[cookingrobot]

But you have to focus your efforts to get the biggest results. In this case I suspect only government can solve the problem (because someone’s going to have to change or end entire industries). So the best use of our energy might trying to be get an effective government in place.

[saila]

I think about this a lot, and it seems to me that the amount effort it would take to get an effective government in place is roughly equal to the amount of effort it would take for people to make individual changes to their habits and consumption (which in turn, presumably, would cause industry and governments to change). In fact, they seem like essentially the same thing in that they both require the same kind of individual effort and engagement.

Right now, all most people do is vote (if they even bother) or maybe make donations, which really doesn't seem to be enough. Voting is important, but it doesn't have much impact if the same kinds of candidates keep getting elected, which is largely due to dysfunction in the electoral system, at least in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere, but I don't know enough about other countries to say).

Similarly, all most people do is recycle, which definitely isn't enough, given a lot (most?) of what gets put in the recycling bin doesn't get recycled, due in part to both lack of financial incentive as well as contamination from non-recyclables (confusing rules and general lack of care apparently).

I would like to think we could vote in a government that's focused on progress rather than partisan power struggles, but I don't think that's likely to happen any time soon, if ever. It would require a level of engagement that I just don't see happening.

I'd also like to think that we could change our habits on a mass scale and demand change through social and market forces, but in a similar way, I don't see that happening either. Their are just too many economic and cultural forces acting against progress.