@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!

@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.)

@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.

@Sandra

@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 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.

@dredmorbius

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.

@Sandra

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.

@dredmorbius

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!

Kind of a few missing steps there!

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

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!

@Sandra

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/

@dredmorbius

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:

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!

@Sandra

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.

@dredmorbius

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.

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:

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

@Sandra

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.

@dredmorbius

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”.