Mastodawn

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 11, 2020

Framing environmental deterioration as the result of poor individual choices—littering, leaving the lights on when we leave a room, failing to car-pool—not only distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of environmental decline. It also removes these issues from the political realm to the personal, implying that the solution is in our personal choices rather than in better policies, business practices, and structural context.

-- Annie Leonard, "Moving from Individual Change to Societal Change"

http://www.pfree.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Moving-from-Individual-Change-to-Societal-Change-Annie-Leonard-2013.pdf

#AnnieLeonard #SocietalChange #IndividualResponsibilityFallacy #RiskShifting #ResponsibilityShifting

Sandra Dec 11, 2020

@dredmorbius Really frustrates me when individuals/consumers tries to pass the buck, saying things like “oh we can still have cheeseburgers and cigarettes, the problem is Roxxon Oil Corporation.” EVERYONE needs to step the fuck up re this! Corporations, goverments, NGOs, clubs, organizations, families, even individuals! EVERYONE!

Littering, leaving the light on, and car culture are not and will never be cool!

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 11, 2020

@Sandra This past February I'd had an appointment, TV playing in the reception area, COVID news.
Receptionist looked at it and ccommented that she wished the news wouldn't make such a big deal out of it. Needlessly caring people.

"This is big, and it's going to be far bigger", I said.

The office was closed for the next three months. I've not seen that receptionist there again, on a couple of visits. And tis thing is still going on and will be for a while.

But yeah: climate, energy, resources, pollution: things are going to hange beyond all possible recognition. And not just corps or the rich. (Most reading this are the global rich.)

AA Dec 11, 2020

@dredmorbius @Sandra (adding a thought, not diagreeing) why not both engagement against the big corporations and doing all the (maybe just symbolic) things in personal life? I think they would strengthen each other. It's the implicit theory that there's only limited attention,goodwill, and capacity for change in the population, so we need to choose our battles and take small steps. is that really how it works?

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 11, 2020

@coldwave Of the two, the systemic approach is far more effective. Create a world in which peope can only do the right thing (or have to work much harder not to), and the problem resolves.

It's also the proper answer to this bullshit (on plastics pollution):

I'm confused how this is anything other than "Coca-Cola the worlds most popular beverage maker" Coca-Cola didn't do anything to put that garbage there, people who consumed their product did.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25381647

Coke created the bottles, the market for their flavured sugar water, the supply and distribution ecosystem, the regulatory and legal frameworks, etc.

I'll do the responsible thing myself (refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle) and haven't had a Coke (or other soft drink) in years, probably a decade or more. But billions of other people do.

I can't change that through individual action. Collectively addressing systemic change can.

I'm confused how this is anything other than "Coca-Cola the worlds most popular ... | Hacker News

Sandra Dec 11, 2020

@dredmorbius Handwave a world through vague magic where people only can do the right thing and they can stop doing the wrong thing. Great, I’m withcha and I’d love to join forces on getting there but we can’t pretend we’re there before we are there!

It’s like people who justify flying with “Don’t worry, soon they’ll come up with a climate safe way to fly” — great! Fly then, not now! (Also they’ve been saying it for 15 years and I don’t see it happening soon.)

Sandra Dec 11, 2020

@dredmorbius What is Coke in the Hanna Arendt banal sense? One single individual guy with a twirling mustache and a cocaine laced recipe? One huge machine with grinding gears of death and ruthless economics? Consumers are the victims and I don’t want to victim blame. But they are also complicit to some extent! Not wholly, not even majority, but non-zero. People actively queue up to get into the guilded cage of Facebook, Amazon and soda bottles! Consumers are part of the machine!

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 11, 2020

@Sandra Coke is the corporate leadership, investor control, government relations, legal contracting, marketing / advertising / branding apparatus, logistical network, Big Corn, local bottling and mixing entities, and individual points of sale and distribution. It's the CEO, Warren Buffet, hedge and retirement funds, ConAgra, ad execs, middle managers, and marketing partners.

The consuming public "chooses" in the sense that they've been primed socially, culturally, psychologically, chemically, physiologically, physically, peer-group and professional normified, entertainment-and-refreshment expectationally, and saturated in media, space, commerce, and activities that they should choose Coke. Or maybe if they're a rebel, Pepsi. Or for true deviants, some other locally-produced artisinal fair-trade pro-labour flavoured caffinated mildly narcotic fizzy sugar water. And its attendant disposable packaging.

By a computer-and-science assisted army of professional influencers who are amazingly good at their jobs. Ed Bernays, the pusherman, Addiction Inc., Vegas Gaming, Sin City, digital soma, Zuck's Dumb Fucks. Same shit.

Consumption and demand are themselves output of the machine.

Years back I'd dated someone from outside the culture, who'd still seen the promotion through exported film and media, and simply presumed that all of these heavily promoted unattainable fruits --- fizzy drinks, crisps, candy, packaged foods, chain restaurants, and the like, were desired and desirable to those who could access them, and the fact that I not only didn't seek these things out but actively avoided them just flipped their worldview.

Because being this way seriously runs against the grain in many ways. It's not impossible but takes a real constant effort, generates friction, and leaves you marked as one of them, and slightly outside. Suspected. Elitist.

Coffee? Tea? Juice? Kombucha? Water? DIY? All too often their own Mini-Me would-be Cokes, increaingly Part Of The Octopus. Evian (or is it Naive?). Dasani. By Appointment to Her Magesty. Green Mermaids.

So is that "free choice" (or as the lessaiz faire subtext really angles at, shared blame and complicity), or straight-up manipulation?

They're selling addiction, shirking the costs, offloading risks, destroying bodies, minds, culture, intelligence, critical thought, life on earth and in seas, the planet.

You say you don't want to blame the victim but you are.

Sandra Dec 11, 2020

I’m not saying “This is 100% the fault of the consumers”, that’s a misreading of my position.
I am saying “Quit it with the ‘keep calm and keep consuming’ type messaging”.

Regardless of how ruthlessly effective the marketing industry is at pushing soda, cheeseburgers or cars, there is no justification for political writers to add even more fuel to that fire with a “Don’t worry, everything will be fixed when the system changes, individual change is pointless ‘lifestylism’, just keep on doing your daily drive, soda, burger living until the big ship of Marx comes in and picks up the pieces for you. Uh, date on that still TBD” type message. That is an absolutely wildly irresponsible message with a heavy ripple effect.

I don’t know where change starts. But I sure as heckfire know where stagnation, stasis, suffocation, resignation, compliance and a bad peace thrives.

