets to big as an effective ruling structure. You get lots of bureaucracy, you invariably get an even bigger democratic deficit because representation will be ten times removed from the people at that scale etc... The most straightforward solution, and the least conditional on other fundamental changes happening first, is working with what we have now, nation states. This is how we got to that agreement on the minimum tax for enterprises. Something similar could be done for fossil fuels and emission costs. According to that IMF report the fundamental problem is that the costs for the environment aren't included in the prices for fossil fuels (that is how they are 'subsidized'). If states could agree globally on effectively including all costs in the prices than that would already be one step in the right direction. Other such agreement could be made as needed...

If states could agree globally on effectively including all costs in the prices than that would already be one step in the right direction. Other such agreement could be made as needed... — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not in disagreement with this "if". And I've heard of other concrete proposals regarding improvements in general, that of a universal property/death tax to level the playing field where nothing is taxed under 1 million USD or equivalent and that of having CEO profits capped off at roughly 200% of the company's mean employer income, as two examples that come to mind. Both these ideas I'm acquainted with sound good to me. But without such laws being global, those that would subscribe to them would suffer due to global competition. And without the general agreement to so globally implement there is no political will for it. So stagnation in the form of business as usual results.

I'm questioning how an agreement could result among the powers that be in the absence of there being a common cause among them which all intend in the name of respective self-interests?

I know this is idealistic (in the common sense of the word), and I have cognizance of just how difficult it would be to bring it about, but I so far don't understand how concrete progress can be made in the absence of a goal that is agreed upon and toward which all/most relevant parties progress.

For starters, currently, not even the earnest goal of mitigating climate change is shared by most worldwide. I hope this is a warped perspective, but I so far see no evidence for it being so.

Is there something about being an individual that keeps one from making good decisions about one's own life? Certainly yes, what it is is a mystery to me, but more to the point, the same something maybe holding back the world too, preventing it from making the right choices. — TheMadFool

Right, which I think is the case. This is only an analogy, though. When thinking about the collective problems of a society, different concepts need to be brought into the analysis.

Nevertheless, we can learn from the parallels. I think it comes down basic aspects of human nature and how the world effects these aspects. Currently I think the people leading the world -- the wealthy -- have been blinded by greed. They're addicted to the accumulation of capital, at the expense of all else. This is simultaneously a problem of beliefs and values, and of ignorance.

Like a person who can't stop gambling, despite wanting to stop and knowing full well he's destroying his life, the individuals steering the "ship of state" are heading right for disaster.

Are we on the same page here? — TheMadFool

I think so.



I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea. True, we could all stop using electricity too. We could sew our own clothes. We could all live a completely sustainable life. That's a nice dream. In the real world, it's not so easy -- not everyone has the luxury to do so, in the United States or India or anywhere else. We have two choices: we can ask millions of people to drastically alter their lives, or we can use the government (the people we've elected) to pass laws and regulations and spend money to encourage more sustainable practices by the industries that are responsible for this mess.

Some want to blame the people, others put more of the blame on the leaders of the country. I'm in the latter camp. That's not to deny that we as people have to educate ourselves, organize, resist propaganda, have informed votes, and try to live more sustainable lives. But the industries responsible for emissions -- especially fossil fuels -- deliberately want to put the onus on the masses. So did tobacco before them, and the fast-food industry, and the sugar industry, etc. After all, if we just consumed less, we wouldn't get fat. We all know the risks of smoking, so it's a conscious choice. Etc. Yeah -- if you buy all that, you'll more than likely fall in the former camp when it comes to this issue. But it's a mistake, and always has been.

This is only an analogy, — Xtrix

Sorry but there's been a mix-up. I was under the impression that you were talking about the world as a superorganism like colonies of ants and bees.

A superorganism or supraorganism is a group of synergetically interacting organisms of the same species — Wikipedia

Is there sufficient warrant to believe humans, like bees & ants, gather together to form superorganism? Are families, communities, towns, cities, states, countries, the UN simply different levels of organization of what is at the bottom line a superorganism (humanity as a whole)?

