Side effect of the times. If there are 5 people in an entire football stadium and 3 decide to smoke- the other 2 people could probably easily never have to smell that or deal with the health effects. If 2 people decide they will just throw trash on the floor, the others may never have to experience negative consequences of it. That could go on for years or decades or more perhaps if those 5 people were all trapped in the stadium together.
But- if there are 10 people, they have a little more chance of bothering each other and how long people can do those things becomes shorter. If you have 30,000+ people on that stadium and more than half are smoking and half are trashing the place, it won’t be long before the stadium is trashed and others can’t avoid your messes. Earth is 7 billion and counting and with the resources we have- more than half those people live in poverty or some state of un or under development to the standard of the age.
Let me put it another way- the same flight- let’s say Dallas to New York, produced almost twice as much pollution in 1950 as it does today. So problem solved right? No. Air travel pollution is worse than ever. Even with planes that pollute twice as much, more than ten times as many flights occur daily in modern times than did in 1950. So even doubling the efficiency of aircraft doesn’t lower the overall pollution level, it just makes it lower than it would be if we didn’t increase efficiency.
When not every home had a car and cars tended to be uncommon or not really seen in the hands of “regular people” outside of a few wealthy nations- what was a little air pollution form cars? Not a big deal. Then almost every house in richer nations had a car. Then they averaged 2, sometimes more- no more “family car,” practically every adult or even driving age kid owned their very own car. Then cars became cheap and common enough that masses around the world who couldn’t drive suddenly could.
Understanding big numbers and big concepts is hard. Even the smartest people, trained at the task, don’t do super great. The human brain just isn’t good at it.
We just have to understand the world is bigger than us and we aren’t the only people in it. “I want..” it’s great to want, but your actions impact other people. If “just one person” does it, it’s probably fine, but you aren’t the only person who wants to run your AC or heater on a higher setting in bad wether or not have to quarantine or whatever else- most of us would want to as well- but we can’t all do it if we want there to be a future or even a right now.
You can argue personal freedom or “personal judgment” but I doubt you’d be ok if all the nuclear weapons in the world were kept unwatched and unguarded somewhere with a sign saying “don’t touch” and we all just said: “no one would have such poor judgment or be so inconsiderate as to take and use one of these, and if they did that is their personal freedom of choice…”
@guest_ that is quite a stretch to compare keeping warm and comfortable in the winter months to what you described. I think you might be wrong on this one. We are talking about arresting someone for what they are doing behind closed doors in their own homes and using gas they are paying for from what I assume is a privately run gas company. I personally think that’s a bit extreme. And such a low number too. Like 66F in the winter can be a bit chilly. Like if it was a reasonable 80F maybe it might be different but 66 is a bit of a stretch for arresting someone rationing or not. Now to be fair it is not likely to happen at all but we are talking the concept of it not necessarily it actually happening right now. Either way it is a bit of overreach if you ask me and a bit of a stretch to compare it the way you did. Just my 2 cents. Btw I still read everyone of your paragraphs you post weather I agree or not so keep it up, I like to read.
@nicklebackman- thank you. To be clear- the examples are exaggerated intentionally because on a small scale it is very hard for most people to truly grasp how big of an impact very small choices can have- even people who “understand” the concept- and I’m no exception- fall victim to ignoring the reality daily. We cannot sustain this. It’s really that simple. Using America- a country that tips or near tops so many lists for waste and consumption as an example- if every nation on earth was able to and decided to live that way- we’d just run out of basically everything before long. But to some extent that is what is happening. The gap between the worlds poorest and worlds richest is shrinking- but the worlds poorest aren’t middle class or lower middle class Americans etc- they’re billions around the globe who access to “small” “luxuries” like running water add up and have made huge impacts.
At some point for that to continue, for the poorest people to approach a standard of living closer to the worlds wealthy but unaware of how wealthy they are compared to global average- the ceiling has to come down. The earth is a closed ecosystem more or less. We aren’t going to magically find magnitudes more to give out and there already isn’t enough. So as time goes by those who aren’t in the top most percent of the top 1% are probably going to be living much simpler and more difficult lives. Unless we have some massive war or other event to change that course or we suddenly develop star reek technology.
As to coming into your own home and all- I mean- on one level I get that. On another I don’t. I mean- some might say it should be legal to buy drugs from a drug dealer if it all is within your own home- but I bet there are a whole lot of unsavory businesses that most people would say aren’t ok even if they happen in your own home and involve goods you paid for with your money from a private party. “Those things are illegal!” Of course. Because.. we passed laws to make it so. If we pass laws to make turning up the heat illegal- it’s illegal too. “But those things are illegal because they cause harm to people or society!” And yes. So too does this. So I don’t think it is a stretch to say there is precedent that one cannot do whatever one wants in one’s home regardless of wether you paid your own money or not.