Storm the (corporate) palace? Yes, OK, if that’s your plan, please do that and what can I do to help—I am not preaching libertarian “market will sort it out” type bull. But I cannot accept passing the buck. I cannot accept the mind-numbing soma of “Someone Else’s Problem”. I don’t want to be complicit in consumerism. That’s not to guilt-trip anyone: we’ve all been suckered in, we’ve all been used by the machine, and we all need to sober up.

Just so we’re clear on that. And that’s not me trying to make assumptions re your position, just making my own clear as cold water.

I am not saying nor have I ever said it’s OK to sell coke and cigs with a “I’m only giving them what they want, it’s on them for buying it” type spiel. I have my own “Stop passing the buck” for them that’s even harsher.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 12, 2020

I am saying “Quit it with the ‘keep calm and keep consuming’ type messaging”.

If that's what I've communicated please revoke my wording licence.

That's not at all my intended message. I cannot see that as a reasonable reading. Yes,
changing cultural mindsets is essential.

But burning cycles, energy intention, willpower, Gaianianer-than-thou moxie, and all the rest, crying on the flames while the fuel mains are dumping tankersful of flammables on the blaze ... doesn't even reach the level of futile gesture.

The question isn't of whose problem this is, but what interventions are effective.

"Individualn responsibility', like "vote with your wallet", is a mug's game. The enemy are defining fighting ground, weapons, and tactics.

Vote with your monkeywrenches, sabots, and torches.

Business abhors risk. Make bad business risky.

The best way to tell when your methods are effective is when they're declared unfair Or outlawed.

Sandra Dec 12, 2020

I wrote

And that’s not me trying to make assumptions re your position, just making my own clear as cold water.

I can’t stand the “vote with your wallet” non-solution. It is probably not going to be sufficient. But I cannot stand for the “you don’t have to vote with your wallet, that’s just a mug’s game, keep on shopping while we dream of sabots” non-solution either.

You wrote one good thing in this thread:

I’ll do the responsible thing myself (refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle) and haven’t had a Coke (or other soft drink) in years, probably a decade or more.

Yes. Keep that up. I’m cheering that while railing against so many people on Reddit, Twitter, newspaper and on the debate stage saying “no-one is gonna take your cheeseburgers and coke away, the only villain is big corp, once we [mumble mumble] all your cheeses and meats and soda is suddenly gonna become climate safe”. Anytime your messaging becomes even close to that line I need to stand up. Not to slag you in particular but to clearly and precisely say how messed up that general line of thinking is.

Don’t just vote with your wallet. That’d be the voice of complacency. But don’t not vote with your wallet either. That’d also be the voice of complacency.

You then wrote something not as thought-through:

But billions of other people do [overconsume and litter].

I can’t change that through individual action. Collectively addressing systemic change can

Think about what you are saying here. You, an individual, can’t effect consumer pattern change on the wide/collective level. But you apparently can effect policy making, production, or marketing pattern change on the wide/collective level? Every ocean needs drops my friend!

Discourage individual efforts to reduce overconsumtion and littering

???

Reap rewards of collective action to reduce overconsumtion and littering

Kind of a few missing steps there!

As stated, I have an even harsher rant vs the reverse fallacy:

Downplay wide-reaching policy changes and succumb to capitalist lobbying and the military-industrialist complex

???

Hope that individual consumers shop responsibly and don’t litter.

Just as deluded! I know you join me in railing against buck-passing in that direction. But none of the directions are OK! We need change yesterday!

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 12, 2020

Think about what you are saying here. You, an individual, can’t effect consumer pattern change on the wide/collective level. But you apparently can effect policy making, production, or marketing pattern change on the wide/collective level?

No.

Neither I nor collective individual action shy of near total compliance achieves this. The tactic as one of achieving the goal of ending negative externalising actions is utterly ineffective. The reason is that the more complete it becomes, the higher the rewards of defection. Simple #GameTheory payoff matrix.

A 1990s ex-junkie memoir I saw once had a cover reading something like "The problem with heroin is that the longer you stop the better that first next hit feels." Effectiveness of cure directly encourages relapse.

Individual action as signalling might have some merits.

But if you want to change the game you've got to change the rules, for everybody playing. Otherwise it's just #GreshamsLaw and a defectors' #RaceToTheBottom

I alone cannot accomplish either. Collectively, the rules change is the only efective mechanism. For signalling and messaging, restraint may be useful, but on an effort allocation, the smart strategy is 90% regulation & rules aimed at the system, 10% messaging interity.

And the whole "you're not doing enough personally" schtick can fuck right off. Because that's the countertactic I see, and quoted and linked at the top of this thread. It's what Annie Leonard's message is all about (I've been quoting it for years).

Wars aren't won by saints and purity scores.

1/

Re: the “fuck right off” style rhetoric: is this kind of in-fighting really where you wanna go with this? I’m not the enemy!

OMG don’t stay on heroin! The only way out of addictive mindset is dialectics. If you start thinking “I’m an ex-junky, I’m not a junky any more, I’m good now”, a relapse is sure to follow. If you start thinking “I’m still a junky, I’m never gonna get better, I’m always gonna want horse” a relapse is sure to follow. You need both/neither—dialectics and awareness. The only way to not shoot up today is to not shoot up today. (Obv cold turkey is dangerous for some classes of drugs, including opiates like heroin [also SSRI and benzo], while being the most effective way to quit for some other classes of drugs. Sustainable, goal-oriented action for the win!)

I do not place my bets that individuals doing better is gonna be the change the world needs right now. I don’t have my hope&heart set that “voting with your wallet” is gonna be enough.

Denying those who are working toward long-term sustainable and resilient solutions all the tools their opposition use freely is conceeding the battle.

This I am NEVER going to agree with. Their “tools” (negative externalities, pollution) are killing us. Becoming the empire will only help the empire. I’ve also read all the Berlekamp & Conway. Complex systems are sometimes predictable by payout matrices and sometimes not, and even where there are matrices the optimal strategy is affected by duration, iteration and meta game theory.

Soda selling has some differences from games like the prisoner’s dilemma:

it’s not like they can “Hohoho, they’re not buying coke, this is the opportunity we’ve been waiting for to sell even more coke!” And,

not having to drink soda anymore is a win, not a loss or a sacrifice (though getting there, as with any addiction, is difficult. Again, I am so grateful for having potable tap water [for now] and I’m not trying to imply that I take my opportunities, such as drinking water, for granted).

I’m never gonna accept “I’m not gonna try to change before they do”. It’s all connected! It’s a huge tangled up interdependent web of individuals (consumers, execs, politicians, voters, soldiers, revolutionaries) and systems (processes, factors, pressures, organizations, statures, laws, traditions, temptations)!