Going by the definition of superorganism - a community of individuals with a unity of purpose - humanity is one. Thus, treating the world as an individual isn't "...only an analogy." The world, for better or worse, is an individual. You seem to have intuitivelg grasped this fact but for some reason you chose the world is like and individual over the world is an individual.

Thus, it makes sense to ask of the world what one asks of yourself, me, or any other individual.

This is the key premise! — TheMadFool

human nature — Xtrix

blinded by greed — Xtrix

What are an individual's strengths and weaknesses, the former enabling and the latter disabling? I'm sure the answer to this question will shed light on the superorganism the world is. You talked about human nature and greed and you'll notice that this character flaw in us, individuals, also manifests at the superorganism (global) level. We could say that the world is just a scaled-up version of an individual and for that reason. our individual goodness and badness are also proportionately magnified.

Be the change you wish to see in the world — Mahatma Gandhi

Going by the definition of superorganism - a community of individuals with a unity of purpose - humanity is one. Thus, treating the world as an individual isn't "...only an analogy." The world, for better or worse, is an individual. You seem to have intuitivelg grasped this fact but for some reason you chose the world is like and individual over the world is an individual. — TheMadFool

Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor.

If we want to say that humanity is "one," there's plenty of ways in which to do so. We all have the capacity for thought and language, for example. That's fine, and seemingly true. But that's a matter of abstraction, definition, and classification.

True, one way is to claim that we are a superorganism, but I don't subscribe to that. I don't see anything like the behavior of bees or ants or any kind of striving for a common purpose -- although I think that's a fine goal.

As I said before, different concepts need to be employed when discussing group behavior. Take a basketball team. We don't say Lebron James is the team -- he's a member of the team. Or take a rock band -- Ringo Starr wasn't the Beatles, all of the members made up what was then labeled "the Beatles." When the team or the band plays together, something different happens. When we focus attention on an individual, something else happens. They're different levels of abstraction.

My entire point was that there are similarities which are important, and it's interesting to talk as if society were an individual, but to take that literally strikes me as completely incoherent.

You talked about human nature and greed and you'll notice that this character flaw in us, individuals, also manifests at the superorganism (global) level. We could say that the world is just a scaled-up version of an individual and for that reason. our individual goodness and badness are also proportionately magnified. — TheMadFool

Let's be concrete so as not to get lost in space: I'm talking about the United States in particular, because of its power in world affairs, and the individuals who are in control of the United States government, which are the wealthy. The wealthy mostly come from the business world, and are the individuals who control the multinational corporations -- which are the current form of big business. These individuals who control the corporations, and the individuals who make up the government, are the people who essentially run the world. They're also the ones currently destroying the world. I believe the reasons for this, as I mentioned, are simultaneously an addiction to material gain (one expression of greed) and an irrational system of beliefs/values. That's not a problem with the world, really -- that's a problem with a small percentage of the world, made up of the individuals with the power to influence global affairs.

To be more specific, look at Amazon, BlackRock, and Berkshire Hathaway -- and even more specifically, the individuals who control these gigantic entities: Jeff Bezos, Larry Fink, and Warren Buffett. These are real people with real beliefs and real power. Their decisions effect millions of people (and perhaps billions). They're three people.

I think you see my point. None of this has much to do with universals and particulars. Maybe Jeff Bezos or the 1% are humanity, or whatever you'd like. But to argue about that is getting off into irrelevancies. That wasn't my aim in creating this thread.

Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor. — Xtrix

You would be contradicting yourself. To intuit the world is like and individual implies that you see a resemblance (analogy) and according to Leibniz's controversial law of the identity of indiscernibles, the world is an indvidual (you can't tell them apart because they look very similar). Have you ever had the chance to meet twins? What happens? Do you call one by the other's name only to be told that you've misidentified the twins! Leibniz's law of the identity of indiscernibles. Controversial?...Hmmm... :chin:

I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea. — Xtrix

Making good use of things is a ridiculous idea?

