Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulcole | Hacker News Reader

> Individual action alone cannot stem climate change and mass plastic pollution

Yes, but lack of individual action also cannot stem climate change and mass plastic pollution.

> Most plastic pollution in the ocean is directly related to shipping and in particular fishing[0]. Nothing I can do individually can address this

You can stop eating fish and you can limit the amount of junk you buy! But if you like eating fish and you like buying junk and you don’t want to inconvenience yourself, you’ll say that it’s the world leaders and industry bodies who must change.

And don’t get me wrong, this is an absolutely fine stance to have. You and I will be dead before the consequences of our choices are felt. But don’t pretend like there’s nothing you can do. It’s just that there’s nothing you actually want to do.

View on HN

It's not pretend there is nothing you can do unless you are participating in mass action not individual action.

Focusing on personal consumption is an illness of upper middle class Americans that keeps you from focusing your efforts on activity that might lead the actual change.

Again no. The idea that you as an individual can’t make choices that are better for the world is self-delusion. You choose not to make those choices because it is easier to blame someone else. And again, there’s nothing wrong with this. But at least be honest about it.

You can take individual action and put effort into activity that might lead to actual change. But I’m guessing most people opt for the make no change, blame someone else, and put no effort into activity that might lead to actual change option. And again, nothing wrong with this! It’s our planet to fuck up.

We are talking about plastic in the environment. Your personal choices will make no difference in this problem.

There are other problems where personal action on an individual level can make positive change, but this isn't one of them.

> Your personal choices will make no difference in this problem.

Of course they do!

You are reducing your contribution to future plastic in the environment. We can argue over the extent of the difference this choice makes but to say it makes no difference is absurd.

OK, well, why say "there’s nothing wrong with this" as you do above—

> The idea that you as an individual can’t make choices that are better for the world is self-delusion. You choose not to make those choices because it is easier to blame someone else. And again, there’s nothing wrong with this.

—when your whole point is that there's something wrong with it?!

And it's mixed with unnecessarily confrontational language—"absurd", "self-delusion".

Because there is nothing wrong with it. It’s our planet to wreck!

> You can stop eating fish and you can limit the amount of junk you buy!

I'm vegetarian, yet these plastic rocks still exist: my actions did not prevent their formation.

Collective action is needed. That will not happen until the "good" actions (e.g. using recyclable materials) are easier/cheaper than the "bad" ones (e.g. single-use, unrecyclable plastic trash). There are two ways to do that:

- Make the "good" actions easier/cheaper. This is very difficult, and may require new inventions, etc.

- Make the "bad" actions harder/expensive. This can be done using regulation and taxation; which (in a democracy) requires collective action.

> I'm vegetarian, yet these plastic rocks still exist: my actions did not prevent their formation.

But your actions are contributing less to the creation of new plastic rocks compared to the person who is out there buying a can of tuna. Whether your choice as an individual has a significant effect is another question. But it’s undeniable that one choice is better for the environment than another. As people we can make the better choice or the worse choice. It’s up to us as individuals.

Anybody who’s eating a can of tuna waiting for new inventions and government to save the day is just deluding themselves.

I would argue that not eating fish is not the solution. We can eat fish that are farmed or fished sustainably with minimal and sustainable environmental impact. A World exists where that is all fish. However without regulation, fish will be farmed using polluting methods, and fished in unsustainable and polluting ways, because it's cheaper and there's more profit to be made.

Voting with my wallet for sustainably farmed fish doesn't really affect anything either - this will always be a niche, high-end market that's unaffordable for most unless the fundamentals at the bottom end of the market change.

Fish is not the issue, fishing is, and only global regulation of the fishing industry can resolve the issue of (that industry's contribution to) ocean plastic pollution.

> Whether your choice as an individual has a significant effect is another question. But it’s undeniable that one choice is better for the environment than another. As people we can make the better choice or the worse choice. It’s up to us as individuals.

Sure, but such an impoverished "choice" is essentially "do nothing" or "do nothing, with the option of eating tuna". It's basically table-stakes: once you've made the easy choices you have control over, it's time to make difficult choices which involve many people. (I see voting the same way: the first step of political engagement)

> waiting for new inventions and government to save the day

That's a straw man; nobody is saying that's a solution. If you insist on viewing everything through the lens of individual choice, then we can just apply your own reasoning to more impactful choices, e.g. as an individual I can:

- "petition legislatures for stronger fishing regulations" or "don't petition legislatures for stronger fishing regulations"

- "file lawsuits against organisations/individuals breaking regulations" or "don't file lawsuits against organisations/individuals breaking regulations"

- "campaign for representatives with good environmentalism credentials for key posts" or "don't campaign for representatives with good environmentalism credentials for key posts"

- "infiltrate and disrupt environmentally-damaging organisations" or "don't infiltrate and disrupt environmentally-damaging organisations"

- "help organise and spread awareness of collective efforts at systemic change" or "don't help organise and spread awareness of collective efforts at systemic change"

- etc.

These are all individual, personal choices; and are likely more impactful than choosing whether or not to eat fish. Since it's pretty cumbersome to talk about "individually choosing to work alongside other individuals in an effort to support each others' efforts to implement changes that adjust the cost/benefit ratio of the choices of other individuals who may have large impacts on the environment", it's common to abbreviate this using phrases like "collective action" and "systemic change".

> once you've made the easy choices you have control over, it's time to make difficult choices which involve many people.

Yes and my point is that the vast majority of people don't even make the easy choices let alone the hard ones.

They pretend the easy choices are hard and that the hard choices don't exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com