Any little opportunity we see of improving something, of harming the Earth slightly less: go for it! That goes for you the person and for you the group—on any level of “group” from small business to worker’s syndicate to league of nations.

you’ve got to take actions that are short-term negative or unsustainable

That, I’m not gonna give blanket permission to! LCA everything!

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 12, 2020

the “fuck right off” style rhetoric: is this kind of in-fighting really where you wanna go with this? I’m not the enemy!

To quote someone wise on the Internets:

Just so we’re clear on that. And that’s not me trying to make assumptions re your position, just making my own clear as cold water.

I'm addressing my remarks at those who attempt such tactics. If that's not you, then that's not you.

Sandra Dec 12, 2020

I’m not going to sign off on a defense of

littering, leaving the lights on when we leave a room, failing to car-pool

Those are things that, to the extent we can avoid them, we should avoid.

And then re

Actions which require perfect volitional compliance in the face of ever-greater rewards for defection are doomed.

Let me first steel doll that statement by replying to it as if you hadn’t written “ever-greater” or “perfect” or “compliance” (don’t worry, will address that too soon).

Actions which require [… a critical mass of voluntary participation] in the face of […] rewards for defection are doomed.

I have already expressed my pessimisim re the overall, aggregate success of such actions but I think that without such actions we would be even less likely to succeed.

Collective action whether via shoe or ballot also require participation. Haven’t seen much success in either, these last few decades. I am not opposing them; I advocate for them. Hope springs eternal in every human breast. With a dream in your heart you’re never alone. But that doesn’t mean that Leonard is legitimate in arguing against people refraining from littering, leaving lights on, or using cars.

The forest is made of trees and vice versa. Collective action is made by people, just like cutting down on individual littering, driving, and smoking is.

Regarding

perfect

Rather than “perfect”, what we need is “enough”, i.e. a “critical mass”. We need enough people to do better — whether that’s in the boardroom, in the congress, on the bench, with shoe in hand, or behind the wheel or behind the shopping cart. (And yeah, researching and implementing ways to not only halt but actually reverse emissions ior their resultant climate change.)

That nitpick of mine isn’t necessarily a statement of optimism: I don’t know that the human civilization as a whole could muster such a critical mass of enough. “Perfect” would at least be possible even if extremely unlikely. You wouldn’t need more than everybody. When the target is “enough”, I don’t know whether that means one out of ten (optimist) or eleven out of ten (pessimist).

But for the purpose of game theory, this is not just a nitpick. If the complex net of messed-up-ness were reducible to one single payout matrix of discrete choices (it’s not), “perfect compliance” (which is needed to refrain from, for example, nuclear war) is a rather different game than a game of “enough”. In the game of “enough”, every little bit helps. And, standing in the way of these types of actions (“actions” such as, uh, refraining from littering) is something I am not gonna sign off on.

You misunderstood what you quoted from me:

You, an individual, can’t effect consumer pattern change on the wide/collective level. But you apparently can effect policy making, production, or marketing pattern change on the wide/collective level?

The latter (“palace-storming”) is the type of action you, Leonard and me is calling for. I’m not your enemy there. In addition, I ask you to not fight or argue agains the former type of action (“wallet-voting”). I don’t know which moment, which choice, which second this tide is going to turn from an uphill to a downhill battle but standing in the way of change is not OK.

Re

compliance

A.k.a. participation in saving the world. Everything you say on the futility of participation at the consumer level is as true of the corporate or the political (whether ballot or revo) levels. But I’m not giving up—on any and every level, we need to fix this!

Re:

Ever-greater

I singled out this word not because it’d be false: arguably, the lure of consumerism, luxury and gilded cages is increasing (even though the phrase “gilded cage” is as old as Aesop). But because you argued for a game-theoretical framework where my participation (in “refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle”) is inherently linked to rewards for non-participants. Me not drinking soda or littering somehow benefits those who stand to gain from soda or littering. This is one of several reasons why this particular game model is not applicable here.

The capitilist engines of destruction are helped by which:

Refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle?

Non-participation in refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle?

Obviously the latter more than the former. So don’t preach that.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

I’m not going to sign off on a defense of...

Fine by me as that is not at all my argument.

Either I'm incabable of expressing myself with sufficientbclarity or the problem lies elsewhere. I'm sensing a pattern, however. And it's crossing annoyance thresholds.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

that doesn’t mean that Leonard is legitimate in arguing against people refraining from littering

She is not. You misread her too.

The quote again, with emphasis:

Framing environmental deterioration as the result of poor individual choices—littering, leaving the lights on when we leave a room, failing to car-pool—not only distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of environmental decline. It also removes these issues from the political realm to the personal, implying that the solution is in our personal choices rather than in better policies, business practices, and structural context.

It's not the actions Leonard criticises but the framing, for the reasons stated.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

Everything you say on the futility of participation at the consumer level is as true of the corporate or the political (whether ballot or revo) levels.

False.

The dynamics differ offering different capabilities (and failure modes).

Markets respond principally to supply and demand, as well as monopoly powers.

Politics responds to political influence, votes, political contributions, and public discourse, but is regulated by legislation, constitutions, common law, precedent, tradition, and other factors.

Each has failure modes. For markets, externalities, fraud, coercion, #GreshamsLaw, #JevonsLaw. These all work directly against "personal responsibility" reforms.

Politics suffers from corruption, influence, capture, and other factors but at least presents a different set of mechanisms for correction than markets alone.

Maket failures aren't resolved by marketng them harder.

Political and regulatory change aren't easy, simple, or guaranteed. But the represent capabilities markets and "individual responsibility" alone simply do not and cannot offer.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

Collective action is made by people, just like cutting down on individual littering, driving, and smoking is.

Law, regulation, constitional rights & obligations, and court precedent, which also result from colectve action, are codified and backed by legal sanction.

"Individual responsibility" is not.

Collective action resulting in newly codified rights, resonsibilities, torts, and standing create a hard floor.

The "individual reponsibility" market mechanism creates a bifurcated market:

Cooperators, who pay more and receive less (in real economic, almost always financial terms).
Defectors, who pay less and receive more.

Those roles apply to both producers and consumers.

Markets are not only inherently amoral but immoral, absent restiction and regulation.

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

And it’s crossing annoyance thresholds.

This has been a very provocative and frustrating discussion on my end too. I feel misread and strawdolled.

You come across as repeatedly responding to me as if I were a complete randian minarchist saying “don’t vote, don’t organize, don’t do actions — just leave it to consumers to behave responsibility and it’s fine.” Since I am saying the exact opposite of that, then yeah, there’s a frustrating expression/clarity issue. I am saying “DO vote, DO organize, DO direct action. Also don’t litter.”