We must consume, consume, consume, until we drop dead?

It's perverse to the utmost the way so many modern humans treat natural resources.

Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor.
— Xtrix

You would be contradicting yourself. To intuit the world is like and individual implies that you see a resemblance (analogy) and according to Leibniz's controversial law of the identity of indiscernibles, the world is an indvidual (you can't tell them apart because they look very similar). Have you ever had the chance to meet twins? What happens? Do you call one by the other's name only to be told that you've misidentified the twins! Leibniz's law of the identity of insdiscernibles. Controversial?...Hmmm... :chin: — TheMadFool

I think you see my point. None of this has much to do with universals and particulars. Maybe Jeff Bezos or the 1% are humanity, or whatever you'd like. But to argue about that is getting off into irrelevancies. That wasn't my aim in creating this thread. — Xtrix

There's no contradiction: I, as an individual named Mike, am not the same as the 7 billion people on earth. I'm a part of the human species, yes. That doesn't make me the human species. That's absurd, on any level, and I'm not interested in discussing this further.

I'm not interested in discussing this further. — Xtrix

:ok: :smile:

I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea.
— Xtrix
Making good use of things is a ridiculous idea?

We must consume, consume, consume, until we drop dead?

It's perverse to the utmost the way so many modern humans treat natural resources. — baker

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. The former is what the industries want us to believe, as has been well documented; the latter is what is often discouraged, but is happening more and more as this issue becomes more pressing.

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. — Xtrix

In that case, you're addressing a dichotomy I never proposed. It's a false dichotomy.

I do believe things start at the individual person, and that if enough people do it, it can become governmental policy and other high-level actions or at least create a socio-economic environment in which those policies make sense and become actionable.

A conscientious use of food and clothing (where it's simply about buying carefully and using thoroughly, I'm not talking about composting and recycling), for example, would force a change in some business policies and processes, simply because of the change to the demand for products. It seems to me that this would be more effective than trying to get big business to change its ways by other means, such as through government incentives for "green" industry.

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions.
— Xtrix
In that case, you're addressing a dichotomy I never proposed. It's a false dichotomy. — baker

It's not a dichotomy. This isn't either-or. I never said it was, and I never said you said it was. The emphasis, however, in everything you've said so far has been on individual actions. You went through your anecdote about clothing, for example. All that's fine. No rational person is against this. What I object to is the emphasis. If we think we can get out of this with isolated actions, that's a pipe dream. That doesn't mean we don't want people to continue to live sustainably.

Here's a fair analysis, if read carefully: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/yes-actually-individual-responsibility-essential-solving-climate-crisis

https://theconversation.com/climate-change-focusing-on-how-individuals-can-help-is-very-convenient-for-corporations-108546

t's not a dichotomy. This isn't either-or. I never said it was, and I never said you said it was. — Xtrix

You keep presenting it that way, though, such as here:

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. — Xtrix

What I object to is the emphasis. — Xtrix

I think you've read something into my posts that isn't there, though. Perhaps we need to talk more.

If we think we can get out of this with isolated actions, that's a pipe dream. — Xtrix

Of course. Much of what goes on nowadays under "caring for the planet" is nonsense, usually intended to get us to buy the advertiser's product or service. It's also dangerous because it can create in people a false sense of accomplishment and contribution -- "Look, I have a cloth shopping bag, I'm protecting the environment!"

I do not believe that big corporations will change their ways unless they are directly economically forced to -- and this is something that only people can do, with a radical change in their consumer habits. Hence my focus on the individual.

(I'm in Europe. On national televisions here, there are many documentaries on the theme of skepticism about mainstream approaches to ecology; just last week, there was one titled "The green lie". But most of them are not in English, and not readily available online, so I can't refer to them.)

