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?

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I would sacrifice my left arm if I thought it would prevent a climate catastrophe. But it won’t. Literally nothing I can give will improve any of the problems you listed.

    What should I be willing to sacrifice? Hamburgers? My personal car? Money? My kid’s college fund? Give me an outcome, and I’ll tell you if it’s worth it.

    • sik0fewl@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ya, I was going to “offer” much more than my left arm. But it wouldn’t do anything. The changes need to be much more systemic(?) than that.

      I wouldn’t give up cheeseburgers, though. But if I only had them once a year, I’d probably survive.

    • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      If you already knew the outcome, it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice would it. Sometimes we need to do something because it’s the right thing to do, not because it guarantees success.

      • Nelots@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I mean, yes, it would be? If I can solve world hunger by sacrificing my left arm to the elder gods or some shit, I’m still losing my left arm. It’s still a sacrifice.

        • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You mention ‘solve world hunger’, implying you know that’s the outcome already. That’s an easier choice then, isn’t it. The point I’m making is that doing something because it’s the right thing to do regardless of whether you know it’s going to work is what makes it a bigger sacrifice. The person I was replying to was also implying they would only consider sacrificing something if they knew the outcome first. If we all did that we’d never achieve anything.

      • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        It would because it would still be a choice. One would have to make it or choose not to. Yes it makes the sacrifice smaller but it’s a valid point. I also share that concern.

        It wouldn’t need to be guaranteed but right now many scarifices are basically insignificant

        • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Insignificant in the wider picture, maybe. But as you imply we have little to no control over that. All we can influence is our own actions, and hope that will be enough. The problem with the defeatist attitude that so often surrounds any discourse regarding, for example, climate change is that by declaring success impossible before you even try, all you do is guarantee failure.

          All one need do is chose what changes one wishes to make and then make them to the best of one’s abilities. That’s it. If you can look yourself in the eye and say ‘I did all I could. I did my best’ then you have succeeded. Will it achieve everything we want it to? Maybe not, but it’ll achieve 100% more than not trying. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to do what we can. So I argue we should all try and do just that and be content that we did our best, because I will not except defeat. How about you?

          • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’d argue that effort is better spent fighting for broader change. Ideally you’d do both but one is more significant than the other imo

            I have no interest in being a modern day martyr. Both of us could end our lives right now and it would be the most eco friendly action possible, but it would wouldn’t even begin to move the needle. Insignificant is not even close to describing it. So I won’t severely impact my lifestyle just so that I can feel good about it. I will and have make compromises and reductions to help with this, up to a certain point and I have and will continue to push for broader changes that will affect groups of people even if I’m included in those groups because there the proposition is different.

            Imagine you live with a couple of roommates and they completely trash the place every single night. We’re talking like shitting in the middle of the living room, trash everywhere etc etc I won’t contribute to that mess at that scale but I won’t lose sleep if I left the my dishes undone overnight.

            • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Then it sounds like you’ve made your choices, and you should be satisfied with them. That’s a good thing. Those compromises and reductions have moved the needle. A little, maybe, but it’s still doing something. Good for you. 👍.