As far as your position, it comes across as being that ANY attempt at one person doing one thing slightly less harmfully/wastefully is not only

improductive/pointless, but actually
actively counterproductive/harmful

Since you said that you were off the soda and on the RRRR, that apparently and hopefully can’t be what you mean. So yes, please, be careful and clear with your messaging around this.

I have encountered many people “downstream” from discussions like this who have gotten the takeaway that RRRR is pointless, dumb, harmful and a fool’s game. Please help change their minds.

The reason you come across as having that message is that you write things like “the ‘individual reponsibility’ market mechanism creates defectors, who pay less and receive more”. Which, OK, payout matrix time:

A defects, B defects: awful, a lot of littering
A cooperates, B defects: half the littering
A cooperate, B cooperates: neither litters, yay!

Neither the amount of defection, impact of defection, or rewards for defection are direct functions of the presence of cooperators. If by “cooperation” we mean lowered consumtion of things like burgers, soda and cars.

When the product has a negative externality we obv want to participate in lowering the demand for it by refusing it.

Taking your statement at face value it’d mean that the correct response to lower defection rates is to… actively defect & encourage defection!? That’s how people gonna read it! They’re gonna be like “Wow, only way to fight big burger ag fac is by buying more of their burgers, burger-eating is a tool our opposition use freely so we gotta dig in!” Since that can’t be what you mean, then yeah, we need more clarity here!

It’s not the actions Leonard criticises but the framing, for the reasons stated.

So I’ve said over and over again that we can do both. We do need to be careful to not remove these issues from the political realm and to keep identifying and demanding change on a larger scale, including what is out of reach of consumers (including but not limited to business/corporate non-consumer-driven externalities).

And vice versa — for example, there is no central solution to fix the issue of paint getting in the water from consumers cleaning their brushes at home. (Did math stuff for a Canadian water treatment op for a while.) That is an issue that is currently out of reach of the organizations (such as states or syndicates).

Collective action resulting in newly codified rights, resonsibilities, torts, and standing create a hard floor.

I have said that I am in favor of newly codified rights, resonsibilities, torts, and standing over and over and over again. I don’t know how to get from here to there but I am on board with these things. I am not fighting them, not in the way of them, not your enemy re them.

Just as I am in favor of an end to overconsumtion, waste, emissions, littering, cars.

As I said, Jevon’s paradox of increasing rewards for defectors is not a direct function or response to good behavior. I.e. the “me refusing soda does not benefit soda” example.

Collective action has its own problems; I’ve written many thousands of words on the snowdrift dilemma previously, and proposals how to get around it.

One of the points I am trying to say is that things that are described as “collective action” (such as voting, striking or organizing) depend in individuals acting, and things described as “individual actions” (such as RRRR) work better when many people do it — collectively.

That’s what I mean by the two tracks being in some ways the same.

False.

The dynamics differ offering different capabilities (and failure modes).

I should’ve been explicit that I meant the same in this particular regard.

And I have beem explicit that they differ in other regards which is why I’ve been saying both.

Market failures aren’t resolved by marketing them harder.

Man, I wish I had finished writing that book called “market failures” I put on my “someday/maybe” list 20 years ago. You are preaching to the choir on this, which I thought you knew? Markets suck! And putting as heavy of an emphasis as I do on lowering consumtion, on refuse, is not “marketing harder”.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

This has been a very provocative and frustrating discussion on my end too. I feel misread and strawdolled.

That's mutual then.

I know you're not an idiot. I hope I'm not.

I'm not sure if you're a nonnative English speaker. IIRC you're in Sweden. Linguistic nuance can be lost, though you strike me as quite fluent.

I've taken to responding to individual points separately --- this makes isolating disagreement, or agreement, more straightforward. Mastodon (or Pleroma or Glitch.soc) isn't mutt.

On to other points ....

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

I’m not sure if you’re a nonnative English speaker. IIRC you’re in Sweden. Linguistic nuance can be lost, though you strike me as quite fluent.

You already favorited this post: https://idiomdrottning.org/notice/A0xDN236NSjs8C4H0S

I feel like you keep skimming what I write. I wanna be concise and brief but then I get misread. So I end up repeating myself in these huge boring posts.

I already did address the “it’s the framing, not the actions” — and how it’s hard to see the Jevon line, game theory argument as being about framing rather than about what you referred to as compliance, which I understood to mean actions such as not littering, not leaving the lights on, not unnecessarily driving.

Sandra: “Swedish is ostensibly my L1. On paper at least… 🥦”

Sandra (@[email protected]): “Swedish is ostensibly my L1. On paper at least… 🥦”

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

FTR we both know that’s ridiculous.

I am trying to resolve the argument by expressing how I am (mis?)interpreting you, and that is: as if you were responding to my “we should do both: act responsibly individually and collectively” with “how dare you say people should not act collectively” and also with “all responsible individual action is creating bigger rewards for those who don’t comply; by reducing neg ext you are by Jevon’s law increasing net neg ext”.

If you don’t mean those two things (which, I hope you don’t) please clarify.

I’m repeating myself at this point.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

You already favorited this post

Clearly I need to up my meds as they're not fully masking reality. I thought I remembered you saying something along these lines.

(I read too damned much. I too often find myself reading my own stuff I have no memory at all of....)

And I'm also trying to balance clarity and conciseness, and losing to verbosity. Apologies.

The Jevons, Gresham, and game theory arguments all concern why framing to include only individual action, and exclude ssystemic response, is inadequate. Since you accept the conclusion, the argument is less critical, though I hope you see tthe value and relevance.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

You come across as repeatedly responding to me as if I were a complete randian minarchist ...

FTR we both know that's ridiculous.

What I'm trying to convey is that you're repeatedly responding to views that aren't mine. Or Annie Leonard's as I understand her.

"Are you still beating your wife?"

Mu: question is incorrectly premised. It is invalid.

If I tell you two or three or four times that you're misrepresenting me and my views, though, I've got to question merits of the discussion.

saying “don’t vote, don’t organize, ...

No.

It's not that I think you're arguing that, its that that isn't the argument.

You entered this thread saying:

Really frustrates me when individuals/consumers tries to pass the buck, saying things like “oh we can still have cheeseburgers and cigarettes, ...

https://idiomdrottning.org/objects/1435be53-c2e7-4384-bdfd-c9f87d81b27d

And as I've just responded, it's not the DOING, it's the FRAMING.

https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/105370263698733810

Sandra: “@dredmorbius Really frustrates me when individuals/consumers tries to pass the buck, saying things like “oh we can still have cheeseburgers and cigarettes, the problem is Roxxon Oil Corporation.” E...”

