Hacker News Reader

Comment by LatteLazy | Hacker News Reader

Vegetarians are really enthusiastic to use climate change as an excuse to talk about their thing.

People without kids like me are really enthusiastic to tell you we have done our bit by not having babies.

Westerners are really enthusiastic to tell you how they exported all heavy industry to the east so it isn't their fault.

The developing work insists it's inherited guilt of white Europeans (and North Americans).

But everyone agrees: we look forward to someone else solving this issue, at no cost to us.

View on HN

> Vegetarians are really enthusiastic to use climate change as an excuse to talk about their thing.

> People without kids like me are really enthusiastic to tell you we have done our bit by not having babies.

> at no cost to us.

It sounds like those two groups may have paid a cost. Many vegetarians like the taste and convenience of meat but give it up due to climate impact. People who don't have children may want them but don't like how humanity impacts the rest of the world.

I wonder how many people go vegetarian purely for climate reasons? Or partially and to what degree?

And how many also do all the other things (giving up air travel, private vehicles, imported fruit and veg, concrete etc) needed to actually get down to carbon neutral?

There must be some.

As for not having kids, I would have liked them, but I am gay, so to say I "paid" a cost would be untrue or at least an overestimate...

Cest la vie

> I wonder how many people go vegetarian purely for climate reasons ... to what degree?

The numbers are growing steadily, enough to make producers of animal products increasingly nervous.

> giving up air travel, private vehicles, imported fruit and veg, concrete etc

Animal agriculture is worse than transport and concrete together (not just emissions, but deforestation, biodiversity loss, eutrophication, water usage, pollution ...)

We cannot avoid polluting entirely. However, we can minimize our impact as much as possible, and I'd argue that by replacing animal products with plant-based alternatives, people lose nothing while reducing their negative footprint significantly.

You comment perfectly exemplifies my point I'm afraid.

This relates to the concept that most of what we are offered to combat climate change are individual, consumer-side solutions but the biggest problems can't really be solved that way, one individual at a time.

Yes, limited and uncoordinated local action will never cure global problems. At a minimum it would require some global agreement and a serious push to make it happen, such as with the CFCs and leaded gasoline.

Meaningful global change often begins with individual actions, as they can inspire reflection, shape societal norms, and create a foundation for collective transformation.

Historical examples like the civil rights movement, where individual advocates stood against injustice, paved the way for broader societal shifts and legal reforms.

That wasn't close to global though. Are there any real global changes that started with individual actions? All I see is things that influenced at most a particular branch of the tree of culture usually limited to a country but sometimes adopted by other countries as well (for instance: slavery abolition, though even today it persists in some places so that's a partial success at best).

The abolition of slavery is imho a significant global achievement, with its roots often found in individual acts of resistance and advocacy. However, as you rightly pointed out, it's essential to recognize that forms of modern slavery still persist today, be it through forced labor, human trafficking, or child labor. While the institutionalized systems of slavery seen in the past have largely been dismantled, the fight against modern forms of slavery should continue.

> Are there any real global changes that started with individual actions?

We should probably define what you mean by "real global changes" if the abolition of slavery doesn't qualify. I'll try anyway.

1. Rachael Carson's "Silent Spring": Her seminal book, "Silent Spring," wasn't just an American wake-up call but catalyzed a global environmental movement. It laid the groundwork for the creation of environmental agencies and legislation in multiple countries and sparked a broader awareness of human impacts on the environment.

2. The Tunisian Butterfly Effect: Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation in 2010 was a tragic act of protest against police corruption in Tunisia. This act played a significant role in the onset of the Tunisian Revolution and the subsequent wider Arab Spring, leading to significant political changes in several countries across North Africa and the Middle East.

3. The Chipko Movement from India: Starting in a small village in India in the 1970s, villagers hugged trees to prevent their felling. This non-violent resistance spread, making the Chipko movement a touchstone for environmental campaigns across Asia and beyond.

