If you eat meat regularly, you are connected to Brazil's deforestation, either for cattle or for soy feed. If you have invested in the stock market, you are most likely connected to the international flow of capital, which is also driving said deforestation.
Even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.
No, focusing on and guilting the individual is, pardon my conspiracy theory language, what They want. They want you to buy more expensive organic produce, They want you to buy a new lower-emissions car at a premium price, and most importantly, They want to blame you for what They are doing - They don't care about the amazon in particular, They care about profits, and if you're too distracted with changing your own lifestyle, They can push forward with their own policies to make more money.
If a whole country stops e.g. consuming soy from Brazil, there's going to be ten others that will buy it anyway because profits or deals will almost always beat morals.
And even if a country bans importing soy from Brazil, there's plenty of produce laundering going on - China will move their products to e.g. Malaysia and rebrand it as "made in Malaysia" to avoid trade tariffs or quotas.
And it doesn't stop there. A country can claim to recycle plastic in a renewable fashion for example, but what they aren't aware of - or turn a blind eye to - is that the recycling company they trust just bales up the plastics and ships it off to Asia, where they just burn it or chuck it in landfills. As soon as it crosses the border, it's no longer their problem. (Trash exports should be banned worldwide)
Markets allow you to vote every time you buy something on what your values are. Every time you choose to buy something from, say Brazil, that will be read as an endorsement of Brazil whenever someone looks at a balance sheet of imports and decides whether they can afford to instigate some kind of ban.
I think that people making personal choices about their own consumption is a very reasonable way for them to signal their desires and so the changes you say (and I agree) are required can be worked towards through grassroots community (e.g. asking people to individually boycott products).
It's a job for our chosen representatives. We've given the mandate, it's up to them to create market frameworks with this through policies and trade agreements. And it works: EU doesn't import hormone laden meat, and could similarly decide on environmental requirements too.
Policy can be affected by voting, public discourse, and demonstrations, whereas active consumer choice would be very poor driver for that.
But that decision was not made by the consumer. It was made by the executives of Burger King who decided to buy beef from a factory farm that has decided to buy soy from Brazil which has farmers that have decided to exploit the rain forest because the government has decided to not do anything against it.
I believe a lot of hand-wringing on these topics comes from positions of economic privilege, usually in the richer end of developed economies. I see little awareness of the lifestyles of individuals of mid-to-lower socio-economic status in the developed world, how little their share of impact is compared to those of the middle and upper class, and how little room of manoeuvrer they may have to make a difference even if they had the time and energy to.
Well, the original sin never really went away.
People are inherently flawed creatures (which is what the original sin myth meant to capture).
And "anyone who happens to live in a developed economy" contributes to today's climate problem, whether they want/link it or not. They don't even have to be on the top of the hierarchy (although there's probably a powerlaw/pareto distribution of harm).
They said that you are "connected" to deforestation if you are living in a developed economy - you interpreted that as implying that all people in developed economies are sinning. They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected.
They then made two conditions predicated on having high socio-economic status (eating meat regularly, investing in a stock market) and stated that these do imply some level of guilt. I think that does account for the difference in lifestyle between income levels in the global economy and read it as implying that those with the most impactful lifestyle should make the most reductions - agreeing with your statement amount relative room for maneuvering.
EDIT: You said "I believe a lot of hand-wringing on these topics comes from positions of economic privilege" - many agree. Many see environmentalism as a "bourgeois playground" to its detriment. You might find this interesting: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/naomi-klein/let-them-drown
That doesn't say anything though. Everybody is connected to everything. It may be direct, indirect, with one or two or twenty hops, but everybody is connected. You can make an argument that the last few uncontacted tribes aren't connected, but everybody else is, especially by the "you're living in a society that reaps the benefits" idea, because pretty much everybody does that to varying degrees (but still connected) with technology, medical advances etc.
He replied to "if you eat meat regularly, you are connected to Brazil's deforestation, either for cattle or for soy feed. If you have invested in the stock market, you are most likely connected to the international flow of capital, which is also driving said deforestation.". Does this not assume "guilty"? There is the implication in that message that if you are in any way connected to the destruction of X (deforestation in this particular example), then you are at fault (i.e. guilty).
Then the person he replied to went on to "even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.", i.e. "everyone who is connected is still at fault".
I read "being "connected" to deforestation" as contributing to it. Is this incorrect? Are we just arguing over words? I believe that in this context "connected" really just means "contributing" (to deforestation, which I assume is "bad").
Now my question is, how do we become unconnected? The part where he says even if we do not eat meat and so forth, we are still contributing to these problems. What is the solution, then? Is there a solution? Am I supposed to live anywhere but not "in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits"? What if everyone did this, would it not lead to the same problem? I do not think that being fatalistic is of any help here.
