Regulated ethics

[Blowtus]

I am someone who cares about the state of the world, humanity, and the future. Some people consider me a hypocrite because I do not act in a way compatible with how I wish the world was. I drive a smelly, fuel sucking car, ride a trailbike, eat a fair portion of meat, etc. I strongly support measures that would, on the face of it, impact my present life in a negative way.

Am I missing a piece of the picture? It seems that most who support various global aims try to live a life more in line with those aims, and those who don't live such a life resist the 'negative' (as it relates to the individual, at that specific time) changes that would have to occur for those aims to be realised.

I can't see the point of 'going it alone'. Surely if I just wanted to cause the least damage to the place it'd be more successful just to suicide? 'Negative' change (higher cost of living, less freedom of movement, etc) would seem far less negative, easier to deal with, when everyone in a society participates.

Do others perhaps lack a faith in the potential of 'big government'? I see no other option other than to hope it can be useful and try to help it become so.

Sorry if this all seems a little directionless... few ideas I've thought about for a while, am just interested in others thoughts on the matter.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I am someone who cares about the state of the world, humanity, and the future. Some people consider me a hypocrite because I do not act in a way compatible with how I wish the world was. I drive a smelly, fuel sucking car, ride a trailbike, eat a fair portion of meat, etc. I strongly support measures that would, on the face of it, impact my present life in a negative way.

Am I missing a piece of the picture? It seems that most who support various global aims try to live a life more in line with those aims, and those who don't live such a life resist the 'negative' (as it relates to the individual, at that specific time) changes that would have to occur for those aims to be realised.

I can't see the point of 'going it alone'. Surely if I just wanted to cause the least damage to the place it'd be more successful just to suicide? 'Negative' change (higher cost of living, less freedom of movement, etc) would seem far less negative, easier to deal with, when everyone in a society participates.

Do others perhaps lack a faith in the potential of 'big government'? I see no other option other than to hope it can be useful and try to help it become so.

Sorry if this all seems a little directionless... few ideas I've thought about for a while, am just interested in others thoughts on the matter.

Would you vote for a party that would enforce tough measures to protect the environment, that would inconvenience you? The trouble is, most people just want to carry on with their ecologically unsustainable lifestyles and will elect only a party that allows that. On the other hand, if they were ordered by government to take certain measures, pay more on fuel, recycle more, use less electricity, not pave over your garden nor cut down trees, etc, they would do it, as you suggest you would, because it was the law and applied to everyone. Unfortuately democracy is unlikely to provide a government that will do enough to prevent ecological disaster. It really is up to the individual to make a difference. En masse, humans always make the wrong descisions, will you join them?

 

[Blowtus]

No, that's one of my vague points - for whatever reason it seems I might be one of the few that have little interest in individual measures, but would love to be able to vote for a party who would enforce society wide measures. It seems a nice, useful path between the two extremes to me, I just don't understand why it doesn't seem so to others