4. Nelson Mandela: While his primary focus was against apartheid in South Africa, Mandela's resilience and commitment to justice transformed him into a global symbol for resistance to oppression. His actions and teachings influenced movements and leaders around the world.

5. Greta Thunberg: Starting as a single individual protesting in front of the Swedish parliament, she inspired millions around the world to advocate for climate action. While it's yet to culminate in a universal solution, her individual act has galvanized global discourse and awareness on the issue.

Each of these examples, and many more, underscores the idea that an individual or a small group's actions can create ripple effects that influence and inspire global change.

Turning to the topic of veganism, it's evident that we no longer rely on animal products for our health or sustenance. When individuals transition away from these products, they often gain a clearer perspective on the vast environmental damage caused by such diets. Animal agriculture is a prime contributor to deforestation and biodiversity loss; astonishingly, animal species have witnessed a 70-90% decline in just the past 50 years. Looking ahead, we're racing against time to safeguard the remaining ecosystems, crucial for the environmental services upon which we heavily rely.

If everyone were to continue consuming meat and dairy without questioning its impact, then who would advocate for the end of these environmentally destructive practices? Our innate focus on immediate needs, like our next meal, can blind us to the broader picture. It's a human tendency to resist change, especially when it involves something as personal as our diet. But we must rise above these fears, looking beyond the contents of our refrigerators, and consider the long-term well-being of our planet.

I'm not at all debating our doubting that individuals can have massive impact. But for something truly global to happen - in appreciable time, too - you need some form of coordination. An individual might be able to bring about that coordinating instrument, or might be able to convince existing coordinating instruments to act.

But my point, which is a bit muddy, I readily admit, is that if you are faced with a global problem (say, climate change or COVID-19) that individuals can play a very important role in it but individual action by itself won't be enough to achieve the desired global outcome. This is because there are many transnational and super powerful entities that may well be opposed to the change and that there exist several really large organized units that may not play ball in the name of profits or needs or anything else they deem material.

So with starting I was thinking more about the individual doing the thing (say: put solar panels on your roof) to manifest an energy transition. Sure, it helps. But it isn't sufficient and eventually it will fizzle out. And that's one where every little bit helps so it really does make a difference in the aggregate. But meanwhile a single industrial entity (say an aluminum smelter that converts raw bauxite to usable bulk aluminum) will offset the efforts of so many individuals that grassroots efforts won't be sufficient.

But your point about individual contributions and the ability of individuals to galvanize larger entities into action (by shame, an appeal to ethics, by boycott, by protest or by vote) is well taken.

When I was 17 or so (now 41 years ago) I wanted to go work in Petten, NL because I saw the early wind power efforts as very promising. It took decades to get to the point where it made some serious inroads and still we are fighting individuals and large (and wealthy) institutions and lobbying orgs to get those things out there. There were a couple of materials science breakthroughs in that time (notably: Kevlar and Neos) that helped put those out there but technically speaking there wasn't much that stopped us from rolling out windpower on a much larger scale much earlier. This really bugs me.

Some problems need fast and coordinated action at a global level and my general feeling is that we simply do not have the tools in place to do this. The UN is structurally undermined by the parties that hold the most power and international courts are routinely ignored. Einstein at some point advocated for a UN with teeth and I think that would have been a good start.

http://lotoisdumonde.fr/initiatives/FSMAN/Einstein-UN-letter...

Very good points, thank you.

> that if you are faced with a global problem, say, climate change ...

The issue with animal agriculture is larger and graver than climate change (it's merely one of the symptoms of overshooting the environment's carrying capacity). The challenges it presents surpass even those of energy transition, imho, given factors like traditions, habits, taste, status, societal pressure, etc.

Despite its severity, the problems of animal agriculture remain virtually unknown, even among environmentalists, and are completely ignored by the media. The FAO and IPCC have been influenced to eliminate mentions of animal agriculture and the necessity of plant-based diets.

Yet, abolishing it stands as one of the most critical challenges we'll need to address if we hope for a non-dystopian future.

