As much as I or someone might feel I "shouldn't" have to, it's pretty efficient to just have someone do the job right then and there.
* I make a point of not picking up everything I see, rather just do an incremental bit at each opportunity
* I set a basic standard for when I should: if I literally see litter and a trashcan along the path I’m traveling - the goal being to minimize the cost / maximize the value of the effort.
Even with such minimal practices I probably pick up more litter than 90+% of people. :P
Like I show up at a playground at say 8 am, maybe the trash left there was from 8 hours ago ... now someone gets upset that the city didn't do a thing that is probably a rebellious expectation (can't patrol all the parks overnight every 8 hours) and they shove their hands in their pockets and pout.
I'd rather folks just pick some stuff up and toss it in the bin nearby and we're all good.
A sign saying that keeping the place clean is a shared responsibility is sure to get things back on track…
A lot of the litter by me either falls out of the bin/truck during collection, is dug out of trash cans by squirrels, or spills out when the wind opens the can lid or even blows it over completely. There's things we can do to mitigate that but it'll never be perfect so you'll always see "someone else's trash" blowing in the wind.
If you can stop for a moment to take a picture, you could pick a piece of it up too... but there's also the "ah I don't have time to do it all so I won't do anything"
press f to doubt
There are some jobs that probably won't ever pay well, so there's not much moral hazard in doing them for free, of course.
Ideally what would happen is that people would be self-conscious enough to figure out after one or two slip ups that someone else is having to clean up for them, and feel bad enough to avoid doing it in the future.
This has become one of my bigger hard learned lessons. I used to go out of my way to be as considerate as possible to everyone I interacted with, trying to predict issues and mentioning them early to make things easier for others even if it might inconvenience myself. The idea was that people would reciprocate enough that it'd make things easier for myself too.
But over the years I've had to stop accepting that, because as it turns out, most people really don't care. Being extremely accommodating and planning ahead to fit someone's constraints won't mean that I get the courtesy returned. They'll just continue to push me around at their own convenience.
I've lived long enough to know that this won't happen in my lifetime, it requires an entirely different societal mindset... something closer to shame/collectivism a country like Japan has (they still have litterers of course, but a much smaller number)
Chronic litterbugs don't care, they're often low enough on the hierarchy of needs that this kind of morality isn't on their radar at all.
If everyone pitched in, you might pick up a single piece of trash occasionally... so you'd avoid the "I just cleaned up this whole park yesterday" problem, because in theory you'd have a larger number or people doing a little work rather than a smaller number doing most of it.
I regularly pick up trash in my neighborhood, so I get it though... it's impossible for one person to keep up with.
For example, in India, there's a pretty jarring contrast in big cities, between pristine modern buildings with immaculate interiors situated on a street literred with garbage. While Indian society loves to label littering as shameful, because no one sees the street as something they also partly own, their idea of cleaning only extends to keeping their own building immaculate.
Don’t forget the deliberate litterbugs. There are plenty of people out there with a “for every bottle you pick up, I’ll litter three” attitude. Belligerence against anything seen as a public good is on the rise. I know someone who believes having a clean, trash-free neighborhood is a “liberal” thing. Blows my mind.
I used to think trash around my neighborhood was from just a general mass of people not caring about littering. It sounds like that's what you think too.
Then, one day, I saw a homeless guy dumping every single trash can on the street out completely, tearing open the bags, looking for maybe 2 seconds, and then moving on to the next trash can.
Call me harsh, but that behavior should merit a serious prison sentence. I think people overestimate the damage something like this causes to the environment, but underestimate the damage it does to society and the way people think about each other.
It doesn't have to be prison-prison; but something like that does call for maybe a Nordic-style prison that isolates society from the low-level but consistent harm.
It's all very tragedy of the commons.
Not harsh, just lacking creativity and losing sight of what prison is for.
For every piece of litter dropped, the sentence should be to pick up 10 more. Make criminals fix the problems they cause.
Maybe some, but certainly not all!
> The idea was that people would reciprocate enough that it'd make things easier for myself too.
Here is the flaw in your plan; it was a flaw in my plan too. In more naive days, I thought that too. Then at some point we realize what you did: people don't do good things, and you aren't going to change most of them.
That's when we can take a big step forward, and learn what true altruism, generosity, and most of all, what love is: It's caring for and doing good for people who don't 'deserve' it; who act like jerks and idiots, who even do bad things. Anyone who has done good in their life learns this lesson. That is love, the only love in any meaningful sense.
