I am always a bit baffled when, after decades of living in a globalized economy, people who are part of advanced economies claim they have no connections to events, driven by economics, occurring on the other side of the world.

If you eat meat regularly, you are connected to Brazil's deforestation, either for cattle or for soy feed. If you have invested in the stock market, you are most likely connected to the international flow of capital, which is also driving said deforestation.

Even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.

That reasoning is problematic, as it amounts to reviving the concept of "original sin" to apply it to anyone who happens to live in a developed economy. By throwing blanket statements such as that, it is discouraging even the small changes that may help (for we are all "sinners" regardless), and diffuses responsibility from those who truly could make an impact.

I believe a lot of hand-wringing on these topics comes from positions of economic privilege, usually in the richer end of developed economies. I see little awareness of the lifestyles of individuals of mid-to-lower socio-economic status in the developed world, how little their share of impact is compared to those of the middle and upper class, and how little room of manoeuvrer they may have to make a difference even if they had the time and energy to.

Your comment reads like you are projecting your own guilt onto the parent.

They said that you are "connected" to deforestation if you are living in a developed economy - you interpreted that as implying that all people in developed economies are sinning. They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected.

They then made two conditions predicated on having high socio-economic status (eating meat regularly, investing in a stock market) and stated that these do imply some level of guilt. I think that does account for the difference in lifestyle between income levels in the global economy and read it as implying that those with the most impactful lifestyle should make the most reductions - agreeing with your statement amount relative room for maneuvering.

EDIT: You said "I believe a lot of hand-wringing on these topics comes from positions of economic privilege" - many agree. Many see environmentalism as a "bourgeois playground" to its detriment. You might find this interesting: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/naomi-klein/let-them-drown

> They said that you are "connected" to deforestation if you are living in a developed economy - you interpreted that as implying that all people in developed economies are sinning. They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected.

He replied to "if you eat meat regularly, you are connected to Brazil's deforestation, either for cattle or for soy feed. If you have invested in the stock market, you are most likely connected to the international flow of capital, which is also driving said deforestation.". Does this not assume "guilty"? There is the implication in that message that if you are in any way connected to the destruction of X (deforestation in this particular example), then you are at fault (i.e. guilty).

Then the person he replied to went on to "even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.", i.e. "everyone who is connected is still at fault".

I read "being "connected" to deforestation" as contributing to it. Is this incorrect? Are we just arguing over words? I believe that in this context "connected" really just means "contributing" (to deforestation, which I assume is "bad").

Now my question is, how do we become unconnected? The part where he says even if we do not eat meat and so forth, we are still contributing to these problems. What is the solution, then? Is there a solution? Am I supposed to live anywhere but not "in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits"? What if everyone did this, would it not lead to the same problem? I do not think that being fatalistic is of any help here.

Stop thinking in terms of individual guilt and how to avoid it, think in terms of collective responsibility. What do we need to do to solve the problem, not what do I need to do to exculpate myself from it.

The only difference is that my behavior is under my control, while what others do is outside of my control (yes, I can have an influence on people, or I could use force, etc. but this really is besides the point).

My question still stands. As an individual, what can I do to stop contributing to say, deforestation? How do I become "unconnected"? If you want, you could also answer this question not in terms of the individual, but the group of people (collective). What should I do? What should we do? These two questions are different, and they may have two entirely different answers. If not, then what does it matter if I asked it from the POV of the individual? Feel free to answer both of them if you wish.

For the sake of the discussion, please do not assume individual guilt. I did not ask what to do to exculpate myself from it.

> Now my question is, how do we become unconnected?

That's easy. The people of the Amazon pass some laws that protect their land.

America has this form of protection vs exploitation. Brazil needs to get with the program. Its not an American problem - I eat corn fed beef and pork from Kansas and Nebraska.

This does not answer my question sufficiently, because it does not address this (posted by propater): "even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.".

According to the aforementioned quote, you may eat corn fed beef and pork from Kansas and Nebraska, but you still "live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.". I am curious what propater had in mind as a solution to this.

By buying meat in a global market, you are creating demand for meat, which affects all markets.

The only way the purchase of a good can fail to move global markets is to be wholly disconnected from the market. This means you would have to live in a country that neither imports nor exports meat at all.

> This means you would have to live in a country that neither imports nor exports meat at all.

This does not address the issue which is the high demand for meat. This "solution" seems to be forced diet change. I believe it would create a black market for meat instead.

Then by your logic, you are contributing to global warming by just breathing carbon dioxide out, and ought to disconnect yourself from the global atmosphere.

But, seriously, assuming you cannot change global meat market demand, what other solutions are there?

> They didn't say that everyone is guilty, just connected.

That doesn't say anything though. Everybody is connected to everything. It may be direct, indirect, with one or two or twenty hops, but everybody is connected. You can make an argument that the last few uncontacted tribes aren't connected, but everybody else is, especially by the "you're living in a society that reaps the benefits" idea, because pretty much everybody does that to varying degrees (but still connected) with technology, medical advances etc.

>That reasoning is problematic, as it amounts to reviving the concept of "original sin" to apply it to anyone who happens to live in a developed economy.

