[lagadu]

I guess I am your boogeyman: I eat meat regularly, have investments, grew up and live in the middle of a western society.

By default I'm inclined to stop doing exactly zero of those, and by saying "you're at fault no matter what you do or don't do" you've just removed the sole remaining incentive for me to stop doing it: being able to say "it's not my fault". If I'm to blame no matter what I do, I might as well enjoy it and let the other suckers do the sacrifices for no gain that I'm unwilling to make, completely guilt-free.

[propater]

This is insane... I react to a post saying "I am not connected to what happens in Brazil" by saying, yes, as a matter of fact, you are very likely to be connected to those events and people jump the gun and talk about sin, guilt and boogeymen...

We have a problem. We have put in place structures, institutions and incentives that are failing us and jeopardizing our capacity to protect our values in the future.

I agree that the individual has a limited impact on what is happening and collective action is needed.

And yet, collective action is not going to happen if every individual is defecting or just stays ignorant of their place in those systems.

And yet, the problem is not going to disappear if no one is implementing at least some changes to one's lifestyle.

You say the only motivation for you is to be able to say "it is not my fault" but reality does not care whose fault it is...

[Fjolsvith]

The problem needs to be addressed by those citizens of the country where the deforestation is happening. If they are willing to allow it to happen to their natural resource, why would I assume in arrogance that I have a right to tell them they're wrong and then blame everyone else for what that country is doing?

Lifestyle changes won't change deforestation. The people of Brazil are the ones you need to target your message to.

[sn9]

There are many tools that the international community has to influence domestic policy for a given country. We use economic sanctions all the time.

If the international community decided to stop buying beef and soy from Brazil, the demand would evaporate and it wouldn't be economical for them to continue their practices.

[Fjolsvith]

When you say international community, what do you mean, the UN? The WTO? The G7?

I'm curious. What precedents are there for such a "community" to enforce sanctions on a country's use of their own natural resources?

[sdoering]

Hello boogeyman - then let me be your counter example.

I eat meat regularly. But it is not that much - compared to the national average. And I know exactly that neither the cattle, nor their food came from anywhere near the Amazonas.

I only eat meat when I know the producer and how they produced it. In my case it is a local farm that is a closed system: They grow what they need to feed their cattle - and use the manure to grow their crops (and so on). And the cattle is treated by very high standards regarding organic meat production in Germany (Bioland standard).

In the winter months I do eat about 50 - 110 grams of meat per week on average. Depending on if I do have a bigger piece of meat on the weekends or "just" some ham (and the like) during the week.

In the summer month my garden produces so much vegetables that I am nearly fully vegetarian - my current meat average for the summer is below 10 grams per week.

Disclaimer: Yes, I have butter at home to cook with. Yes I use dairy, also from said local farm.

But - and that is the interesting aspect for me: A lot more people could do this.

The produced meat is of such a quality, that I can have the ham cut so thin, I could read the newspaper through it - it still tastes way more intensive than the stuff from the big box store.

So per slice of bread - my ham is costing me less than before the switch.I am actually saving money by having a great taste and also supporting local farmers that act in sync with the environment.

[Hitton]

Your German organic farm is most likely heavily subsidised (as all EU farms are) so it does in fact take advantage of same system which profits off the actions in Amazon. So you are just one more step removed.

[sls]

Tbh it sounds like you're guilt-free either way. You're saying that it doesn't matter at all to you when your actions harm others. You would like to be able to say they didn't, but don't feel guilty if they do. Also fwiw as many people who have tried it will tell you, there is a gain in acting selflessly, and it's better than the gain from acting selfishly. The idea that altruism is for suckers is actually harmful to your self-interest.

[lagadu]

Human behavior is economic behavior, which is a fancy way of saying "people do things because there's a perceived benefit to doing so". Altruistic behavior usually carries at least a social benefit, besides the "I did good" feeling which is also a personal benefit. Blaming someone for something outside their control and saying that they're always to blame no matter what nullifies both of those incentives: you stop reaping their rewards.

This is a good example: if you're still shamed despite altruistic behavior, why would I possibly keep making sacrifices that I gain nothing for (including feeling good about having done them) when I can go back to my VASTLY more rewarding hedonistic lifestyle?

If you put someone in a situation where they're supposed to feel shame no matter what, they're going to become 100% insensitive to it in record time. In other words: yes, I am guilt-free because there's no other possible state under this framework of inescapable blame.

[propater]

I think you are too focused on the individual. Reducing your personal meat consumption, your personal emissions and so on is nice and all but it is not going to be enough. You are also embedded in a number of social structures and institutions and those will have to change too if we want to be able to claim to be "guilt free" and those changes require personal involvement.

[Fjolsvith]

Individuals tend to focus on the individual. Trying to change everyone's routine is like trying to push water upstream. You'd be better served by targeting a message to the Brazilian people that they should protect their natural resource.

[tremon]

No, he's saying he is guilt-laden either way. Therefore, it makes no sense to put in effort because it will not absolve him of that perceived yoke.

[ptah]

this kind of thinking is why we are doomed. obviously there are things you can do, but you just choose to ignore them and take offence instead

[johnisgood]

Exactly, fatalism is not going to be any helpful.