[oddeyed]

Your comment reads like you are projecting your own guilt onto the parent.

They said that you are "connected" to deforestation if you are living in a developed economy - you interpreted that as implying that all people in developed economies are sinning. They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected.

They then made two conditions predicated on having high socio-economic status (eating meat regularly, investing in a stock market) and stated that these do imply some level of guilt. I think that does account for the difference in lifestyle between income levels in the global economy and read it as implying that those with the most impactful lifestyle should make the most reductions - agreeing with your statement amount relative room for maneuvering.

EDIT: You said "I believe a lot of hand-wringing on these topics comes from positions of economic privilege" - many agree. Many see environmentalism as a "bourgeois playground" to its detriment. You might find this interesting: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/naomi-klein/let-them-drown

[johnisgood]

> They said that you are "connected" to deforestation if you are living in a developed economy - you interpreted that as implying that all people in developed economies are sinning. They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected.

He replied to "if you eat meat regularly, you are connected to Brazil's deforestation, either for cattle or for soy feed. If you have invested in the stock market, you are most likely connected to the international flow of capital, which is also driving said deforestation.". Does this not assume "guilty"? There is the implication in that message that if you are in any way connected to the destruction of X (deforestation in this particular example), then you are at fault (i.e. guilty).

Then the person he replied to went on to "even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.", i.e. "everyone who is connected is still at fault".

I read "being "connected" to deforestation" as contributing to it. Is this incorrect? Are we just arguing over words? I believe that in this context "connected" really just means "contributing" (to deforestation, which I assume is "bad").

Now my question is, how do we become unconnected? The part where he says even if we do not eat meat and so forth, we are still contributing to these problems. What is the solution, then? Is there a solution? Am I supposed to live anywhere but not "in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits"? What if everyone did this, would it not lead to the same problem? I do not think that being fatalistic is of any help here.

[propater]

Stop thinking in terms of individual guilt and how to avoid it, think in terms of collective responsibility. What do we need to do to solve the problem, not what do I need to do to exculpate myself from it.

[johnisgood]

The only difference is that my behavior is under my control, while what others do is outside of my control (yes, I can have an influence on people, or I could use force, etc. but this really is besides the point).

My question still stands. As an individual, what can I do to stop contributing to say, deforestation? How do I become "unconnected"? If you want, you could also answer this question not in terms of the individual, but the group of people (collective). What should I do? What should we do? These two questions are different, and they may have two entirely different answers. If not, then what does it matter if I asked it from the POV of the individual? Feel free to answer both of them if you wish.

For the sake of the discussion, please do not assume individual guilt. I did not ask what to do to exculpate myself from it.

[Fjolsvith]

> Now my question is, how do we become unconnected?

That's easy. The people of the Amazon pass some laws that protect their land.

America has this form of protection vs exploitation. Brazil needs to get with the program. Its not an American problem - I eat corn fed beef and pork from Kansas and Nebraska.

[johnisgood]

This does not answer my question sufficiently, because it does not address this (posted by propater): "even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.".

According to the aforementioned quote, you may eat corn fed beef and pork from Kansas and Nebraska, but you still "live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.". I am curious what propater had in mind as a solution to this.

[Fjolsvith]

The problem with his question is it assumes the society that is consuming is the one that is to blame for the deforestation. If America quit incentivising through policies, China or some other country would just pick up the supply.

The supply needs to be addressed at the source. That's the only correct solution.

[sn9]

By buying meat in a global market, you are creating demand for meat, which affects all markets.

The only way the purchase of a good can fail to move global markets is to be wholly disconnected from the market. This means you would have to live in a country that neither imports nor exports meat at all.

[johnisgood]

> This means you would have to live in a country that neither imports nor exports meat at all.

This does not address the issue which is the high demand for meat. This "solution" seems to be forced diet change. I believe it would create a black market for meat instead.

[Fjolsvith]

Then by your logic, you are contributing to global warming by just breathing carbon dioxide out, and ought to disconnect yourself from the global atmosphere.

[Fjolsvith]

But, seriously, assuming you cannot change global meat market demand, what other solutions are there?

[luckylion]

> They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected.

That doesn't say anything though. Everybody is connected to everything. It may be direct, indirect, with one or two or twenty hops, but everybody is connected. You can make an argument that the last few uncontacted tribes aren't connected, but everybody else is, especially by the "you're living in a society that reaps the benefits" idea, because pretty much everybody does that to varying degrees (but still connected) with technology, medical advances etc.