On 2/5/2012 1:51 PM, Dawie Coetzee wrote:
> Hi Robert
>
>
> However, the simple per-capita distribution of responsibility inherent in a
> strict application of the ecological footprint metaphor is not quite just. Am
> I really responsible for the State-corporate collusion that built the
> urban-economic systems in which I have to try to derive some kind of living?
> I find it rich having to take responsibility for HOW I travel 40km a day if
> it is not my fault THAT I HAVE TO travel 40km a day. Not that I do: being
> willing to take more than my fair share of the responsibility freedom from
> the need to drive is a major consideration in my choice of where to live. But
> my power, and hence my choice of options within the system, is limited.
> (By the way, they are not really resource wars. They are capital-and-product
> scrapping wars. They are market-unsaturating wars. Quite as bad if not worse!)
Ok, I think I understand your position now. As a member of a given
society, I have no personal control over the larger constructs that
define my civilization, but because I'm a social creature, I'm compelled
by nature to participate in society. Thus, my personal responsibility
is limited. Is that a fair summary? If so, I'd concede the point and
in doing so, admit that you are more libertarian in your views than I am.
> The discrete-responsibility model
> has its limits, because it might turn out that the greater part of the
> responsibility is structural rather than personal.
> Therefore the proper remedy is structural rather than personal. Indeed we
> cannot buy our way out, no matter how puritannical and abstentious our
> choices, because it does not depend on how we choose. The role Government has
> in this is not restricting individual behaviour (barring the behaviour of
> unusually powerful individuals) but dismantling the structure of contingent
> need by which the corporations exercise their economic power. Restrictions on
> the behaviour of common people are indeed part of this structure - which is
> what I meant by "putting out the fire with gasoline".
Again, you have stated a well-reasoned position. Government policy
is largely responsible for establishing and sustaining a given economic
model. Replacing the model would go a long way toward solving the
larger, ecological problems that we face. Do you suppose, however, that
people in positions of exceeding power, be it in finance or business,
would be willing to part with their wealth and authority for the greater
good of the biosphere? Depending on human altruism alone is insufficient
for this task, particularly in circumstances where there is no
relationship between members of various groups. The research of Fehr
and Gachter (Nature, 2002) illustrates that without some form of
"punishment" (so that individuals are held accountable to the larger
group), cooperation declines quickly over time. So, while you may be
right that governments will resort to increasingly draconian measures
(my language, not yours) in order to compel cooperation, is there
another way to make changes on a large enough scale to militate the
impact of climate change?
The fact that governments would be required to enforce restrictions
on corporate and individual behavior is precisely why conservatives
oppose environmental legislation.
Robert Luis Rabello
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca
Meet the People video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsCdh1hZ6c
Crisis video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4
The Long Journey video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