Well, the original sin never really went away.

People are inherently flawed creatures (which is what the original sin myth meant to capture).

And "anyone who happens to live in a developed economy" contributes to today's climate problem, whether they want/link it or not. They don't even have to be on the top of the hierarchy (although there's probably a powerlaw/pareto distribution of harm).

I guess I am your boogeyman: I eat meat regularly, have investments, grew up and live in the middle of a western society.

By default I'm inclined to stop doing exactly zero of those, and by saying "you're at fault no matter what you do or don't do" you've just removed the sole remaining incentive for me to stop doing it: being able to say "it's not my fault". If I'm to blame no matter what I do, I might as well enjoy it and let the other suckers do the sacrifices for no gain that I'm unwilling to make, completely guilt-free.

This is insane... I react to a post saying "I am not connected to what happens in Brazil" by saying, yes, as a matter of fact, you are very likely to be connected to those events and people jump the gun and talk about sin, guilt and boogeymen...

We have a problem. We have put in place structures, institutions and incentives that are failing us and jeopardizing our capacity to protect our values in the future.

I agree that the individual has a limited impact on what is happening and collective action is needed.

And yet, collective action is not going to happen if every individual is defecting or just stays ignorant of their place in those systems.

And yet, the problem is not going to disappear if no one is implementing at least some changes to one's lifestyle.

You say the only motivation for you is to be able to say "it is not my fault" but reality does not care whose fault it is...

There are many tools that the international community has to influence domestic policy for a given country. We use economic sanctions all the time.

If the international community decided to stop buying beef and soy from Brazil, the demand would evaporate and it wouldn't be economical for them to continue their practices.

When you say international community, what do you mean, the UN? The WTO? The G7?

I'm curious. What precedents are there for such a "community" to enforce sanctions on a country's use of their own natural resources?

Hello boogeyman - then let me be your counter example.

I eat meat regularly. But it is not that much - compared to the national average. And I know exactly that neither the cattle, nor their food came from anywhere near the Amazonas.

I only eat meat when I know the producer and how they produced it. In my case it is a local farm that is a closed system: They grow what they need to feed their cattle - and use the manure to grow their crops (and so on). And the cattle is treated by very high standards regarding organic meat production in Germany (Bioland standard).

In the winter months I do eat about 50 - 110 grams of meat per week on average. Depending on if I do have a bigger piece of meat on the weekends or "just" some ham (and the like) during the week.

In the summer month my garden produces so much vegetables that I am nearly fully vegetarian - my current meat average for the summer is below 10 grams per week.

Disclaimer: Yes, I have butter at home to cook with. Yes I use dairy, also from said local farm.

But - and that is the interesting aspect for me: A lot more people could do this.

The produced meat is of such a quality, that I can have the ham cut so thin, I could read the newspaper through it - it still tastes way more intensive than the stuff from the big box store.

So per slice of bread - my ham is costing me less than before the switch.I am actually saving money by having a great taste and also supporting local farmers that act in sync with the environment.

Your German organic farm is most likely heavily subsidised (as all EU farms are) so it does in fact take advantage of same system which profits off the actions in Amazon. So you are just one more step removed.

Tbh it sounds like you're guilt-free either way. You're saying that it doesn't matter at all to you when your actions harm others. You would like to be able to say they didn't, but don't feel guilty if they do. Also fwiw as many people who have tried it will tell you, there is a gain in acting selflessly, and it's better than the gain from acting selfishly. The idea that altruism is for suckers is actually harmful to your self-interest.

Human behavior is economic behavior, which is a fancy way of saying "people do things because there's a perceived benefit to doing so". Altruistic behavior usually carries at least a social benefit, besides the "I did good" feeling which is also a personal benefit. Blaming someone for something outside their control and saying that they're always to blame no matter what nullifies both of those incentives: you stop reaping their rewards.

This is a good example: if you're still shamed despite altruistic behavior, why would I possibly keep making sacrifices that I gain nothing for (including feeling good about having done them) when I can go back to my VASTLY more rewarding hedonistic lifestyle?

If you put someone in a situation where they're supposed to feel shame no matter what, they're going to become 100% insensitive to it in record time. In other words: yes, I am guilt-free because there's no other possible state under this framework of inescapable blame.

I think you are too focused on the individual. Reducing your personal meat consumption, your personal emissions and so on is nice and all but it is not going to be enough. You are also embedded in a number of social structures and institutions and those will have to change too if we want to be able to claim to be "guilt free" and those changes require personal involvement.

Individuals tend to focus on the individual. Trying to change everyone's routine is like trying to push water upstream. You'd be better served by targeting a message to the Brazilian people that they should protect their natural resource.

No, he's saying he is guilt-laden either way. Therefore, it makes no sense to put in effort because it will not absolve him of that perceived yoke.

this kind of thinking is why we are doomed. obviously there are things you can do, but you just choose to ignore them and take offence instead

Exactly, fatalism is not going to be any helpful.

