Personal tools
Document Actions

Impertinent irresponsibility

by Kena last modified 2008-07-04 10:56

Evidence shows clearly that we will not be able to eat fish in the future unless strong global policing action is taken now. We know already that future generations will never enjoy cod as a popular and usual dish. Still, even so-called “developed” countries make irrational political moves about fishing and short-sightedness combined with global disinterest runs rampant.

Overfishing is a canonical example of a tragedy of the commons. In other words, everyone is responsible, and nobody cares.

A topic I was debating the other day with a new colleague was: why should we care? Another I was debating longer ago with an older friend was: should we take responsibility for other people's actions and reduce our demand for fish to induce a decrease in production?

The conclusion was straightforward: any purely rational approach based on a fundamentally individualistic philosophy (where everyone should be only responsible for their own actions) dictates unsustainable behaviors. This is a logical conclusion, leaving choices to be made:

  • not be rational: let God dictate what is “good for you,” possibly reducing your environmental footprint. Possibly effective, but unpredictable.
  • empathize with fellow humans worldwide and time-wide (of the future), then take responsibility for other people's actions and act. Likely effective, but equally unlikely to happen within current morals and value systems.
  • not do anything.

Choose your future.

(feedback by Anonymous User)

Posted by Anonymous User at 2008-07-06 09:47
Political powers should create laws in such a way that individual seeking their own goals could only do it in a way that serves global interest.
This is why I do nothing for the environment at my level.

check your facts

Posted by Kena at 2008-07-06 12:36
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 21, part 3: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”

As long as “the people” do not express a will to act responsibly, “the government” will not act in that direction. Your call.

(another feedback by Anonymous User)

Posted by Anonymous User at 2008-07-06 19:53
Exactly: no action need to be taken *directly* by the people. At the individual level, only *indirect* actions are possible.

The first possibility is the act of chosing a government that will do what is right. The second one is to really dedicate one's life, to a "political" career, in order to become influent enough to make the right decision happen.

This second way is more involvment than I can spare, so I chose to limit myself to the first. Which is what most people do.
You are here: Home Glop Blog Archive 2008 July 04 Impertinent irresponsibility

skin by PYBOOM