Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Of course it's not enough, but isn't that such a trivial, impractical point to make? What small act is ever enough to make an impact on a large complex systemic effect? That's why you need an aggregate of counteractions--and you will never have that aggregate when you have too many individuals being defeatist and actively choosing to do nothing about a problem that threatens their very own survival.

And sure, short-term profits drive people towards a certain behaviors, but no collective behavior is set in stone and people's tastes are actually changing, which is why more and more companies are publicly positioning themselves to be sustainable even if it's just woke theater for many of them. Being cynical and defeatist about not compounding to the problem of environmental pollution is such a valueless position. It's really not impossible to make the reverse politically viable.




The point is that for almost every metric, consumers changing their habits will have a negligible impact on global aspects of this disaster. Even if everyone changes, companies are so extremely polluting that it will not change the fact that everything will turn to shit. What needs to change is companies.


I agree, yes. I’m just reacting to what seems to be an excuse for what can be done at the individual level.


It's not an excuse. I'm already actively limiting my own pollution by being frugal. I'm observing humanity-level trends and making conclusions. If you're definitely going to lose, being defeatist is also being realistic.


You don’t know that you’re going to lose, and trends can be reversed. They have been before. We’re doing the same thing to the global pandemic now with all these vaccines.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: