Hank Green on the importance of individual action, not because it helps directly (which it does), but because it helps remind our brains of the problems which need to be solved.

Social scientists have studied this, and they’ve found that people taking individual action leads to more pushes for policy change, not less. The original idea is that if you focus more on individual action there will be less push for policy change. It turns out to be the opposite of that.

As social psychologists Leor Hackel and Gregg Sparkman said in their 2018 article, “People don’t spring into action because they see smoke; they spring into action because they see others rushing in with water.”

I’ve seen a lot of the “It doesn’t matter what individuals do because 90% of the emissions are done by 50 companies” sentiment on Lemmy, and find it concerning. What are the best ways to address this?

  • Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Ok, I watched the video and I agree with Hank’s point. Taking action towards your values, even if it isn’t effective by itself (which Hank argues against), is always a good thing.

    The thing is there are barriers within society that make it harder to make the ethical choice. For example if I wanted to be a vegan I’d have to pay extra since the dairy and beef industry have subsidies and most corporations charge extra for vegan/vegetarian options.

    Or if I wanted to help with pollution and started to recycle yet most of the recycling gets thrown in landfills anyways because of how things are stored with other trash.

    And I’m not saying that just because it is harder that people shouldn’t try and do the right thing but the thing is that most of these barriers are dynamic and will change to make it just as hard for people if it starts taking away power from people at the top.

    I think the general point that is trying to be made when people say that collective action is needed instead of individual action is that individual action doesn’t really change underlying problem that is causing most of the harm and instead is just making the cause of the problem more bearable.

    I’d say if you want change it is better to take action that encourages the system to change rather than taking action that doesn’t focus on effecting that at all.

    Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

    • zerakith@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      I would argue you’ve actually articulated exactly why individual action inevitably leads to wider collective action. It take attempting to do the right thing on individual level for some people to see the systemic issues that are there (like the subsidies you mention).

      • Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah you are right. It is just that we sort of get stuck at that level and are never willing to actually take systemic actions because it will disrupt the status quo by definition.

        So instead we find new technological solutions or habits that distract us until the next miracle drug (action) is presented.

        Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

        • zerakith@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          I also worry that the systemic vs individual argument is actually used by some as a distraction too. “No point me trying unless the whole system changes” particularly when the change might seem like it involves some level of sacrafice (which often isn’t as clear cut as it seems or is presented).

          I wonder if its more about paralysing perfectionism rather individual vs system. “Can’t be zero emissions as an individual without structural change” so don’t do anything. Similarly on the other side “can’t overthrow the whole global system so no point doing anything”.

          I really we wish we talked a lot more about the intermediates between I individual and systemic/national. There’s so many smaller organisations that individuals have more agency in changing and in turn have more agency in changing larger numbers of individuals and influencing more of the systemic level

          • Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            It definitely is used that way and I probably should’ve worded my post a bit differently so I don’t discourage others from taking action.

            What I actually think we need is individual level systemic actions which is sort of oxymoronic but I think it has some sort of logic to it.

            For example if you think that capitalism is causing a lot of the worlds problems then stop buying stuff and try to find ways to reuse what you already have or get it without engaging with that system (swap shops, free cycle, etc).

            It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. There is obviously some things that you can’t live without buying on some capacity, but like you were saying don’t let good be the enemy of perfect and it is better to find alternative systems or ways of doing things that still satisfy your needs.

            And I’ll say this is true of climate related problems too. Even if capitalism isn’t necessarily the main cause, the goal should be to identity what system we think is causing these problems and gradually try and replace these systems in our daily lives with something hopefully better.

            Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

          • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I agree that it’s a distraction, just like the “100 companies” is a distraction. I can’t stand the systemic/individual comparisons because people don’t even know the difference. For example, I can get a 30% tax credit for solar/storage, $2k on a heat pump, $12,500 off an EV in Colorado, and more coming soon for low/moderate income folks via the IRA in the US. When people go to buy this stuff, is it an individual action or the result of these policies? Does it even matter outside the context of this weird debate where the two things are falsely thought of as mutually exclusive? We can all walk and chew gum at the same time. Do what you can, vote, talk, etc. and don’t get caught up criticizing beneficial things others are doing because they aren’t exactly what you would do in their shoes. Building a culture around solving the issue takes many forms.

    • Beaver@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      “For example if I wanted to be a vegan I’d have to pay extra since the dairy and beef industry have subsidies and most corporations charge extra for vegan/vegetarian options.”

      That is not true as eating a whole foods plant based diet is 30% cheaper and it also saves you thousands in healthcare costs over the long term.

      Stop being unethical and do what’s right for your health, the environment and for the animals. Go vegan.

      “Oxford University research has today revealed that, in countries such as the US, the UK, Australia and across Western Europe, adopting a vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian diet could slash your food bill by up to one-third.

      The study, which compared the cost of seven sustainable diets to the current typical diet in 150 countries, using food prices from the World Bank’s International Comparison Program, was published in The Lancet Planetary Health.”

      Source: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study