Sandra (@[email protected]): “@dredmorbius Really frustrates me when individuals/consumers tries to pass the buck, saying things like “oh we can still have cheeseburgers and cigarettes, the problem is Roxxon Oil Corporation.” E...”

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

it comes across as being that ANY attempt at one person doing one thing slightly less harmfully/wastefully ...

Again, FRAMING not DOING.

Though in the doing, there's the problem of the paradox of composition: what holds true for the part may break down for the whole.

And under open-market conditions, that seems inevitable for individual action.

Successful sustainability will require reduced consumption --- the doing. Practicing that, in addition to signalling, also builds experience and understanding. But again, the path there won't come by voluntary restraint.

I'm not sure it will come from dictat or fiat either --- peope have a hard tendency to resist even sensible and self-benefitting measures (masks, quarantines, emissions controls, vaccinations). And yet you find antimaskers, covid-partiers, antivaxxers, rolling coal.

I'm not sure what the solution-shaped object is, frankly. Though I'm pretty sure of a few things it's not.

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

Again, FRAMING not DOING.

Communication is also action; I’m not sure secretly doing RRRR and never telling anyone else to do RRRR, to steer clear of risk misframing the problem, is a good way forward. The framing I am putting forward is “we should do both”; I’m not onboard with a frame of “policy level action is the only thing we need to do, until that happens then shop on!” If you’re not either, if Leonard’s not either, then please help get that message across.

Though in the doing, there’s the problem of the paradox of composition

Which is one problem shared by action on policy level and action on household level. Yes, different failure states — analogy isn’t identity — but “collective action” is a difficult thing.

I’m not sure what the solution-shaped object is, frankly. Though I’m pretty sure of a few things it’s not.

And as I’ve said: I’m not pretty sure in that regard. I feel like “Hmm, maybe the solution will come from a, b, c, or d, or a mix, or these routes can synergize, or maybe neither will work…” and then I so often see (and Leonard evoked, but isn’t the totality of) the message that “a is the only solution, anyone who promotes c is The Enemy because they misframe the problem away from a”.

And I’m like no…

a (policy level action) is great, probably a better bet than c (consumer-level reduction) alone, but we can’t NOT do c. Let’s do both♥

One example is eating plants: we see so often people go “don’t bother with the plant eating, that’s being pound-foolish when big oil is the culprit” and I’m like yeah, we need to take down oil and huge amounts of fossils are used in big ag so eating plants is a step in the right direction. Not the last or only step. (And, LCA is important so we don’t get plastic bottles of faux egg shipped across the world because we’re over-relying on an overly coarse-grained “plants ftw” heuristic.)

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

payout matrix time ...

Your payout misses numerous elements.

Technologies (disposable packaging being one) act on several dimesions:

Positive and negative effect
Manifestation or latency of these, in obviousness or tempoal delay

You can fill the standard analyst's matrix:

PM  NM
PL   NL

We pick, and markets correctly choose, Positive Manifest (PM) effects, and reject Negative Manifest (NM) ones.

We tend to incorrectly reject PL (latent) effects, and incorrectly accept NL effects.

Adding a dimension of internal vs. external effects further amplifies this. Markets don't act on "economic wealth" or "common weal", but on financialised profit, which, in another inherent systemic effect, seeks to externalise both risks and costs, preferentially by the more politically-powerful party.

(The fact that Smith's Wealth of Nations in large part addresses just this problem ... is lost on many.)

Then there's the commons problem of pollution, straight out of Garrett Hardin.

Upshot: defecting packaging suppliers, goods suppliers, and consumers face reduced coss, fewer constraints, more options, less coordination and regulation overhead ... and bear only a fraction of the polluting externality to boot. Plus they're steeply discounting long-term consequences and rejecting complex value assessments.

Markets suck.

(And I think you agree and accept most of this. I hope I've maybe added additional insights as to the failure mechanism. My only substantive complaint is that your benefits calculus is wrong.)

Longer explanation:
https://old.reddit.com/r/rootsofprogress/comments/jal1e1/technology_and_its_side_effects/geomqki/?context=3

Technology and its side effects

All technologies are ultimately systems interventions and have both positive and negative effects Reductionistically, these can be divided along...

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

Manifest vs Latency: but that’s why I’m saying do LCA!

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

@Sandra LCA: Lifecycle Analysis?

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

Your payout [matrix] misses numerous elements.

I’m the one saying this tangled web is too complex for a game theory matrix!

What I’m trying to say is that the “cooperators cause net more defectors” thing doesn’t make sense to me. Me not driving a car does not mean more cars are driven, me driving a car does not mean less cars are driven.

But I’m starting to believe that you are doing “reply as you read” instead of replying to the post as a whole.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

@Sandra Guilty as charged on the "reply as you read" for today's batch. Yesterday I'd read through repeatedly before responding.

Your main post today was closer to understanding my argument than the earlier one.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

@Sandra On payouts, matrices, and dynamics: This may reflect different experiences, reasoning, and thinking through the problem space.

I've especially come to believe that Jevons and Gresham, especially Gresham, are hugely underappreciated dynamics within economics. Both lead to startlingly nonintuitive conclusions, and upend quite a bit of other economic understanding and common sense / conventional wisdom.

Particularly in the distinction between individual action vs. market-wide, or short-term vs. long-term effects.

Difficult to explain concisely, even in an over-long toot.

I probably shouldn't even mention Le Chatlier's principle...

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

Two examples: lighting and cars.

Both perfect illustrations of Jevon; and why Jevon doesn’t apply to anti-consumerism. Darkness and keeping the light off doesn’t lead to more light used and more spent on lightning (efficiency of led fixtures did that). Car refusal / non-driving doesn’t lead to more roads or more lithium/fossiles.

Leaky, yes: as acknowledged all along. Actively harming us and helping the enemy: remains to be shown. Jevon: orthogonal.

I’m not familiar with the “snowdrift dilemma”.

Here is my writing on it: https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/problems-with-crowdmatching-proposing-an-alternative/474

LCA: Lifecycle Analysis?

Yes.

To be absolutely clear, “in a way that rejects even contemplating the possibility” refers not to you but a very common trope / rhetorical line I frequently see employed.

This is the most frustrating part. Leonard’s framing (and some of the things you’ve written in this thread) is dismissive of consumer level actions. She comes across as making fun of turning off the light, or alternatives to cars.

Which downstream is going to get distortedly echoed as “lol have another burger b/c individual action is pointless lifestylism”. (Yes, I’ve encountered that many times.)

I and others reply with “that’s not right, we need both” — with, right from the start, heavy emphasis on the “both”, to carefully keep policy-level change in the frame, and not let consumer action be at the expense of policy change.

