Of course, organisations that directly act to facilitate these effects are acting against the interest of humankind. Even still, they can only do so because the public give them permission to do it.
“AI” (LLMs, CNNs, deep learning and all the hype around them) supplanting much of genuine thought, burning fuel polluting the atmosphere and heating the world, privacy being encroached upon by invasive tracking, censorship and sterilization of the internet. I argue that these things happen because individual consumers (that is, the vast majority of people) permit them to happen. Companies generally act to maximise profit, but can only ever earn revenue if people are buying. And when a person buys a product, they vote with their wallet that they are OK with that product and its making.
It is usually easiest to go with the flow. To buy cage eggs because they are $3 cheaper than free range. It just makes economic sense. I argue that we should never do this. We must only ever buy the option that fits our ethical minimum, even at a higher cost.
One might consider that many people can’t afford the “ethical” product, and will need to fall back on the cheaper option. I argue that they should go without. I have, in recent history, been in a position where I couldn’t afford the classical weekly shop. I could have saved good money by buying cage eggs. Still, either I buy free range, or I go without and substitute with something else.
There is always an alternative. Don’t like Facebook? Start a blog website. Don’t want those new AI features in your preferred app? Uninstall it and use one that fits your needs. If it comes down to it, learn how to make your own. Want to slow climate change? Be conscious of your energy use and burn less fuel - swap your car for a bike, use public transport if you can. EVs can be good, too.
Yes, it will be inconvenient. It might be painful. But isn’t that worth proving that your own principles mean something? That you are more than a consumer?
For most of the people who can read this, we always have a choice. Having lived through the last decades, we have learned the effect of complacency. We now know better, and must choose better.
You must log in or register to comment.
Yes, but large amount of resources are put into controlling and influencing the population. It’s a fight, and we aren’t fighting back enough. It’s my opinion the problem is systemic, and merely trying to be more mindful of consumption isn’t going to improve things much (it will improve things some, and people should do it). For instance, there’s a good chance those cage-free eggs involved some sort of very low-paid and abused workers. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
It’s hard to get the counter message out there loudly enough to be heard over the din of propaganda.
Perhaps if we put a green hat on and start pursuing the message more vigorously.
I agree with you. Perhaps more insistent messaging would be useful. A pin, maybe?
Congratulations, this is a genuinely unpopular opinion. I know that because I agree with you and I regularly deploy the exact arguments you have just made. Individual humans have a deep aversion to accepting that they - personally - are part of the problem. It’s completely irrational and something of a mystery to me.
“damn traffic, whys everyone driving”
I agree and have the same thoughts with you.
However, most of the people don’t really put any thoughts on what they did, or don’t have the resources to be more conscious, either mentally or physically. Some already have difficulty surviving due to bad decisions.
We live in a society.
I often ask myself: would the world be a better or worse place if everyone did what I’m about to do? And if I feel like the answer is worse, then I generally don’t do it. Like you said, there are exceptions - but overall, I think it’s a good principle to live by. Not always the cheapest or most convenient, but as they say: it’s not a principle if it isn’t costing you anything.
Good post. I agree with virtually everything.
would the world be a better or worse place if everyone did what I’m about to do?
This is basically another formulation of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, sometimes phrased:
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Which is itself basically another version of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I’ve heard advocates for the Platinum Rule as well: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
My point is that even the great thinkers of history, in conversation with each other over the millennia, have not gotten over the hump of morality being fundamentally subjective yet some lust for justice keeps us arguing in favor of some version of objective, universal morals.
One of the more helpful tools I’ve found is John Rawl’s veil of ignorance, also called the original position argument. Basically, if you were redesigning society around your new rules, but had no idea which position you would hold in the new society (it’s randomly assigned or impossible to predict, in the thought experiment), would you consider your rules successful and your society valid?
This tool allows for an objective evaluation of many subjective points of view, through statistical means.
All of these tools fail in a particular way though, which is that they individualize the search for ideal behavior. They ask: What morals would be best in a perfectly designed society, of which I will be the architect. Perhaps no individual is capable of devising a universal system of behavior?
Locked into their subjective experience of the world, how could any individual operating within such a system gain the conceptual distance necessary to redesign the whole? Rather, we are all shaped and attempt to shape society, aided and resisted by our resources and allies, in a chaotic and turbulent system that we are incapable of existing outside of. Even with a plan for a universal morality, how could you possibly implement it without contradiction?