That truth is well known, but not always widely discussed. Look at the Gospels in Christianity, and everything that says we are all sinners. Look at stories of prophets in every culture: ignored, attacked, lynched. More contemporaneously, do you think people who do great good, like Washington or Gandhi or MLK, did not realize what you did about human nature? All those people, those religions, those philosophers - they all know. When Jefferson wrote 'All men are created equal, and are endowed with inalienable rights', he knew who he was writing about. When the framers of the Constitution wrote about forming 'a more perfect union', they knew that would be done would be 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' (as Lincoln said later) - and they knew about people.
And it's about you too. You're a sinner, and an asshole, and ignorant too, just like me. If that's not love, if love excludes those people, who loves you and me? Remember that ancient prayer: 'Forgive us our trespasses ...'.
Last year I was forced to drag my belongings between 3 apartments, each time with zero forewarning, in the summer heat, to rooms with no AC (despite my initial room having been AC, and my still having to pay the higher rent for it), while I had to prepare for my first ever research conference and later was recovering from the worst flu I've ever had, they even dragged me to a roommate conduct meeting which had nothing to do with me, right in the middle of moving. The person the meeting was actually about didn't even attend.
Each time, I had to go to the dorm office and talk to the head administrator in person to get any useful information on what was going on, and was only offered to be compensated after the third time when I came in to the administrator's office, looking half dead from the flu.
I refuse to 'love' people who would put complete strangers through all that suffering without seeming to put in even the smallest effort to empathize and try to make things easier (eg by explaining the things in the email, which they told me in person). I'm not a prophet or saint, nor do I aspire to be one. The only people entitled to my completely unconditional love, generosity, tolerance etc are my immediate family, and friends to a slightly lesser extent. With most other people I'm happy to be polite and help them in small ways by default, but going out of my way to be helpful stops as soon as it becomes obvious that they don't even think about reciprocating in even the smallest of ways. It simply isn't worth the stress I put myself through, and besides not being fair to me, it isn't fair to everyone who does try to reciprocate.
I've had many other similar experiences of my kindness being shamelessly exploited by people who haven't earned it, to the point that they became a bonding moment with my father as he too has had lots of experience with that and had come to a similar approach to treating human interaction. He often got accused of being insincere because of how much effort he put into keeping things smooth for people who reciprocated compared to those who didn't.
I don't mean to be dismissive about your experience; we all have a hard road, and some much harder than others. Still, if we're talking about it honestly: Why should the admnistrator and other people have compassion for you if you don't have it for others? I'll bet that, not being saint and under all that stress, you weren't perfect in what you were doing. I'll bet the administrator and others were also under many different stressors like you were; who was understanding them?
The only way there is compassion in the world is when it's between stressed people acting less than their best, often much less. If it's restricted to near-perfection, it wouldn't exist; the word 'compassion' wouldn't have any usage or meaning.
But that doesn't mean I do it well all the time. And I'm a jerk too and I hope people have compassion for me.
Foul. I applaud your boldness (the world needs it) but if you're going to play Bad Cop then you have to bring something more to the table than the rationalizations of a gambler. Otherwise this is coercion.
My favorite example: "I'd bet you wouldn't suck my dick, you homophobe." Your answer determines whether you go to bed tonight as a loser, a villain, or a cocksucker.
When you get these sorts of accusations wrong, you're being cruel to an otherwise-innocent person and causing them to doubt themselves. This causes harm. Skepticism and compassion can coexist-- it's called certainty. Call your shots or don't take them.
> The only way there is compassion in the world is when it's between stressed people acting less than their best, often much less. If it's restricted to near-perfection, it wouldn't exist; the word 'compassion' wouldn't have any usage or meaning.
Yep. Forgiving minor trespasses, turning the other cheek and all that hippie Jesus shit makes for a pretty chill life. Even he lost his temper.
I think that's an important point to raise. However, I had thought I dealt with that well. I wrote,
Why should the admnistrator and other people have compassion for you if you don't have it for others? I'll bet that, not being saint and under all that stress, you weren't perfect in what you were doing. I'll bet the administrator and others were also under many different stressors like you were; who was understanding them?
The GGP already said they weren't a saint - I used their language - and my assertion wasn't that they did something awful, but that they simply were imperfect - a pretty certain guess for anyone.
Still, I generally agree - one needs evidence, not a fabrication.
> Forgiving minor trespasses, turning the other cheek and all that hippie Jesus shit makes for a pretty chill life. Even he lost his temper.
Are you being sarcastic? Also, I don't think we need to forgive only tresspasses that are minor, and I don't see it as a 'chill life', but as important and even essential behavior by all of us (IMHO - I'm not forcing anyone to do it).
> Otherwise this is coercion.
A minor point, but where do you see 'coercion'? What am I coercing them to do and how?
The swing did undergo some maintenance in the meantime, but somehow that one part is still loose.