Seems like I have to thread on eggshells every time we mention some consumer level change or people will come with the anti-“saint”-ism, “purity can fuck off” rhetoric. Not that I or anyone else who’s with me on this wants to elide the policy level from the frame; we’re right there withcha on signing off on those policy proposals.

The first IPCC report came in in the nineties and the promised ship of “collective action” still hasn’t come in yet. A guy who supports drilling for fossils won the primary! (Whom ofc in the general election I’m glad people voted for since the greater evil is even worse. A greater evil who still got over 70 mil votes.) Collective action itself is leaky is the problem.

As dismissive as you and Leonard sometimes come across re what you call “individual action”, I’m sometimes just as pessimistic re all routes. But I still want to keep the fight up on all fronts. In policy and in our own lives through RRRR.

But it seems like everytime I mention consumer level change I need to bring in the “oh, and policy level change of course” while you’ve seemingly been actively opposed to consumer level change. And I’m like “holy shit the call is coming from inside the house — our own supposed allies are dismissive of, and sabotaging, our [feeble, insufficient and leaky as they may be] efforts!”

You .. buried the lede well at the time

Me in that original four-sentence post: “EVERYONE needs to step the fuck up re this! Corporations, goverments […]”. Me in the very next post: “Why not both? ← Yeah, that’s exactly how I feel. Yes, hold the big movers responsible […]”. Next post after that: “both are needed”, and next post after that: “Great, I’m withcha and I’d love to join forces on getting there” and next post after that “Consumers are the victims and I don’t want to victim blame” and next post after that “Storm the (corporate) palace? Yes, OK, if that’s your plan, please do that and what can I do to help” and next post after that “I can’t stand the “vote with your wallet” non-solution.” and next post “Not to imply that company & govt are allowed to wait until we’ve done that”.

I’ve been saying it all along, over and over, getting more and more frustrated that the “both” part wasn’t getting heard. (Which you called ridiculous. And yet kept arguing as if I wasn’t saying that until it finally got through and then DING DING.)

Meanwhile, you are saying things like

The tactic as one of achieving the goal of ending negative externalising actions is utterly ineffective.

So while we are going “both” what I was seeing from you yesterday was “No take! Only throw!”

Problems with crowdmatching + proposing an alternative

Dear Snowdrift.coop, you are so good at identifying game theory problems but you are so vague about how the crowdmatching system would adress that. It seems to me that it will just amplify the problems. I’m going to go over the issues and also propose an alternative protocol for Snowdrift.coop to adapt. You can even keep the “Snowdrift” name! ❤ Some problems with the crowdmatching models, and you’ve already identified these on your wiki, are: Niche projects get pennies. Might as ...

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

Both perfect illustrations of Jevon; and why Jevon doesn’t apply to anti-consumerism.
Fair point, and I may need to reffine that argment, or even (gasp!) abandon it.

I think in the producer case especally, though it can be made to stick, with significant examples.

Leonard’s framing ...

I owe her piece a solid re-reading, it's ben a few years. I don't recall her argument as you're expressing it. Rather she's highlighting corporate access to the behaviour- and mindset-shaping propaganda bullhorns of marketing and advertising.

consumer level change ...

This is quite accessible for many, but with equal valdity, not a feasibe option for numerous others. Economist Emma Rothschild (and yes, of the family) notes that economic liberty of choice is predicated on sufficiency, and that poverty is in very large part poverty of options. There are no good choices, only less bad ones, with drastic consequences for any error. The "personal reponsibility" mantra in that ccontext simply becomes a cruel bully.

... purity ...

Also not aimed at you, but again rhetoric I've seen far to often and have no patience for. I do think it would help you to understand and inteernalise why the objection exists.

The first IPCC report came in in the nineties...

No kidding. I was a bright-tailed, bushy-eyed audience member in hearings and seminars at the time exited that things were finally getting done! Now how'd I get so cynical?

I may spin collective action out to its own thread.

And I'm decidedly pessimistic myslf. Again: not closing off routes is key. Neither personal, collective, nor others.

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

I don’t recall her argument as you’re expressing it.

It’s right there in the paragraph you excerpted: “implying that the solution is in our personal choices rather than in better policies”.

I disagree with her seeming assuredness that our personal choices are wholly irrelevant as far as choices go — the solution might to be in both. In the interest of keeping all the avenues for change open.

poverty of options

Which is why I wrote yesterday: “I am privileged and grateful to have access to potable tap water. It’s difficult for a lot of people to have access to clean drink.”

What is RRRR for someone is relative to their situation.

purity rhetoric I’ve seen far to often and have no patience for

But I do defend the rhetoric of “There is still a lot of things a lot of consumers [in our respective countries] could do a lot better right here right now”. I reject framing it as the only change that needs to happen, or even as the biggest hanging fruit. That’s gonna have to be policy level (and something serious, not a joke like cap and trade).

The “personal reponsibility” mantra in that ccontext simply becomes a cruel bully.

Recommendations and even harsh admonitions are context-specific. I personally live in a place that’s guilty of huge-factory, unsustainable animal ag so for me and others in a similar situation the “eat plants instead!” admonition is appropriate. In a global context the average carbon footprint of individual consumers [again, not to let business off the hook! but for purps of keeping more than one front open] here is absolutely sick. There’s a lot of things that a lot of people who read this can do right here and right now to — in the aggregate — make a huge difference. (America even worse of course, by a factor of two.)

But that’s the advice I got — by way of the “don’t smoke in the nursery” editorial I read 15 years ago — sometimes harsh admonitions can be a driver of change. I don’t know if that’s bad or good advice. It’s hard to stay silent when people —myself included— are messing up the planet. Staying silent keeps the emissions/littering/driving normalized.

I do think it would help you to understand and inteernalise why the objection exists.

The objection exists for many reasons, one of them being “people get defensive af and then they close off”. Hence the eggshells. Hence the trying to be extremely explicit and trying to establish the “both” and yet be read as burying the lede.

I absolutely am reining it in. I get that you don’t catch a lot of flies with vinegar.

But when the conversation is on a meta level—like Leonard and you here, coming across as “the discourse should only be on policy, never ever on personal”—that type of meta-advice can and does trickle down to a lot of people making a lot of really bad personal choices down the line. I need to speak up against that. I need to defend the “please make good personal choices” rhetoric. I guess that makes me a meta-bully…!?

As far as what would help you…
Our last argument on here, a month or so ago, you came across as writing more than reading, which lead to seeming patronizing, not really listening, and missing things. And that applies to this argument too.

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

@dredmorbius Small aside re this:

Rather she’s highlighting corporate access to the behaviour- and mindset-shaping propaganda bullhorns of marketing and advertising.

