Things Heard: e62v2
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009 at
9:39 am
- Beauty and God.
- Considering the F-22. More here.
- Sing a little song … for little Timmy Geithner?
- Bailout and Enron (HT: John)
- Of Mormon and media.
- A “fight”
- Toyland and ethics.
- The real problem with green.
- Recession and place.
- Links.
- Ephrem!
- Where in the world … is Anastasia?
- Big brother expands his tentacles.
- Images from St. Pete.
- An argument I’ve made.
- Oops.
- Boxing analogy and a stem, a tire, and a gruppo.
- Mr Obama’s marketing folly.
- Disenchantment on the left continues.
- Heh.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
So, according to the “problem with being green” article, the problem is that the more responsible solution is not as effective or desirable for one reason or another?
Could we flip that around, though, and ask, is the problem with living responsibly that it is too much work/cost? We prefer to live less responsibly?
Perhaps. But does that make it right?
I mean, it’s easier just to kill my neighbor who is REALLY annoying, but that would be wrong. That’s why adults ought to be concerned about not just what is expedient, but what is right. Choosing “If it feels good, do it,” is not the route conservatives generally advocate.
Interesting conundrum, Dan. Problem is, I don’t consider it responsible to live with 1.6 gallon toilets that you have to flush 2-3 times, phosphate free detergent that doesn’t clean your clothes, or small cars that are dangerous to drive.
So, if mercury or heavy metals or arsenic or some other toxin (phosphate) all clean our clothes better, then it doesn’t matter if they damage the environment and our drinking water, all that matters is that our clothes are cleaner?
That would be, to me, a clear cut of childish, irresponsible decision-making. I think we need to have responsible, grown up policies.
Dan,
You mean like the mercury in CFL light bulbs?
The real point here is green qua green is used on the gullible as a marketing tool. Green is a quality that masks poor quality. You can make a good toilet that flushes with 1.6gpf (or a two flush, #1/#2 version). You can make a small car safe. Compromise is not always necessary.
Engineering costs are one time costs. But too often they are skipped or judged not required. You’re asked by the nanny state (or the nanny-ish organs in the media) to put on a hair shirt to go green. It is perfectly valid to complain about that requirement.
I think making comparisons to killing your neighbor is not, uhm to put a point on it, very full of grace and charity. Do you?
My point is that we ought to do what is right, regardless of the cost. We ought to be sure that hidden costs are calculated in because, otherwise, we are not paying the actual cost.
And, given that millions of people die each year in car wrecks and due to pollution, I don’t think a comparison to killing is wholly unjustified. People do, in fact, die and are otherwise harmed because of personal and societal irresponsibility so I am advocating counting the actual costs and not hiding behind niceties such as “Well, I didn’t INTEND to kill or harm anyone, therefore what I did was okay…”
That argument doesn’t work for the drunk driver nor does it work for we polluters.
Consider these facts from the Asthma people:
Every day in America:
* 40,000 people miss school or work due to asthma.
* 30,000 people have an asthma attack.
* 5,000 people visit the emergency room due to asthma.
* 1,000 people are admitted to the hospital due to asthma.
* 11 people die from asthma.
* An estimated 20 million Americans suffer from asthma (1 in 15 Americans)
* Asthma is the most common chronic condition among children
* Each year, asthma accounts for more than 10 million outpatient visits and 500,000 hospitalizations.
And, consider this from the NRDC:
* In recent years, scientists have shown that air pollution from cars, factories and power plants is a major cause of asthma attacks.
* And more than 159 million Americans — over half the nation’s population — live in areas with bad air.
* 30 percent of childhood asthma is due to environmental exposures, costing the nation $2 billion per year.
* studies also suggest that air pollution may contribute to the development of asthma in previously healthy people
Now, considering the facts, if we were to live in a society where cars and polluting factories did not exist and suddenly, tomorrow, someone says, “Hey everyone, look – Cars and Factories! We could each choose to have a car and buy stuff from polluting factories and life would be easier! How cool!!
…Now, the downside is that eleven people will die each and every day partially due to pollutants from these two new inventions. It will sicken 20 million people – many of them children and especially the poor – and it will cost society billions of dollars in hidden costs that no one will want to pay.”
If that announcement was made and we put it to a vote, how ethical or moral would those who would vote for convenience over life?
I thought that was part of the problem the Right has with abortion?
I’m talking about basic moral responsibility, fiscal responsibility. This seems entirely reasonable to me and I have a hard time understanding those who would champion the Market without regards to morality.
Dan,
You are quite the Luddite. However, are you really willing to give up the things factories and such give you. Modern medicine and availability to food. Do you want to return to the “good old days” of the 19th century where every single family buried several children due to childhood diseases? Brahm’s wrote a beautiful song cycle, “Kindertotenleider” (songs for dead children, lamenting this reality). That’s a consequence of the utopia you seek.
11 people die to pollutants? How many are saved by surgery, chemo, and antibiotics? Your proposals of course, affect the poor more than the rich. Your being incoherent in your desires, or at least unwilling to face the true consequences.
I’m curious … if North Korea set aside its militarism would you see them as the ideal state? If not, why not? After all they are almost back to your desired subsistence farming level of technology. They have an ideal carbon footprint and are quite agrarian. Very few “cars and factories.” …. Ptui.
