this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
99 points (89.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26666 readers
1533 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Confronted with the likelihood that we cannot achieve climate goals, confront socioeconomic inequality, and ultimately build a better world without significant personal sacrifice: How much are you personally capable and willing to lose? I mean this in the most earnest way possible. Acknowledging the likely possibility of working for an unethical organization while simultaneously supporting family who rely on you financially. Do you believe the amount we can and will bear aligns with the amount we must bear?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nothing, I'm only making a better world if I can make my own life better at the same time. I do live an extreme frugal existence and avoid working for any unethical organization, but it's not a sacrifice.

What we can "bear" is the wrong question for a couple reasons:

  • Consumer luxuries don't actually make for a better life.

  • Altruistic scheming isn't anyone's actual motivation for doing things.

  • "sacrifice" is irrational bargaining; reality doesn't care whether you've made yourself enough of a martyr, and people who want to be martyrs don't care if what they're sacrificing actually makes much of a difference.

An effective solution will involve changes we can be happy about and a lifestyle that is actually better than what we have now. Commutes and lives spent stressing over money are a shit trade for what people get from it anyway, it won't be hard to do better with less.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Consumer luxuries don't actually make for a better life.

The fundamental luxuries do.

Humans spend a third of their life asleep. A good mattress makes a big difference in the quality of sleep, but it being a Cali King sure isn’t going to change much.

Modern life requires a high degree of physical mobility. Public transportation (Europe, etc) and cars allow us to cover distances in hours that would have taken days even a century and a half ago. A decent-quality vehicle can make a big difference in the reliability of said transportation and our ability to get around, but it being a Mercedes or a Bentley sure isn’t going to change much.

And the list could easily run to hundreds of examples, if not thousands.

We live in a world where most any first-world consumer item is a luxury compared to the global poor, or pretty much anything comparable from a century and a half ago.

What doesn’t have much of a positive impact, however, is the delta between an affordable item and a high-end item that costs many multiples more. People can and should aim for those “luxuries” that don’t yet tip over into deminishing returns, as opposed to those luxuries that are excessive purely for the purpose of producing excessive displays of wealth.

Like vehicles - both of mine (sedan, utility pickup) are approaching a quarter century of age. Could I afford brand-new vehicles? Sure. But why would I waste my money and planetary resources like that? The ones I have still work just fine with only basic maintenance, and are perfectly adequate in getting me (and cargo) from point A to point B. I have absolutely no ego that demands newer or fancier.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Modern life requires a high degree of physical mobility

It doesn't have to be that way, and I'm not convinced it's strictly better that way.

We live in a world where most any first-world consumer item is a luxury compared to the global poor

Idk about that, even people without electricity or running water can get a cheap cell phone and solar charger now.

What doesn’t have much of a positive impact, however, is the delta between an affordable item and a high-end item that costs many multiples more. People can and should aim for those “luxuries” that don’t yet tip over into deminishing returns

Definitely. No need to be giving up things like regular bathing and functional cooking utensils that make a big difference for little expense.