That is indeed a terrifying and effective machine. However: corporations also have access to the policy level through lobbyism and finance (and means even shadier than those, not that those are acceptable). So it’s uphill no matter what the front.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

@Sandra Truth.

Business can buy votes.

Collective action is votes.

This gives us a market-equivalence metric: your direct-action group's value to a pol should be at least the opportunity cost of the votes it can deliver.

Probably a word-of-mouth media value as well.

(Just because markets are evil doesn't mean we cannot speak their language.)

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

@Sandra 2020 US presidential election:

$10.8 billion spent
155.3 million votes cast
$69.5/vote, mean

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/whats-the-cost-per-vote-to-become-us-president/ar-BB19UyMa

What's the cost per vote to become US president?

Will Biden and Trump spend as much per vote as Obama in 2008, or as little as Trump in 2016?

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

@Sandra Proper analysis should be cost per marginal vote.

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

Paying to get particular people in office is a huge problem.

I am even more concerned about paying to get particular decisions made by whomever happens to be in office. Especially for underdiscussed or niche topics like tech, or under-understood and complicated topics like climate change.

To me this became clear when we were doing anti–software-patent activism here in the EU. Consumers don’t want software patents. Programmers don’t want software patents. Basically only the lawyers and their lobbyist orgs wanted it.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

@Sandra The intersection of politics and economics is fascinating. And by fascinating I of course mean terrifying.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

the correct response to lower defection rates is to… actively defect & encourage defection!?

No.

It's to make defection really, painfully expensive.

And you do that by changing the rules of the game. Laws. Moral codes. Making financing or insurance or insurance unavailable.

(It's not a little ironic that many of these changes strongly resemble tactics long used in oppressing and sidelining underprivileged minorities.)

A great example comes from Nick Kristof's stories last week on a Canadian adult-entertainment establishment with perhaps an insufficiently adult aspect (among other flaws).

Kristof didn't appeal to a bunch of wankers to abstain. He documented a case for legal inquiries, and convinced the online payments duopoly to withdraw their services. Cue tasteless old joke on hormone synthesis.

Remarkably effective so far.

Defectors ... don't get paid. Full stop.

That is shifting (and internalising) the cost curve.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

If by “cooperation” we mean lowered consumtion of things like burgers, soda and cars.

Emphatic "YES!"

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

Taking your statement at face value it’d mean that the correct response to lower defection rates is to… actively defect & encourage defection!?

No, it's that shifting demand is hard.

I wish that this weren't so. I used to implicitly believe it wasn't. I've come to believe otherwise based on numerous examples.

Markets reflect several factors. Financial costs and benefits. Behavioural norms. Information. Ignorance. Manipulation. Structural imperatives.

(E.g., the typical American might really like to not need to own a car, except that life without one is extraordinarily chalenging. Built environment and institutions create a structural imperatve.)

These can be shifted, though that takes time and (usually) money. Shifts tend to go only so far. And the tend to have preferred routes and directions.

Changing behaviour at national or international levels is exceedingly hard. The environmental movement's tried for about 50 years now (with precursors dating back another 50--100).

It's had some successes, but largely through regulation, lawsuits, treaties, and insurance --- political, legal, and market mechanisms. And technically, the first steps were pretty easy and obvious (see that P/N vs. M/L matrix): not dumping raw sewage, filling streets with trash, skies with soot, fish with mercury, children with lead, lungs with asbestos ... was a mostly easy sell?

Except where it was violently opposed by industry and power ....

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

we can do both. We do need to be careful to not remove these issues from the political realm and to keep identifying and demanding change on a larger scale ...

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is what I've been trying to communicate.

Take RRRR actions. Encourage others to. Identify obstructions tto ddoing so and remove them.

But maintain the overarching frame that the issue is fundamentally systemic, structural, political, and communal. And not simply "bad individual choices"

With this, I think (and hope) we can declare agreement. I'm going to address aditional points, 'coz you've got me in a lather.

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

DING DING DING

This is what I have been saying since the first post.

https://idiomdrottning.org/notice/A25hmo8OpxZo6vr13Q https://idiomdrottning.org/notice/A25qhs6ZXwdIZ4ijqq

We need both.

To which you seemingly replied that one of the two was actively counter-productive and the cause of net defection and denying ourselves the enemy’s tools.

Calm down from the lather and read what I have instead of writing as you go. And don’t strawdoll me any more.

Sandra: “@dredmorbius Really frustrates me when individuals/consumers tries to pass the buck, saying things like “oh we can still have cheeseburgers and cigarettes, the problem is Roxxon Oil Corporation.” E...”

Sandra (@[email protected]): “@dredmorbius Really frustrates me when individuals/consumers tries to pass the buck, saying things like “oh we can still have cheeseburgers and cigarettes, the problem is Roxxon Oil Corporation.” E...”

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

My frame is that the problem rests on three legs.

policy
economy (capital / market)
individual behavior

Most likely all three need to change. Hopefully (but not bloody likely) only one of the three.

I like your suggestions for the paint in water problem and should’ve phrased it as “So far, a central solution to the paint in water hasn’t been implemented and given the current circumstances, everyone needs to stop putting paint in water to the best of their ability”.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

@Sandra Throw Lessig a bone and add Code (or, generalised, technology).

But yes, three or four legs.

Or is this Swiss Cheese / Defence in Depth?

Or ... OODA.

So many frameworks. So little time.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

This is what I have been saying since the first post.

You .. buried the lede well at the time
;-)

Really frustrates me when individuals/consumers tries to pass the buck

https://idiomdrottning.org/objects/1435be53-c2e7-4384-bdfd-c9f87d81b27d

And I tried to offer what I saw a conditioned agreement:

https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/105362237892119660

Sandra: “@dredmorbius Really frustrates me when individuals/consumers tries to pass the buck, saying things like “oh we can still have cheeseburgers and cigarettes, the problem is Roxxon Oil Corporation.” E...”

Sandra (@[email protected]): “@dredmorbius Really frustrates me when individuals/consumers tries to pass the buck, saying things like “oh we can still have cheeseburgers and cigarettes, the problem is Roxxon Oil Corporation.” E...”

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

there is no central solution to fix the issue of paint getting in the water from consumers cleaning their brushes at home.

Takling this as a side case:

Private paint sales could be prohibited and all painting be through licenced, certified, and bonded paint technicians trained in disposal.
Paints could be reformulated to non-toxic standards. Optionally, consumer paints only, where professional paints might exceed standards. (Envronmental paint reformulation and regulation has been a long-standing reality, notably lead, also offgassing.)
Taggents might be added to paints (by manufacturer, retailer, customer), and fines (or rebates) allocated based an taggent detection rates. (Extra credit: abuse potential....)
Increased waste-stream monitoring, to point-of-injection if necessary. (See extra credit above.)
YC backs a BCaaS (brush-cleaning as a service) venture to address the obvious growth opportunity, painting the town (but not the sewers or waterways).
Tax paint manufacturers, vendors, and sales for wastewater / stormwater system upgrades.