I do not believe that big corporations will change their ways unless they are directly economically forced to -- and this is something that only people can do, with a radical change in their consumer habits. Hence my focus on the individual. — baker

I understand that, and I'm not questioning your sincerity about it. I agree wholeheartedly that we, as individual consumers, should be doing more.

But you're also well aware that not everyone has that luxury, as in the case of India that I mentioned. They're going to continue burning coal to generate electricity, for the same reason that not everyone shops at Whole Foods. In that case it's a matter of our governments to take action and provide for their people. Since the state has always been involved in the economy, there's little reason not to push for intervention in the case of energy. Government action, as you mentioned, requires public pressure -- and that can't happen in isolation. That has to happen with organization, when large groups of people come together and push for their programs. My entire objection is that this aspect gets under-emphasized when discussing climate change, or left out entirely. But it's far more important, in my view, for reasons we can get into if we want.

to live sustainably — Xtrix

I fear it's too late, that we're past the tipping point anyway.

Since the state has always been involved in the economy, there's little reason not to push for intervention in the case of energy. Government action, as you mentioned, requires public pressure -- and that can't happen in isolation. That has to happen with organization, when large groups of people come together and push for their programs. My entire objection is that this aspect gets under-emphasized when discussing climate change, or left out entirely. — Xtrix

Part of the ecological skepticism here is that these government interventions and incentives aren't effective. Laws are passed, funds are provided, projects are designed, but nothing really happens and the money somehow vanishes.


We have a referendum coming up. It's about a law proposed by the right-wing government which would allow building closer to bodies of water, thus further reducing areas along the bodies of water, those areas being vital for the filtration of water and the natural production of drinking water. The government is now painting the opposition as "You're against clean drinking water!" But as it is, people prefer right-wing politics.

Okay...and then what?

Is that where the story ends for you? If so, you're part of what I mean in the title of this thread. Because I'm sure a lot of others feel it's all hopeless too, and have resigned from doing anything. Oddly enough, if that attitude is prevalent enough, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need an awakening -- including out of that defeatism.

Oddly enough, if that attitude is prevalent enough, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. — Xtrix

Of course.
It seems to me, though, that an effective climate intervention would need to be more fundamental, one that only indirectly or as a consequence has to do with counteracting human-caused climate change.

From what I've seen, the usual liberal, democratic proposals in favor of ecology are politically correct in regard to what drives human consumption to begin with, they touch upon greed only superficially, if at all. That's why they can't possibly work. What would need to change is people's most fundamental beliefs about the meaning and value of life. And this cannot happen in a democratic society. The solution isn't in reducing consumption or using different products, rather, it's in changing the why for using things.

That awakening is the New Age. A time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny. It has been coming for a long time and obviously depends on the development of technology.

Instead of putting military weapons in Afghanistan, put technology there so the individuals can see the rest of the world and engage with it. The technology can become a tool of the radicals and that can have bad consequences, and to counter that and have more good consequences than bad ones, it is essential the spreading of technology also deals with the problems that can arise, always working for a consciousness that benefits all of humanity and the planet.

I think that some people believe that 'the new age' has passed, but, at the same time, I do believe that many people are becoming more conscious of social concerns and ideals. I think that it is about people waking up individually and the scale of this can have a real impact. It also involves people challenging older structures. But, I believe that the process does need to happen quickly, in relation to conflicts between nations and political factors, as well as ecological factors, and these are all interconnected. I am hoping that the shock of the pandemic will have some impact in helping people to wake up.

I think that it is about people waking up individually and the scale of this can have a real impact. It also involves people challenging older structures. But, I believe that the process does need to happen quickly, in relation to conflicts between nations and political factors, as well as ecological factors, and these are all interconnected. — Jack Cummins

True. It’s really a question of when, and whether it’s too little too late. All the changes around us right now would have been great 25 or 30 years ago — and a lot of damage is locked in.