Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris2k7
I would be more concerned about where the cups come from in the first place. What resources are being reaped, how much, and what damage is that doing to the environment?
|
People keep making arguments like this. That there are better solutions. I'm not denying that there aren't other things we couldn't be doing that could help solve environmental problems. I could focus on deforestation. I could join greenpeace.
The argument that since there's something better I could be doing somehow justify's doing nothing is pathetic!
But this is the trajedy of the commons. In economics, you can think of it as an overfishing equilibrium. People will continue to fish until it is in their best interest to do so until it is too expensive to fish the last few from the sea, or until they really do just run out. The social equilibrium, is the amount fished whereby society benefits the most - when fish stocks can be maintained continuously at a high level. The problem is that this equilibrium requires regulation, because most individuals will act against the social interest if it in their self interest.
This can be extended to any common, air pollution, forests, land - it's the reason why suburbia exists! It's cheaper for developers to build out, than to build up. No developer has enough power to make a difference. Don't you see? Their argument is that if they don't develop, then somebody else will. And they're right! Someone else would profit. Thus, the tragedy of the commons- all the land is gobbled up creating environmental may-ham (and traffic nightmares). If builders didn't have fire-standards, would they implement them voluntarily? Probably not if nobody else did. But the guess what happens when your neighbor's house catches on fire? Seriously ask the third world squatter villages what happens- the whole slum goes up in smoke.
Nobody wants to stand alone and make a difference, because a. they won't be followed, and b. they would loose out themselves, and no, loneliness is not the tragedy, it is simply, perhaps the justification as to why we ought not to do something, along with the general inconviennce, and perhaps the sheer knowledge that is is unlikely that others will follow, or that we really cannot make a difference. This is probably why you wouldn't waste your time trying to investigate those problems, and is enitirely why I hate "Well, what I would do..." type arguments, because they are completely fraudulent. You might as well be saying "well, what I
wouldn't do" because you're not doing anything! The statisical chances of you having not done something, if you've done nothing, is 100%. If you toss heads on a coin, and I asked you, what is the probability that you've got heads, 100% is the right answer. It's the same reason why when people tell me "Well, I could've done better on that test..." I think to myself, "no, you couldn't have done better". You
could do better next time, but there's no future in what you have already done.
Jumping back to my original point, that nobody wants to make a difference (or at least not enough to actually do so), the only thing that keeps me going is that people obviously care about the issues. This is why I created a facebook group advocating Biodegradable coffee cups at Tim Hortons in the first place. Because joining a facebook group is just about the laziest way you could support a cause.
And I'm unhappy to report, that nobody on this forum even cares enough to do that. Please, reconsider.
http://uwo.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7578298645
P.S. if you actually did join based on this, I'm sorry for lumping you into a group of apathetic critics.
Prev
Linear Mode