My question still stands. As an individual, what can I do to stop contributing to say, deforestation? How do I become "unconnected"? If you want, you could also answer this question not in terms of the individual, but the group of people (collective). What should I do? What should we do? These two questions are different, and they may have two entirely different answers. If not, then what does it matter if I asked it from the POV of the individual? Feel free to answer both of them if you wish.
For the sake of the discussion, please do not assume individual guilt. I did not ask what to do to exculpate myself from it.
That's easy. The people of the Amazon pass some laws that protect their land.
America has this form of protection vs exploitation. Brazil needs to get with the program. Its not an American problem - I eat corn fed beef and pork from Kansas and Nebraska.
According to the aforementioned quote, you may eat corn fed beef and pork from Kansas and Nebraska, but you still "live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.". I am curious what propater had in mind as a solution to this.
The supply needs to be addressed at the source. That's the only correct solution.
The only way the purchase of a good can fail to move global markets is to be wholly disconnected from the market. This means you would have to live in a country that neither imports nor exports meat at all.
This does not address the issue which is the high demand for meat. This "solution" seems to be forced diet change. I believe it would create a black market for meat instead.
By default I'm inclined to stop doing exactly zero of those, and by saying "you're at fault no matter what you do or don't do" you've just removed the sole remaining incentive for me to stop doing it: being able to say "it's not my fault". If I'm to blame no matter what I do, I might as well enjoy it and let the other suckers do the sacrifices for no gain that I'm unwilling to make, completely guilt-free.
This is a good example: if you're still shamed despite altruistic behavior, why would I possibly keep making sacrifices that I gain nothing for (including feeling good about having done them) when I can go back to my VASTLY more rewarding hedonistic lifestyle?
If you put someone in a situation where they're supposed to feel shame no matter what, they're going to become 100% insensitive to it in record time. In other words: yes, I am guilt-free because there's no other possible state under this framework of inescapable blame.
I eat meat regularly. But it is not that much - compared to the national average. And I know exactly that neither the cattle, nor their food came from anywhere near the Amazonas.
I only eat meat when I know the producer and how they produced it. In my case it is a local farm that is a closed system: They grow what they need to feed their cattle - and use the manure to grow their crops (and so on). And the cattle is treated by very high standards regarding organic meat production in Germany (Bioland standard).
In the winter months I do eat about 50 - 110 grams of meat per week on average. Depending on if I do have a bigger piece of meat on the weekends or "just" some ham (and the like) during the week.
In the summer month my garden produces so much vegetables that I am nearly fully vegetarian - my current meat average for the summer is below 10 grams per week.
Disclaimer: Yes, I have butter at home to cook with. Yes I use dairy, also from said local farm.
But - and that is the interesting aspect for me: A lot more people could do this.
The produced meat is of such a quality, that I can have the ham cut so thin, I could read the newspaper through it - it still tastes way more intensive than the stuff from the big box store.
So per slice of bread - my ham is costing me less than before the switch.I am actually saving money by having a great taste and also supporting local farmers that act in sync with the environment.
We have a problem. We have put in place structures, institutions and incentives that are failing us and jeopardizing our capacity to protect our values in the future.
I agree that the individual has a limited impact on what is happening and collective action is needed.
And yet, collective action is not going to happen if every individual is defecting or just stays ignorant of their place in those systems.
And yet, the problem is not going to disappear if no one is implementing at least some changes to one's lifestyle.
You say the only motivation for you is to be able to say "it is not my fault" but reality does not care whose fault it is...
Lifestyle changes won't change deforestation. The people of Brazil are the ones you need to target your message to.
If the international community decided to stop buying beef and soy from Brazil, the demand would evaporate and it wouldn't be economical for them to continue their practices.
I'm curious. What precedents are there for such a "community" to enforce sanctions on a country's use of their own natural resources?
That's an obviously false conclusion.
If I only eat locally sourced meat that's not fed inferior soy feed, how does that in any way contribute to Brazil's deforestation?
The truth is, whether we like it or not, the only people capable of effectively tracking and addressing the responsibility of Brazil's economy and ecology are people living in Brazil.
And this isn't some excuse I've invented for myself. I buy 100% of my groceries from a farmers co-op where everything is sourced within about 500 miles or so. But the fact of the matter is, Brazil needs to do a better job and address their own problems, regardless of the world economy, and this is just an attempt to shift blame. Every single environmental regulation that has been passed, in any country in the world, 1st or 3rd world, occurred at financial loss to that country. Brazil is no exception.
Then they are also responsible because their government profit from it?
Everything is connected... the fact that it's connected doesn't means anything.
Your comment won't show anything, it won't change anything, it won't help anyone. You are simply making blanket accusation, like if even someone could simply no longer depends on the economy... that's so absurd.
It's not because the government is working against them over the Amazon that they don't profit at all from it. All you need is using the government resource once to say that they did profit from it.
From an eastern european point of view, it is easy to focus on western europe and see oneself as disadvantaged, but if you count ressources consumed the picture is very different.