NationStates Jolt Archive

The title is just a bit of sarcastic.

Basically, I'm getting sick and tired of people doing trivial things, that cost them very little, and acting like they've saved the world.

"I helped a blind man across the street, I'm great". No, you just aren't a prick, most decent people would do this.
"I found a wallet on the street, and didn't take the money out, and handed it to the police". Once again, nice work, you aren't a prick, but no medal for you.

The ones that bugs me the most is all this greeny hypocrisy. I'm carbon neutral, because I've paid money for Gluk Gluk to get paid a minimum wage and plat some trees in Africa. Lets hop in my SUV to my private jet.

Just for the record. I myself am not trying to save the world. I consume a bit less than average for a westerner, but I'm a westerner. Unless I cut my consumption to 20% or less, I'm still a complete glutton. I don't go to protests, I don't recycle everything, etc. I accept I'm an average guy.

So, I guess my whole point is, why do people think they are being so nice and fantastic, when all they are doing is not being pricks. How do people get sucked in to thinking they are being really great, when they aren't making any sacrifices? I don't want everybody to suddenly go out and hate themselves, but stop all this backslapping about how great you are, and look at the truth.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

If everyone did what they were doing, the impact would be huge. They're proud of themselves for taking some initiative and at least trying to be part of the solution.

And really if you look at it, the proponents of "Save the Earth" really are laughable at that. Not that I'm against everyone doing their part, but it's exactly what you are saying. It's something any decent person would do. Just because you are doing no evil does not mean you are doing good. You are simply stationary.

To fly a jet to a "Save the Earth" conference or some other appearance they make in order to tell us how much of a shitty job we are doing about taking care of the planet, they burn hundreds of gallons of aviation fuel, generating more pollution per capita than most people on the planet generate in a year.

And that's just one jet, one trip. Think of how many celebrities do so called "charity work." How many celebrities (and people in general) do you think own private jets? How many conferences or meetings take place? Do the math. The people at the forefront of the "green policy" are the most likely to be producing the most pollution. Go figure. Yeah, you drive an electric car. Which you plug into your wall to charge. Hmm. Wonder how they make the electricity that powers your car? Fossil fuels. So essentially, you are doing nothing but illusioning yourself.

My case in point.

If a million people did trivial goodness, the total goodness would be far from trivial.

If a million people did trivial goodness, the total goodness would be far from trivial.

But see, that's not my point. I accept that people doing trivial goodness is still good. What really bugs me is people doing their trivial goodness, acting like a legend, but ignoring all the badness they do.

Want to feel great about being carbon neutral? Then sorry, feel crappy that you are wearing clothes that are part of the whole global consumer process that ends up with a sweat shop worker worker for peanuts. Feel crappy that you drive your car, instead of doing a 1 hour walk.

Trivial goodness means accepting trivial badness. And I can tell you this, nearly every westerner, due to our consumerist ways, are doing much more trivial badness, that any amount of trivial goodness can redeem.

The first instances of behavior designed to change the way the vast majority sees the world are always going to benefit from the inflation of being first.

Better a mass of trivial steps that get more than their rightful share of attention (speaking objectively) than no steps at all. Also, some who are indifferent might see personal gain to be had in dipping into the well of inflated praise for those "doing their part" with little or no sacrifice. If that wins more of the indifferent over toward taking small steps, so much the better.

I agree with you on principle -- the most egregious example of this concept, to me, is the hyperbole associated with the word "hero". Heroes are supposed to be rare, but that's not the case anymore. For example, 9/11 first responders are often cited as heroes. Some of them were. Most were doing their job, as expected. The human ego knows no limits when it comes to receiving praise for either doing what's expected of them or not doing what would make them an asshole. The classic example of the latter is the archetypical macho posturing about "not beating up my girlfriend" that some in the testosterone-fueled crowd (which includes those women who pander to the macho stereotype) see as huge mark in the plus column, when all it is is not being a criminal.

But see, that's not my point. I accept that people doing trivial goodness is still good. What really bugs me is people doing their trivial goodness, acting like a legend, but ignoring all the badness they do.

Want to feel great about being carbon neutral? Then sorry, feel crappy that you are wearing clothes that are part of the whole global consumer process that ends up with a sweat shop worker worker for peanuts. Feel crappy that you drive your car, instead of doing a 1 hour walk.