But- I do agree that I dislike the concept of the government or anyone telling me what I can or can’t do let alone in my house.
The entire “green” argument hangs on some concept that we are either somehow indebted to all men or to the future of the species. That falls apart of course when we meet someone who doesn’t care. If you don’t plan to have kids or don’t care what happens after you’re gone and believe they can make their own way or that’s just Darwinism- why would you care about the future? It isn’t a dig. I’m being serious. So the entire thing hinges on the already shakey idea that the government is mandating what your values should be. That regardless of your beliefs that you will be forced to behave in a way that is future thinking or considerate. Legislating morality and such is usually a bad start…
So I’m. It saying that there isn’t anything here to question- but I am saying that ultimately it logically follows that a government would have the prerogative to be future thinking. The government as an entity only exists if the future allows that and those in power or with legacies of power o my continue that if they continue the government and have a future for that. Thusly it is generally fairly intuitive that anyone with interest and skill in holding lasting influence would take steps to control outcomes to their benefit. At the end of the day a person who doesn’t care and will not act to the future interests of the government and people of power is a person whom is a potential risk. If you had termites you likely wouldn't deeply debate the ethics or consider what right you have to take their freedom or lives. You’d get rid of them before they caused serious harm or ruination and take steps to prevent other pests from doing the same.
So all I’m saying is that there are multiple perspectives on such an issue and that the “altruistic” perspective can be a selfish perspective as well- someone who takes your personal freedom for their own is to some degree selfish. Smoking can kill- but it is unlikely one time in a Smokey bar will cause your death from second hand exposure.
Societies around the world at large have cracked down on smoking- taken that personal freedom even though any one smoker is unlikely to cause real harm to any one random person.
In many parts of the world it isn’t even legal to smoke in your own home. While I’m happy about that from a selfish perspective I certainly think about the perspective that we have taken the rights of individuals to make choices. In the end what it comes down to most often when a “free” society curtails freedoms is a question of wether one’s personal freedom takes away the freedoms of others and weighing a right to “peaceable enjoyment”- a basic right to exist without..
.. threat. Do I think that temperature is a bit ridiculous? Personally I do. But I live somewhere that rarely sees temperatures below 60 or so degrees and I don’t use heat or AC so I can’t speak as someone who had to deal with real cold on any regular basis. As a kid when it was cold we added blankets because we couldn’t afford heat, or we made a fire. That last one is illegal many places now and impractical many more lol. So I’m hardly saying that it would be a perfect law as described- but I’m saying that’s just likely to be the way it is going to be, and more and more so going forward because we are trapped in an enclosed space with limited resources and ever increasing demands. Not everyone can have everything. To kee what they can people who can are going to take from people who can’t stop them. It’s that simple. Revolts and rebellions just change who is taking and who is being taken from. It’s cyclical.
But- if there are 10 people, they have a little more chance of bothering each other and how long people can do those things becomes shorter. If you have 30,000+ people on that stadium and more than half are smoking and half are trashing the place, it won’t be long before the stadium is trashed and others can’t avoid your messes. Earth is 7 billion and counting and with the resources we have- more than half those people live in poverty or some state of un or under development to the standard of the age.
When not every home had a car and cars tended to be uncommon or not really seen in the hands of “regular people” outside of a few wealthy nations- what was a little air pollution form cars? Not a big deal. Then almost every house in richer nations had a car. Then they averaged 2, sometimes more- no more “family car,” practically every adult or even driving age kid owned their very own car. Then cars became cheap and common enough that masses around the world who couldn’t drive suddenly could.
We just have to understand the world is bigger than us and we aren’t the only people in it. “I want..” it’s great to want, but your actions impact other people. If “just one person” does it, it’s probably fine, but you aren’t the only person who wants to run your AC or heater on a higher setting in bad wether or not have to quarantine or whatever else- most of us would want to as well- but we can’t all do it if we want there to be a future or even a right now.
You can argue personal freedom or “personal judgment” but I doubt you’d be ok if all the nuclear weapons in the world were kept unwatched and unguarded somewhere with a sign saying “don’t touch” and we all just said: “no one would have such poor judgment or be so inconsiderate as to take and use one of these, and if they did that is their personal freedom of choice…”
But- I do agree that I dislike the concept of the government or anyone telling me what I can or can’t do let alone in my house.
Societies around the world at large have cracked down on smoking- taken that personal freedom even though any one smoker is unlikely to cause real harm to any one random person.
In many parts of the world it isn’t even legal to smoke in your own home. While I’m happy about that from a selfish perspective I certainly think about the perspective that we have taken the rights of individuals to make choices. In the end what it comes down to most often when a “free” society curtails freedoms is a question of wether one’s personal freedom takes away the freedoms of others and weighing a right to “peaceable enjoyment”- a basic right to exist without..