[read_if_gay_]

even the dude living in the woods is still having an impact on the ecosystem, which is defined as negative by this eco-extremist moral framework.

if you take it to the logical conclusion, it just means that all forms of human life are immoral, by nature, and the least immoral human is basically a feral animal, and the most immoral ones are the opposite of that.

so to be moral, just stop being human.

it's just so obviously broken and misguided.

[lijok]

You seem to be bothered by the idea that you may not be perfectly moral/ethical. You're a good person, therefore everything you do is by definition moral/ethical?

It seems as if you're attaching the same connotations to morality/ethics as you would to legality. If something is not perfectly moral/ethical, it doesn't mean you should never do it.

We over indulge, we waste electricity and water, we drive unnecessarily big cars because it's enjoyable. It's not moral or ethical, but it doesn't make you a bad person. When it's done en-masse, is encouraged, and corporations monetize it, is when it starts becoming a problem.

[read_if_gay_]

>It's not moral or ethical, but it doesn't make you a bad person. When it's done en-masse, is encouraged, and corporations monetize it, is when it starts becoming a problem.

>If something is not perfectly moral/ethical, it doesn't mean you should never do it.

i think that when emissions are brought up in an argument, it's not usually this more nuanced take (that I also take some issue with, by the way, as it's impossible to do anything not en masse at 8b population)

instead, they are brought up to imply in sort of a smug way that the other party is somehow unethical, and that oneself, having morals as pure as they are, would never do such an unethical thing. hence the other party, and whatever they advocate, is wrong and bad. and the op blog post is a good example of this.

[Jenz]

> it's impossible to do anything not en masse at 8b population

you are missing some simple arithmetic here. yes, x times y can get arbitrarily big if x does (and y is non-negative), but then changes in y would just have even more of an impact. take x to be population and y to be emission per person and you should see your mistake.

[read_if_gay_]

and you’re missing the point. no one argued that it’s not worth making changes at the population level.

gp argued that stuff becomes problematic when done en masse. my issue with that is, if you disallow en-masse $thing, who’s going to gatekeep the tiny, exclusive, non-en-masse club allowed to do $thing?