See the spraypaint industry for a similar set of concerns, mostly around unauthorised application.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

I have said that I am in favor of newly codified rights, responsibilities, torts, and standing over and over and over again. I don’t know how to get from here to there.

Ad I don't know either.

But I'm 100% certain that a guaranteed way NOT to get there from here is to permit the discussion to be framed in a way that rejects even contemplating the possibility.

Again, Leonard's principle point.

Sandra Dec 13, 2020

permit the discussion to be framed in a way that rejects even contemplating the possibility.

And I asked you to not strawdoll me anymore. I have consistently from the first few posts and repeatedly throughout said that government and capital and policy are levels where change does need to happen, and I have clearly and explicity affirmed contemplating both ballot and sabot as conceivable routes.

What I ask in addition (not “instead of”) is to not frame the discussion in a way where consumer-level or individual-level action (such as RRRR, emph on refuse) is depicted as counter-productive or actively harmful.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

@Sandra To be absolutely clear, "in a way that rejects even contemplating the possibility" refers not to you but a very common trope / rhetorical line I frequently see employed.

I understand you're not doing this yourself.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

Jevon’s paradox of increasing rewards for defectors is not a direct function or response to good behavior.

I'm not so sanguine.

Two examples: lighting and cars.

I'm sitting in a room with ten lamps. Nine of them together barely equal the power consumption (and greatly exceed the light output) of the one 50W halogen desk lamp. LED efficiency is really something.

And yes, I turn off lights in empty rooms.

But what I increasingly see are lighting applications, and intensities, which would have been unheard of a few decades ago, including pesistent outdoor lighting, displays, and usages previously unattainable. Some of that's a real quality of life improvement. Much is not.

Cars, a transportation enabler, have resulted in built landscapes that increase reiance and requirements for transportation. They've made movement harder. And increased congestion to the point that horses can travel faster in many regions. (Albeit at higher cost, and with solid and liquid waste issues and biofuel/human food contention.)

Cars outnumber people in some regions.

China used to be a nation of bikes and bikers.

These aren't quite behaviour shifts, though they're close.

Jevon's a subtle bastard.

I think Gresham's who you're looking for though. "A gresham's la of" or "sort of gresham's law" makes an interesting DDG web, Google Books, or Google Scholar search. Many regulatory / behaviour / standards examples.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

Collective action has its own problems; I’ve written many thousands of words on the snowdrift dilemma previously, and proposals how to get around it.

I'm not familiar with the "snowdrift dilemma". This?

https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/snowdrift-dilemma

Coordination, free-riding, compensation, skills/ability matching..

On collective action, of course, Mancur Olson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson

(Happy to hear other recommendations.)

Snowdrift Wiki - The Snowdrift Dilemma

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

things that are described as “collective action” ... work better when many people do it — collectively.

Well, yeah.

But note that when pitted against market mechanisms, collective action has an inherent disadvantage in that market actions are the result of uncoordinated self-serving individual actions. At least nominaly.

The problem (to retread what we've both acknowledged) is that markets have failures, biases, control vulnerabilities, and benefit both specific classes and mindsets or personalities (notably: psychopathic ones) preferentially.

The problem of coordinating collective action generally is politics, a subject I increasingly regret not studying more extensively in school.

William Ophuls (Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity, Plato's Revenge, and other books) specifically looks at politics of environmental isues and sustainablity, and ... it's sobering.

1/

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

@Sandra And while it doesn't really address the collective-action-response element, this description of the political situation in 40 BCE Rome really hammers home to me how profoundly durable the dynamics of oligarchs vs. plebes has been.

https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jones_augustus_the_breakdown_of_the_republic/

Pointedly; the durability is ssuch that the dynamic transcends any one ideology. This is at a minimum human nature, if not an even deeper emergent systems property.

Another reason "mere" behavioural modifications strike me as exceedingly naive. Again: the game itself must be changed.

2/end/

A.H.M. Jones, "Augustus", The Breakdown of the Republic (1970)

The following is the introduction to Arnold Hugh Martin Jones' 1970 biography of the Roman emperor...

reddit

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 13, 2020

Man, I wish I had finished writing that book called “market failures” I put on my “someday/maybe” list 20 years ago.

That makes two of us. Even rough notes / reading list would be appreciated, in all sincerity.

You are preaching to the choir on this, which I thought you knew? Markets suck!

I know this, yes, which maes the crosstalking / miscommunication that much more frustratig. (I'm hoping we've worked through that)

And putting as heavy of an emphasis as I do on lowering consumption, on refuse, is not “marketing harder”.

In the sense that this is a (leaky) demand modification, it is operating through the market mechanism.

And I'll note in fairness that several options I've suggested (bonds, insurance, taxes) are also principally engaging markets (via internaised costs), though others (straight bans, regulation) don't. My hope is that my suggestions might be less leaky.

OK, now to see how you've responded to this blizzard....

Sandra Dec 12, 2020

An analogy to carbon footprint on the consumer level I read was smoking tobacco around young children. (Still legal in some jurisdictions.) This used to be much more common. What changed was a couple of things:

Education/information

Voluntary participation (in refraining)

Social pressures

That is why I argue for doing what we can. Every single cigarette refused/refrained from inside every single nursery helps.

As a counter example, when smoking in bars was made illegal in the town I lived in as a teen and in my twenties, my friends were so happy about it. “But… but you smoked every week in here?” I said. But they hadn’t been able to change on their own. The law helped them.

That is why I also argue for change at the policy level. That is likely what is needed.

So don’t get me wrong here. I’m not working against policy level change. I’m all for it.

Just don’t sabotage each other on the way there. Don’t tell Jane Doe on Calle de Rue Boulevard Street 42 that her refusal to smoke in her nursery is harming collective effort to legislate against tobacco and that it’s her civic duty to light one up lest defectors face ever-greater rewards.

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Dec 12, 2020

@Sandra Re: controlled substances and addiction.

It's not the substance but the dynamic, specifically of higher (short-term, apparent, perceived) payoff function based on a willpower-alone approach.

I tried hunting down the title, no luck. Never read the book, it was just sitting out on a table at the bookstore. I can visualise just where and when (sadly the shop is long gone and far away). The description left an impression.

Actions which require perfect volitional compliance in the face of ever-greater rewards for defection are doomed. That's the point. Whether or not they're chemically based is irrelevant.

My addictions such as they are are exceedingly minor.