Trivial goodness means accepting trivial badness. And I can tell you this, nearly every westerner, due to our consumerist was, are doing much more trivial badness, that any amount of trivial goodness can redeem.

Agreed. I recycle, but I shop at Old Navy. I'm still in the red, globally speaking. Problem is, I don't make enough to shop anywhere else unless it's an outlet mall, and even those places are likely sweatshopped. Navigating your global impact can be tricky.

Agreed. I recycle, but I shop at Old Navy. I'm still in the red, globally speaking. Problem is, I don't make enough to shop anywhere else unless it's an outlet mall, and even those places are likely sweatshopped. Navigating your global impact can be tricky.
But you acknowledge your limitations. That's the critical part for me.

I'm no saint. I have a relatively priviliged lifestyle compared to the rest of the world (middle class Australian must put me in the top 5% of the world) and until some big changes happen, I'm not going to be at the vanguard of global change. I'll do the easy things, (change the lightbulbs to fluoros, etc) but no living in a Yurt on subsistence farming yet.

The big problem, going on to the green aspect, of carbon credits, is that the person thinks they've done their job. They can drive their SUV and go on their jet because Gluk Gluk is planting trees. Carbon Trading is not the answer. Lifestyle change is the only way. There's only so many places Gluk Gluk and his friends can plant trees, and the west's carbon footprint is too big.

But see, that's not my point. I accept that people doing trivial goodness is still good. What really bugs me is people doing their trivial goodness, acting like a legend, but ignoring all the badness they do.

Want to feel great about being carbon neutral? Then sorry, feel crappy that you are wearing clothes that are part of the whole global consumer process that ends up with a sweat shop worker worker for peanuts. Feel crappy that you drive your car, instead of doing a 1 hour walk.

Trivial goodness means accepting trivial badness. And I can tell you this, nearly every westerner, due to our consumerist ways, are doing much more trivial badness, that any amount of trivial goodness can redeem.

You're asking people to ignore the good they do that others don't in favour of the bad they do that others do as well. Intent is important; most people do not have the capability to drastically change their lives, but still want to help, a sentiment which is to be commended.

Furthermore, the small good things they are doing are things that few people at this point in time do. The bad things they do are things people have been doing for decades and have become a part of our society. Tell me; if you were to watch a play with stunning performances, would you feel obligated to discuss the fact that there were static backgrounds and props as opposed to a CGI back-screen and fully detailed replicas?

Sometimes we have to overlook the limits of what something is to see what makes it special.

The big problem, going on to the green aspect, of carbon credits, is that the person thinks they've done their job. They can drive their SUV and go on their jet because Gluk Gluk is planting trees. Carbon Trading is not the answer. Lifestyle change is the only way. There's only so many places Gluk Gluk and his friends can plant trees, and the west's carbon footprint is too big.

Anything is better than nothing. Carbon credits aren't the long-term answer, no, but they're certainly better than saying "Eh, if I can't change everything why do anything?"

Anything is better than nothing. Carbon credits aren't the long-term answer, no, but they're certainly better than saying "Eh, if I can't change everything why do anything?"
But the big question here. Does the capacity to buy off the carbon footprint stop people making the real change that is needed because it's Mission Accomplished?

But the big question here. Does the capacity to buy off the carbon footprint stop people making the real change that is needed because it's Mission Accomplished?

I doubt it. It depends on the person, of course, but generally if that's the kind of attitude they have they wouldn't be doing anything as an alternative if they couldn't buy carbon credits.

would you take issue with people destroying the world, one trivial step at a time?

would you take issue with people destroying the world, one trivial step at a time?
Of course. That's really my point. Most of us are destroying the world, 1 trivial step at a time. But if we do a trivial good thing, we believe it is enough to buy off the multitude of bad things.

But we're using the power of rock 'n' roll to change the world, man! Woo!

In all seriousness I get where the OP is coming from on this. People do the most trivial crap imaginable and expect a reward for it when they should be doing that shit anyways. A reward is something special reserved for people and actions that go above and beyond the call of duty. Give everyone a trophy for getting out of bed at some point during the day and the prize is worthless. Saying that everyone is special is just another way of saying that no one is.

It's not enough to just do something, you have to stop for a while and take the time to figure out what the problem is and the best way in which to address it because doing something that won't work is worse than doing nothing at all. People will think the problem is dealt with and may not be very receptive when the problem resurfaces. It also means that time and resources will have been expended on a futile and ineffective approach to said problem and you'll still have to do it right eventually. Better to take some time when you can to plan out your attack when you can.

