Scrap capitalism? *dives out of window*

[Alceste]

Everybody else is doing it. My individual contribution would be irrelevant, so I'd rather maximize my life experience than suffer due to a meaningless ideological gesture.

But I've always been a pragmatist. I admire those who are ideologically-driven, and support and encourage their decision to make personal sacrifices for the larger good. Kudos to them.

I think you underestimate the significance of your actions, just as the proverbial butterfly may underestimate the significance of a wing beat.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think you underestimate the significance of your actions, just as the proverbial butterfly may underestimate the significance of a wing beat.

Yeah, I never bought that crap about a butterfly in China causing a hurricane in the Atlantic either. That just shows an ignorance of the complexity of the actual variables involved in the creation of weather systems.

Yes, I get the metaphor, I just don't think it applies to everything people try to stick it on.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, I never bought that crap about a butterfly in China causing a hurricane in the Atlantic either. That just shows an ignorance of the complexity of the actual variables involved in the creation of weather systems.

Yes, I get the metaphor, I just don't think it applies to everything people try to stick it on.

It certainly applies to this. Your purchasing habits and lifestyle choices impact the lives of people who make what you consume, the environment you live in, the success or failure of the businesses you patronize... I could go on but you get the picture I'm sure. One person in one lifetime can make one heck of a big mess. Can you fix the whole world all by yourself? Obviously not, but it's a pisspoor excuse for wrecking your share.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can you fix the whole world all by yourself? Obviously not, but it's a pisspoor excuse for wrecking your share.

No, but it is a splendid reason for making my piece better for me.

 

[Alceste]

No, but it is a splendid reason for making my piece better for me.

By throwing your waste into somebody else's piece?

 

[Magic Man]

No, but it is a splendid reason for making my piece better for me.

From a purely selfish point of view, sure. I'm just wondering whether you're actually that selfish.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

By throwing your waste into somebody else's piece?

One more piece of trash isn't going to make any difference in a landfill.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

From a purely selfish point of view, sure. I'm just wondering whether you're actually that selfish.

I guess it depends on context. I'm actually a very generous person, but I can afford to be so because I'm pragmatic in contexts where pragmatism outweighs ideology for me. Others may see this as selfish, and I certainly admire their adherence to being ideological and making sacrifices for the betterment of others - assuming that they actually do so in a meaningful way. In my experience, people's espoused idealism is generally nothing more than a rationalization for how they want to live anyway.

 

[Alceste]

One more piece of trash isn't going to make any difference in a landfill.

I meant metaphorical trash. Over the course of a single lifetime, the impact of consuming goods with no concern for environmental imact, human exploitation, economic instability, waste, emissions, water quality, energy consumption, the decline of small business and local economic health and other similar concerns is substantial.

Where I think you've gone wrong is seeing ethical living as a "sacrifice". What, exactly, do you think you would have to give up by (for example) patronizing a locally owned business selling locally produced goods rather than a Walmart? Maybe you can afford to buy a little less tacky, poorly made junk that way, but the community-building dividends and the rejection of business practices that exploit labour and degrade the biosphere more than make up for it.

 

[Alceste]

In my experience, people's espoused idealism is generally nothing more than a rationalization for how they want to live anyway.

Understanding this is no excuse for picking a crappy way to want to live.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Where I think you've gone wrong is seeing ethical living as a "sacrifice". What, exactly, do you think you would have to give up by (for example) patronizing a locally owned business selling locally produced goods rather than a Walmart? Maybe you can afford to buy a little less tacky, poorly made junk that way, but the community-building dividends and the rejection of business practices that exploit labour and degrade the biosphere more than make up for it.

I think where you've gone wrong is in the assumptions you've made about what I've been talking about in this thread. I'm pretty sure we're having two completely different discussions.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Understanding this is no excuse for picking a crappy way to want to live.

No doubt. I don't let anyone else's decisions affect my choice to pick a life which isn't crappy.

 

[Alceste]

I think where you've gone wrong is in the assumptions you've made about what I've been talking about in this thread. I'm pretty sure we're having two completely different discussions.

It's possible. I thought the post that kicked this off was an endorsement of purely selfish consumerism without concern for the human or environmental impact of the business practices of your suppliers, using the justification that since everybody else is doing it, it doesn't really matter if you do it too.