You’re the killer, look in the mirror.
Is it okay to accept the good and give up the bad? I’d like to vote for that. You are misunderstanding and misreprsenting my position.
For instance, we can develop auto technology to have life-saving ambulances without doing the additional harm that EVERYONE owning and driving a car everywhere causes.
In all things, moderation, some chap once said. You know it’s not an either/or proposition, right?
I’m advocating…
1. Responsible living (ie, making choices that don’t harm others)
2. Responsible pricing (ie, include hidden costs as much as possible).
Are you opposed to such ideas?
Is the very vehemence with which you respond (“You’re the killer”) not possibly an indicator of addiction and irresponsibility?
The notion that “we CAN’T give it up because we NEED it, regardless of costs!!” is one sign of an addict. Unreasonable vehemence in the defense of the addiction is another sign.
Dan,
Actually in many important ways it is either or. We can’t have a the means to invent and create those life-saving technologies without the time and wealth that those regrettable markets provide. Most if not much of life-saving and the “good” responsible inventions came serendipitously and were arrived at not by design but by trial, error, and experimentation. For example, you don’t get radiation therapy without the rest of nuclear technology. You don’t have good working reasonably priced ambulances without cars-as-commodity.
No, you’re the killer is that not an indication of my abjuration of responsibility. I live as green or greener so to speak as the next guy (I drive an 2000 Insight, we run the air conditioner a half-dozen times a year and the thermostat is 66 during the daytime and 50 at night in the winter for example). But your really haven’t described a workable society … your economic and societal model is too fanciful. You want the good and think you can have it sans all the bad. But you haven’t described a realistic way of arriving at that, but instead one which would, essentially, cause greater loss of life and well-being than what you would replace it with in your naivete.
But your really haven’t described a workable society … your economic and societal model is too fanciful. You want the good and think you can have it sans all the bad. But you haven’t described a realistic way of arriving at that, but instead one which would, essentially, cause greater loss of life
Says who? Have you studied and measured the various possible answers? OR, is it the case that considering changing is too complex and too much work, and therefore you make an assumption that the way we’re doing it is the only way it can be done, so we ought not worry about the ethics or morality of our choices?
If a drug addict says to you, “I can’t really stop doing this. It’s the way I am and to NOT abuse drugs would be too painful. There would be harmful effects if I stopped – I’d get the shakes and wouldn’t be able to work, or I might even go crazy and start killing people without the drugs! So, the only responsible thing to do is to keep the status quo…”, will you buy that answer? OR, would you say that he’s just avoiding taking responsibility for his own actions?
Again, your defense seems to be that of the addict.
You seem to have a belief in laissez faire economics and society – that if we just let things be, they’ll all work out for the best – that defies reason. Why would we NOT presume to note that, IF laissez faire action 1 (putting phosphates in detergent) is shown to have toxic effects, then the responsible thing is to change policy?
I fully understand that we, in our limited genius, won’t know ALL the effects of our actions. I’m not talking about changing policy/behavior based on the notion that something MIGHT go badly. I’m saying, where we KNOW that Action 1 has a toxic/negative effect, it is only responsible to strive to eliminate the negative effects of Action 1.
As to realistic policies that don’t have the presumed negative effects you are imagining, I don’t think it’s that difficult to imagine some. Some presuppositions:
1. I’m not advocating criminalizing the personal auto.
2. I’m not advocating outlawing factories.
3. I’m talking about factoring in actual costs, as much as possible.
Now, if we ask that factories not pollute in amounts that people are sick and die, what would happen?
It seems your hunch (based on what??) is that factories would close down and society would stop functioning as we know it. But is that a reasonable hunch? Or, is it not more likely that our entreupenurial spirit would find better, more responsible answers? Some factories may indeed close, but then, other more sustainable ones could take their place.
If I’m remembering correctly, many coal companies said they simply couldn’t comply with some standards being set for them by the EPA at one point. But then, you know what? They did and they’re still in business. I’ve heard several examples of stories like that where an industry complained that they couldn’t stay in business if they were required to operate in a more responsible manner, and yet they did. I could try researching that some for you, if you’d like.
I could also lay out some more likely and reasonable policies as I get time.
However, my point remains: In other areas, we don’t make whether the offending party THINKS it can comply with basic rules the deciding factor on whether or not we implement those rules. If my neighbor dumps waste in my yard because HE SAYS he can’t afford to get rid of it responsibly, that does not make his actions right. We still have rules in place, regardless of what he thinks.
Dan
You say you’re advocating “responsible living” etc, but it’s all your definition of responsible. Mark O., and presumably myself, don’t fit your definition so… we’re to be dictated to. We should just shut up and let our betters, which would be you, tell us how to live.
You’re basically advocating a soft tyranny whether you realize it or not. The tyranny of the do-gooders who not only want to tell everyone else how to live, but to force your values on us through the power of the law.
A soft tyranny? Where have I told you to shut up? Where have I (or Obama) dictated to you what you must do?
Don’t live in fear. There are no boogetymen out here to get you. Just fellow citizens who disagree with your position sometimes. We ARE allowed an opinion, too, aren’t we?