Ah, sorry. I sometimes forget to check for name continuity.

I’m not defending fossil-fueled energy production. When the product is energy it’s inexcusable to produce it in such a grossly irresponsible manner.

But if “coal energy” specifically was the product, and consumers overwhelmingly directly choose it rather than available renewable energy, then yeah I’d cut companies a bit more slack. When the harm isn’t in method but the product, and people are choosing that product instead of alternatives, then much of the blame rests on them.

Do you really only do good things when you’ve been conditioned to do so? You don’t ever try to grow past what society tells you? I’m not asking you to solve everything. I’m asking you not to be a part of the problem. Defending your behavior by pointing to that of others has not been a historically sound position.

As horrible as those people are, it’s not like they’re just belching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for fun. They’re fulfilling demand. That 40% wouldn’t disappear just by spreading ownership of the factories to more people. That’s not to say that individual action is the only thing that works. Regulations need to be put in place to curb emissions, incentives should reward producers for investing & transitioning to more sustainable practices, and yes, monopolies need to get split up.

But the fact remains that some products are just bad for the environment. As as long as people continue buying those products they’ll keep being produced. And when animal agriculture accounts for about as many emissions as the entire transportation industry, this seems like one of the easier steps to make.

The “my actions won’t end this problem so I don’t need to do anything” mentality never comes up in any other field (politeness, crimes, social change, voting). Yeah, choosing to never hold open doors for others wouldn’t noticeably affect the global rate, but I doubt you’d use that logic to justify being rude.

I think it’s a feature of all positional notation systems.

About #3, do you view this as a hard rule? Not the animal part (vegan btw), the “hurting is always wrong” part. There are situation where I’ve caused harm to someone for the sake of others, their future, or a greater pleasure.

Also interested in the “not killing you own species” section of #4. I would also kill another animal rather than a human, but for other reasons. What do you think about hurting a member of your own species is uniquely bad?

Yeah, I don’t know that it solves much, but it’s rather tidy to take the one think we know exists (consciousness) and fit it into a fundamental question (what makes up the universe).

There are many problems in the world. Some people like to focus on the ones with the largest impacts, where you can personally do something about it (like veganism). Others like to focus on those where few cause grossly disproportionate harm, as they seem more addressable (like private jets).

Debating the merits of focusing on one problem over another is interesting, but in my mind the time for it is not when media is being shared that bolsters a cause without coming at the expense of any others. It hurts all movements when people always undermine issues, pointing to another more important from their perspective.

I highly doubt that most people think you aren’t doing enough for the environment. And I don’t understand why you’d assume that as the implication of this article.