This is one of the central supporting arguments for government regulation: customers won't pick what's better for society, but rather according to their own short-term needs. Since customers don't care, companies don't either (save those that use their environmental concern as part of their marketing...I suspect most of those measures don't really move the needle, though). That leaves only government. I wish it weren't this way, but I can't argue with the evidence.
I guess cars would be slightly lighter and faster without seatbelts or airbags.
Or planes would cost slightly less to fly if they were not required to carry safety equipment.
That’s exactly because people like you don’t give a shit and corporations will do anything to save/make a buck that laws and regulations like this have to be made and enforced.
I interpreted OPs sentiment to be an example of consumerism. Individually, sure, “some degree” could be considered meaningless, but collectively, the sentiment drives supply and production decisions, so no, I don’t think it’s a spurious or meaningless assertion to make.
His point was very clearly about each individual and not cooperative behavior. And I deny that "each individual" doesn't care unless "to some degree" is used to support degrees so small they are approximately nonexistant
I have never seen appealing to personal responsibility drive change at a large scale. Like all creatures, humans are driven by a balance of incentives and disincentives. If you want to drive change, systemically alter the balance. I think the approach of the policy discussed in TFA is aligned with this view.
I’m not sure exactly where we our disagreement lies, but I think it’s a mistake to dismiss small degrees of sentiment as those small degrees manifest as purchase decisions, which collectively manifest as multimillion dollar industries that are supported by those individual actions. Additionally, asserting that someone either cares or doesn’t care and that there’s not some continuum is a false dichotomy.
I agree that systemic changes are important. However, I disagree that personal responsibility cannot drive sufficient behavior. Look at individuals recycling.
But we're talking about this line of discussion. Which was sparked by someday saying they didn't care and no one did. I objected to the latter part of that. It's bullshit that no one cares. There are ethical vegans and people who do all kinds of things because of personal responsibility.
That makes no sense because people won't buy cars without seatbelts or airbags - and if they do, it's them dying, which they should have the freedom to do.
It’s not only the owner of the car dying. It’s also the passengers who may or may not have had a say in the decision. Never mind the cost to society as a whole from medical bills resulting in these preventable injuries, the psychological trauma for survivors/witnesses, or the effect of orphaned children growing up without parents.
I'd say you're dead wrong here - just look at the pushback against seatbelts when the laws were introduced. Look at the devices on sale, today, to defeat seat belt alarms.
Regarding your second point, that's also objectively incorrect. When accidents happen, passengers, especially backseat passengers, become projectiles that cause additional injuries or excess deaths for other occupants. It's not just the dude not wearing a seatbelt dying, it's also the people around them.
Don't you worry, if we keep using the planet like we currently do, and like you do by saying you don't give a shit, then we'll all die soon enough because of our lack of respect for our environment — lack of access to clean water will hit loads of people in the coming decades.
Either that or we come up with laws that keep us competitive without destroying everything around us. I hope that's what Europe will do and I will support regulation that takes a tiny bit of comfort away if it makes us more resilient in the face of climate change and geopolitical difficulties.
Whether you give a shit or not isn't important. Regardless what you personally think, a law is accepted if it's acceptable. And most people will think "OK, I get that we can't continue to throw away phones and keep using some countries as slaves just because we want the latest iPhone now". Just like people in Europe accept to pay more taxes than in other places of the world because we get that solidarity is important.
I don't understand. Are you saying that the government should do whatever they want even if it goes against what the majority of the population wants? That is everything but democratic.
And you do realise that no countries have complete democracy? Even Switzerland with their many referendums doesn't put every decision to a democratic vote. Partly for practical and pragmatic reasons, but also because some things are best not decided by the masses.
The government frequently makes everyone do things they would rather not do because the aggregate result is good. And the results of the collective action make everyone happy to the point that the law is supported. That's the basis of all tragedy of the commons based laws.
The clear point is people that don't "give a shit" about the environment or their fellow people are not the majority and so the government should continue to make environmentally lead decisions regardless of the existence of sociopaths.
That answer is going to sound unpopular here, but deep down is how most people feel.