By the way, I hate to break it to you but recycling and the landfill crisis is a little bit of bullshit. Recycling paper is actually bad for the environment and we are nowhere near out of space to safely dispose of refuse. You should recycle metals because that is actually profitable and you can make some cool shit out of plastic bottles like the fleece clothing they sell at Old Navy. Glass comes from sand and there will never be a shortage of dirt.

Another thing, sweatshops exist because they offer the undeveloped world higher wages and easier jobs than scraping an old mine for copper shavings or tilling fields with grandpa's femur. Without those sweatshops that get protested by upper-middle-class white kids in the western world a lot of the dirt-poor brown kids in the third world would be forced into prostitution. So it's bad but compared to what? I know the lesser of two evils is still evil but the solution isn't charity, it isn't shopping and it isn't forcing everyone back to the way things were before we had all of our technology. Life is about moving forward. That's what made life so good for us and that's what will bring our quality of life to the rest of the world and solve our problems.

PS
What was that about "Gluk Gluk"? Seems a tad racist if you ask me.

*snip the good stuff*

By the way, I hate to break it to you but recycling and the landfill crisis is a little bit of bullshit. Recycling paper is actually bad for the environment and we are nowhere near out of space to safely dispose of refuse. You should recycle metals because that is actually profitable and you can make some cool shit out of plastic bottles like the fleece clothing they sell at Old Navy. Glass comes from sand and there will never be a shortage of dirt.

You had me until here. Recycling glass takes much less energy than making new glass -- same as metal.

*snip other good stuff*

And then there's...

What was that about "Gluk Gluk"? Seems a tad racist if you ask me.

Yeah, I second that question. Possible explanation: the historical Aussie treatment of indigenous people is, on a lesser scale, on par with the historical US treatment of indigenous people.

So many people are pricks these days that people think simply NOT being a prick makes them a saint.

Seriously though, if you do good things and then brag about them and expect a reward for it...aren't you kind of missing the point and doing said good things for the wrong reason anyway?

PS
What was that about "Gluk Gluk"? Seems a tad racist if you ask me.
I'm about to sound pretentious. It's a literary device.
It's meant to be. I'm referring to the person who gets someone to plant the tree for them. I'm using the racist tone to further emphasize the selfish 1st world perspective.

Problem is, I don't make enough to shop anywhere else unless it's an outlet mall, and even those places are likely sweatshopped.
Sweatshops, et al, provide sustenance for a big portion of population in poor countries.

Why take their livelyhood away from them? Is it not better to work for a living than die from starvation, even if you're aged 10?

Replacing sweatshops with more costly - and humane, hah! - work conditions would lead into even more poverty and suffering as prices of goods, from near slave labour produced food, clothing and footballs to minerals like iron, would explode....Sure us westernes could still afford our cars, clothes and McBurgers but what would the 3rd world kid and family with sub-sustenance income do when prices of food would rise and available income would drop? Die off? Resort to crime and corruption? Live off the land in completely unsustainable way?

Sweatshops are a necessarly evil in global uneven free market economy.

well its not about being nice and fantastic, or trying to impress anyone, and those who put it in the context of trying to impress each other about it, i certainly see the bitch in that, but lets face it: it IS about the kind of world we all have to live in, and where the air we breathe comes from.

this op, intended to be or not, has got to be the most dog legged around multiple reverse curves excuse i have seen yet for bashing any atempt to give a dam about it.

and i'll cut the slack that it might not have been intended to be, and i certainly do see the basis of it. but hells bells, why discourage what little good anyone is doing, even if they are doing it for all the wrong reasons?

of course turning of a light isn't going to save the world. only policies that favor and encourage development, and more importantly, rapid implimentaion by means available NOW, of cleaner ways of generation the energy it burns and likewise the arteries of transportation, and a number of related issues, can actually do that.

for that to happen, we need to develop a culture that gives decision makers the incentives to do so.

and that, i think, may very well, as the op, almost implies, but doesn't that i can see, quite say, involve a culture less fixated on the illusionary and non existant gratifications of excitement, accumulation, and trying to impress each other.

=^^=
.../\...

By the way, I hate to break it to you but recycling and the landfill crisis is a little bit of bullshit. Recycling paper is actually bad for the environment
I'm gonna have to disagree on that point http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/paper.htm#1
Of course, if you have any counter-evidence I'd be happy to look at it.