 

[Magic Man]

I guess it depends on context. I'm actually a very generous person, but I can afford to be so because I'm pragmatic in contexts where pragmatism outweighs ideology for me. Others may see this as selfish, and I certainly admire their adherence to being ideological and making sacrifices for the betterment of others - assuming that they actually do so in a meaningful way. In my experience, people's espoused idealism is generally nothing more than a rationalization for how they want to live anyway.

That's doesn't really answer the question, though. The point is from a purely selfish point of view, no one should worry about how their actions affect the future generations or the earth. They should just do what makes them feel good now. However, most people would agree that that's not a very good point of view, and that we need to take care of the environment so that it'll be around in another 100-200 years. But that's a rejection of that selfishness. Are you really saying you embrace that selfishness, or do you think we should do what we can to make sure the earth and humans are still around 100-200 years from now?

 

[Magic Man]

It's possible. I thought the post that kicked this off was an endorsement of purely selfish consumerism without concern for the human or environmental impact of the business practices of your suppliers, using the justification that since everybody else is doing it, it doesn't really matter if you do it too.

That's what I got, too. That's why I'm asking whether he actually believes that it's acceptable for him to do that, or he actually meant something else.

 

[Alceste]

That's what I got, too. That's why I'm asking whether he actually believes that it's acceptable for him to do that, or he actually meant something else.

Maybe he was doing that ironic thing he sometimes does of pretending to think the opposite of what he really thinks.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's doesn't really answer the question, though. The point is from a purely selfish point of view, no one should worry about how their actions affect the future generations or the earth. They should just do what makes them feel good now.

It's not really a question of "should," but of relevance and pragmatism. I don't go out of my way to be wasteful or destructive, and am a natural conservationist and inherently efficient, but I won't make what I consider a meaningless sacrifice purely in the name of idealism. This is a bit broader than what is being discussed, but it is the context in which my comments were made.

However, most people would agree that that's not a very good point of view, and that we need to take care of the environment so that it'll be around in another 100-200 years. But that's a rejection of that selfishness. Are you really saying you embrace that selfishness, or do you think we should do what we can to make sure the earth and humans are still around 100-200 years from now?

Yes, I agree it would be good if "we" took care of the environment. However, I always measure everything between my individual actions against the reality of the actions of the collective. If I determine a particular action of "I" won't impact the inaction of the collective "we," then I'm not going to overly concern myself with what "we" "should" be doing.

Really, the context of my statements were more about taking advantage of capitalism, even if it is unsustainable in its current form and direction, in order to maximize and improve my life, since it is the system I'm embedded in, and any individual actions I take aren't going to mitigate any future damage done by this system. It wasn't really a comment on shopping at Wal-Mart or clubbing baby seals.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Maybe he was doing that ironic thing he sometimes does of pretending to think the opposite of what he really thinks.

If my skills at applying irony as a rhetorical tool have degraded to that point, just take me out back and shoot me.

 

[Magic Man]

It's not really a question of "should," but of relevance and pragmatism. I don't go out of my way to be wasteful or destructive, and am a natural conservationist and inherently efficient, but I won't make what I consider a meaningless sacrifice purely in the name of idealism. This is a bit broader than what is being discussed, but it is the context in which my comments were made.

What would you consider a meaningless sacrifice?

Yes, I agree it would be good if "we" took care of the environment. However, I always measure everything between my individual actions against the reality of the actions of the collective. If I determine a particular action of "I" won't impact the inaction of the collective "we," then I'm not going to overly concern myself with what "we" "should" be doing.

I'm not following. Could you give an example?

Really, the context of my statements were more about taking advantage of capitalism, even if it is unsustainable in its current form and direction, in order to maximize and improve my life, since it is the system I'm embedded in, and any individual actions I take aren't going to mitigate any future damage done by this system. It wasn't really a comment on shopping at Wal-Mart or clubbing baby seals.

What do you mean by "taking advantage of capitalism"? Why don't you think any actions you take will mitigate any future damage done by this system?

 

[Alceste]

If my skills at applying irony as a rhetorical tool have degraded to that point, just take me out back and shoot me.

Don't worry, you're quite adept. It is the internet, after all. I can't see whether you've cocked a sardonic eyebrow or not.