The problem with a post like this is that it tries to guilt the individual and their consumerism - but individuals cannot have enough of an impact. It's up to our chosen representatives to e.g. ban the import of soy and beef from Brazil. The net effect to the individual will be that beef is either more expensive or simply no longer available - and that's fine, there's plenty of local and renewable alternatives.

No, focusing on and guilting the individual is, pardon my conspiracy theory language, what They want. They want you to buy more expensive organic produce, They want you to buy a new lower-emissions car at a premium price, and most importantly, They want to blame you for what They are doing - They don't care about the amazon in particular, They care about profits, and if you're too distracted with changing your own lifestyle, They can push forward with their own policies to make more money.

If a whole country stops e.g. consuming soy from Brazil, there's going to be ten others that will buy it anyway because profits or deals will almost always beat morals.

And even if a country bans importing soy from Brazil, there's plenty of produce laundering going on - China will move their products to e.g. Malaysia and rebrand it as "made in Malaysia" to avoid trade tariffs or quotas.

And it doesn't stop there. A country can claim to recycle plastic in a renewable fashion for example, but what they aren't aware of - or turn a blind eye to - is that the recycling company they trust just bales up the plastics and ships it off to Asia, where they just burn it or chuck it in landfills. As soon as it crosses the border, it's no longer their problem. (Trash exports should be banned worldwide)

I'm curious how you think that a country would ever stop consuming soy from Brazil unless there was a strong desire from the populace of the country to stop doing so.

Markets allow you to vote every time you buy something on what your values are. Every time you choose to buy something from, say Brazil, that will be read as an endorsement of Brazil whenever someone looks at a balance sheet of imports and decides whether they can afford to instigate some kind of ban.

I think that people making personal choices about their own consumption is a very reasonable way for them to signal their desires and so the changes you say (and I agree) are required can be worked towards through grassroots community (e.g. asking people to individually boycott products).

> Every time you choose to buy something from, say Brazil, that will be read as an endorsement of Brazil

But that decision was not made by the consumer. It was made by the executives of Burger King who decided to buy beef from a factory farm that has decided to buy soy from Brazil which has farmers that have decided to exploit the rain forest because the government has decided to not do anything against it.

I don't think consumer choices are good for this at all. Society has to have structure where you can buy the things you need without doing a background check on everything. I don't want to research that each and every piece of electronics I buy is free of conflict minerals and slavery!

It's a job for our chosen representatives. We've given the mandate, it's up to them to create market frameworks with this through policies and trade agreements. And it works: EU doesn't import hormone laden meat, and could similarly decide on environmental requirements too.

Policy can be affected by voting, public discourse, and demonstrations, whereas active consumer choice would be very poor driver for that.

I disagree. All that these types of articles do is attempt to shift responsibility and blame from the people actually capable of doing something about it to a vague and distant "bad actor" elsewhere: the irresponsible consumer, who is somehow expected to deconvolute foreign supply chains, as well as stay abreast of the environmental happenings in the entire world.

The truth is, whether we like it or not, the only people capable of effectively tracking and addressing the responsibility of Brazil's economy and ecology are people living in Brazil.

And this isn't some excuse I've invented for myself. I buy 100% of my groceries from a farmers co-op where everything is sourced within about 500 miles or so. But the fact of the matter is, Brazil needs to do a better job and address their own problems, regardless of the world economy, and this is just an attempt to shift blame. Every single environmental regulation that has been passed, in any country in the world, 1st or 3rd world, occurred at financial loss to that country. Brazil is no exception.

> If you eat meat regularly, you are connected to Brazil's deforestation, either for cattle or for soy feed.

That's an obviously false conclusion.

If I only eat locally sourced meat that's not fed inferior soy feed, how does that in any way contribute to Brazil's deforestation?

> Even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from the structures that ultimately incentivize said deforestation.

Then they are also responsible because their government profit from it?

Everything is connected... the fact that it's connected doesn't means anything.

Your comment won't show anything, it won't change anything, it won't help anyone. You are simply making blanket accusation, like if even someone could simply no longer depends on the economy... that's so absurd.

Except “their government”, in this case, is actively fighting against them. The whole point is that Bolsonaro has declared open season on the Amazon and the tribes living in it.

> Except “their government”, in this case, is actively fighting against them.

It's not because the government is working against them over the Amazon that they don't profit at all from it. All you need is using the government resource once to say that they did profit from it.

No need to be baffled. Eastern Europe is mostly self sufficient in regards to meat production.

You make a lot of assumptions how meat is grown in Europe.

This is directed at all non-indigenous people. We all do have connections to what is happening in the Amazon. Our way of life is part of the problem.

Too many people is the real problem.

oh then we're on the right path!

Eastern Europe is way past the point of consuming ressources that can be renewed. Europe as a whole is also currently signing a trade deal with south american countries, and eastern europe is going to benefit from it.

From an eastern european point of view, it is easy to focus on western europe and see oneself as disadvantaged, but if you count ressources consumed the picture is very different.

Eastern Europe has similar problems , in Romania, huge areas have been deforestet by german or austrian bussinesses with no consideration whatsoever. A big part of the problem is local corruption and a blind eye to all that comes from the west

You have everything to do with it, if you eat meat and buy from the internet.