"It feels like one of the best ways to solve this issue is to have people who care in government... Leaded gasoline is an easy success story: once regulators put a cap on it, companies phased it out worldwide in <15 years."
I mostly agree that it feels like the government is best suited for collective benefit, but history seems to have very few examples where we've managed to get proactively ahead of severe health or moral hazards. OSHA policies are typically written in blood, not derived from hazard models. I think that we got ahead of the ball on CFCs, but I also recall the ozone layer hole being related to that. Maybe we can consider that banning PFAs or the Clean Water act were at least alongside the curve instead of behind it. (And I seem to recall that California kind of forced the envelope on a lot of these things).
In the face of that fact, the first thing that comes to my mind is that I have to think for myself, and not wait for a government policy to affect my personal set of values or morals or whatever. I am increasingly trending towards veganism these days, but my partner is not quite as far along. When I was looking to buy her chicken, I did my research - of course discovering that I could pay more for chickens that had decidedly better lives. I am blessed enough to afford that, so I do it.
I am making a difference, and I am not the only person who thinks this way. Blogs like these, as well as their audiences, are our crucible.
> Remember that boycott problem I mentioned? Interestingly, a dollar routed through a proven charity gives around 10 times more money to the people you’re trying to help than a dollar spent on a boycott.
What does this mean, exactly? Isn't a boycott about NOT spending money?
Edited for clarity. A dollar spent on charity vs a dollar switched to a competitor. This is because, for example, only a small amount of the money at a grocery store directly supports factory farming, the rest goes to grocery markups, shipping, and certification fees. Meanwhile, the vast majority of money donated to a charity directly targets factory farming
I see, this is basically what I thought you meant but just wanted to clarify. Where did you get this “10 times” number from? I feel like it depends highly on the individual charity and the individual business you’re boycotting. Unless you’re specifically only referring to factory farming as an issue.
Also, I’m not sure it makes sense to compare a “protest dollar” to a “charity dollar” like that; a dollar “spent” in a boycott (i.e. switched to a competitor) is a net zero cost for the consumer, or possibly even net “profit” if they decide to abstain from that purchase entirely rather than just switching to a competitor. Whereas a dollar spent on charity costs them, well, a dollar.
1) The amount of time, effort and overall sanity required to do the research and come to accurate conclusions are beyond what most consumers can do. Make a quick decision and it's more about which company has the best marketing.
2) For the "exploitation", there is the argument about whether or not these jobs are the least-bad option for the people working them.
3) The "average people would be put off their lunch" isn't actually a good argument. People would be put off their lunch by closeups of butt-holes. Moral badness != ick reactions.
4) "My thoughts here are that people really do care about animals, like dogs," Perhaps. Some people put a lot of care into potplants, or stuffed toys.
"It feels like one of the best ways to solve this issue is to have people who care in government... Leaded gasoline is an easy success story: once regulators put a cap on it, companies phased it out worldwide in <15 years."
I mostly agree that it feels like the government is best suited for collective benefit, but history seems to have very few examples where we've managed to get proactively ahead of severe health or moral hazards. OSHA policies are typically written in blood, not derived from hazard models. I think that we got ahead of the ball on CFCs, but I also recall the ozone layer hole being related to that. Maybe we can consider that banning PFAs or the Clean Water act were at least alongside the curve instead of behind it. (And I seem to recall that California kind of forced the envelope on a lot of these things).
In the face of that fact, the first thing that comes to my mind is that I have to think for myself, and not wait for a government policy to affect my personal set of values or morals or whatever. I am increasingly trending towards veganism these days, but my partner is not quite as far along. When I was looking to buy her chicken, I did my research - of course discovering that I could pay more for chickens that had decidedly better lives. I am blessed enough to afford that, so I do it.
I am making a difference, and I am not the only person who thinks this way. Blogs like these, as well as their audiences, are our crucible.
> Remember that boycott problem I mentioned? Interestingly, a dollar routed through a proven charity gives around 10 times more money to the people you’re trying to help than a dollar spent on a boycott.
What does this mean, exactly? Isn't a boycott about NOT spending money?
Edited for clarity. A dollar spent on charity vs a dollar switched to a competitor. This is because, for example, only a small amount of the money at a grocery store directly supports factory farming, the rest goes to grocery markups, shipping, and certification fees. Meanwhile, the vast majority of money donated to a charity directly targets factory farming
I see, this is basically what I thought you meant but just wanted to clarify. Where did you get this “10 times” number from? I feel like it depends highly on the individual charity and the individual business you’re boycotting. Unless you’re specifically only referring to factory farming as an issue.
Also, I’m not sure it makes sense to compare a “protest dollar” to a “charity dollar” like that; a dollar “spent” in a boycott (i.e. switched to a competitor) is a net zero cost for the consumer, or possibly even net “profit” if they decide to abstain from that purchase entirely rather than just switching to a competitor. Whereas a dollar spent on charity costs them, well, a dollar.
1) The amount of time, effort and overall sanity required to do the research and come to accurate conclusions are beyond what most consumers can do. Make a quick decision and it's more about which company has the best marketing.
2) For the "exploitation", there is the argument about whether or not these jobs are the least-bad option for the people working them.
3) The "average people would be put off their lunch" isn't actually a good argument. People would be put off their lunch by closeups of butt-holes. Moral badness != ick reactions.
4) "My thoughts here are that people really do care about animals, like dogs," Perhaps. Some people put a lot of care into potplants, or stuffed toys.