> individual action by itself won't be enough to achieve the desired global outcome

Yes, but in this case, individual action can — and often does - influence others. There's a reason vegan jokes are so prevalent nowadays :)

> fast and coordinated action at a global level and my general feeling is that we simply do not have the tools in place to do this

I'm afraid there currently aren't enough people to be "coordinated." In my view, that's the first issue that needs to be addressed.

Fair enough. Incidentally, I've invested in https://www.goleafside.com/ for exactly that reason. I don't know whether it will make a large difference in the long run but this is the sort of way that I can help leverage the capital I have access to in order to achieve a larger effect. It's been quite successful but it probably did not in and of itself convince many people to switch to a plant based diet, even if there are many good reasons for doing so.

So I do agree individuals can make a difference and should try to do what they can. But I just simply think it won't be enough and that is a real pity.

All of those most noteworthy individual advocates of civil rights were advocates for collective action and built coalitions of people. History loves its "great men narratives", but it was collective action that won the day. We may not have time to wait for a "great individual" to arrive before taking collective action on something like climate change. Even if one did arrive, you know what they would be telling us? Take collective action.

> Take collective action

There aren't enough environmentally and collapse-aware vegans ... yet.

In all those examples, people did not take personal action, they demanded social action.

MLK didn't get civil rights passed by just not being racist himself. He did it by demanding legislation.

We need to stop pretending we can "inspire" people to do the right thing. It's been failing for 40 years. And at this point it's counter productive.

And he got killed for his troubles.

It's funny how we at the same time undervalue and overvalue personal agency. Individuals can make a huge effect if they push at the right levers but just sorting your trash or biking to work isn't going to stop climate change, even if lots of people do it, and even if it does help.

MLK and other activists stood on the shoulders of many who came before them and worked alongside them. Their movements were built on the collective efforts of numerous individuals who shared similar goals.

Comparing the civil rights movement to activists advocating for the abolition of animal agriculture due to environmental impacts does come with differences in scale, historical context, and the nature of the issues. The civil rights movement was a response to deeply entrenched systemic injustices affecting a large portion of the population, and it had decades of groundwork laid by various individuals and organizations.

The movement toward plant-based diets for environmental and other reasons is relatively newer (nowhere near those 40 years) and addresses a complex issue that's intricately tied to dietary habits, cultural norms, and economic interests.

The number of activists advocating for this cause might not be as extensive at this point compared to larger historical movements. However, the power of social and environmental advocacy lies in its potential to grow, evolve, and gain traction over time. Over time, as more people become informed and engaged, the movement can gather momentum and attract broader support.

While there might not be as many activists and scientists advocating for the abolition of animal agriculture for environmental reasons, the efforts of those who are engaged can still contribute to shifting perspectives, encouraging dialogue, and paving the way for potential larger-scale changes.

> We need to stop pretending we can "inspire" people to do the right thing. It's been failing for 40 years. And at this point it's counter productive.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on how to solve those systemic issues.

> we look forward to someone else solving this issue, at no cost to us.

At no cost and no sacrifice.

Personally, I'm not going to sacrifice my car or my A/C although I know it will help reduce CO2 emissions.

I dread the idea that an actual, workable, enforced international plan ever comes to a vote. Because I would have to vote for it. But until then, there is literally no point at all doing anything, as an individual or a company or even a nation. So I am free to enjoy the place burning, because it will burn whether I enjoy it or not.

That's the place we are at now.

> there is literally no point at all doing anything, as an individual or a company or even a nation

"We can only solve these problems with active participation by everybody, because if everyone just waits for someone else to solve the problem, then the problem doesn’t ever get solved." - internet

Be the change you want to see in the world. - Mahatma Gandhi

or the longer version

"We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do."

This.

Tragedy of the commons all the way down, with some "moralistic fallacy" sprinkled in.

Unfortunately, the tragedy of our common earth is worse than a poisoned lake.

Not having children is actually making the world a worse place. If your decision to/not to have children is about your impact on the world, you should choose to have several children

Reply on news.ycombinator.com