{"items": [{"author": "Taymon", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756463608742", "anchor": "fb-756463608742", "service": "fb", "text": "A way to break the analogy (I do not personally endorse this as a knockdown argument): Completely eliminating hot showers from existence is not anybody's end goal.", "timestamp": "1447125047"}, {"author": "Lee", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756466797352", "anchor": "fb-756466797352", "service": "fb", "text": "Never happen: after a daylong striving to do good works, the hot shower is the final way ( like drinking lots of clear water) for me to rejuvenate/relax/recompense/renew, and prepare for sleeping.", "timestamp": "1447126489"}, {"author": "unknown", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ unknown", "timestamp": "-1"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756466797352&reply_comment_id=756536028612", "anchor": "fb-756466797352_756536028612", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If you read farther down you'll see that I'm not actually against hot showers.", "timestamp": "1447154663"}, {"author": "Lance", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756468379182", "anchor": "fb-756468379182", "service": "fb", "text": "I don't even like my shower that hot, but if it's not hot enough, at least here and my previous residence, I have a pretty horrible reaction: my skin turns red and I have full body itches that persist for up to an hour. I had to put up with this for a month at one location because the heater was broken.", "timestamp": "1447127490"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756468379182&reply_comment_id=756473883152", "anchor": "fb-756468379182_756473883152", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I am curious about this phenomenon. Does it happen in other places, such as hotels you may have visited? I strongly suspect that it's something specific in your water, to which you have a reaction. That has little bearing, in your current home, on whether you do what prevents the skin irritation (hot showers, in this case). However, I strongly suspect it would be unnecessary in a different place with a different water source.", "timestamp": "1447131030"}, {"author": "Elissa", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756468379182&reply_comment_id=756534337002", "anchor": "fb-756468379182_756534337002", "service": "fb", "text": "→ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_urticaria", "timestamp": "1447152204"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756468379182&reply_comment_id=756549516582", "anchor": "fb-756468379182_756549516582", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Thanks for the link, Elissa. Sounds like something that would happen anywhere with cold enough water. I think the impact calculus is very different, Lance, when you have this sort of reaction to colder showers. Even if you agree that the argument against hot showers is valid for most of the population, you have a much stronger reason to continue taking them.", "timestamp": "1447163563"}, {"author": "George", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756468972992", "anchor": "fb-756468972992", "service": "fb", "text": "Are there any effective climate change charities focussed on averting climate change?", "timestamp": "1447127859"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756468972992&reply_comment_id=756473773372", "anchor": "fb-756468972992_756473773372", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff links to an a GWWC look at carbon credit organizations (which non-robustly had a group preventing deforestation of sections of rainforest) for linear giving opportunities. The best are probably advocacy groups driving policy change (by manyfold), but it's hard to measure relative performance within that category, and there hasn't been a GiveWell style effort to pick the best (although you could just go for some of the largest and most influential).
One relatively clear data-supported campaign is the Sierra Club's anti-coal fight:
http://grist.org/.../anti-coal-campaign-is-the-most.../", "timestamp": "1447130929"}, {"author": "George", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756468972992&reply_comment_id=756474956002", "anchor": "fb-756468972992_756474956002", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl The assumption I have been working with is policy advocacy is the most effective thing I can be doing to prevent disastrous climate disruption.", "timestamp": "1447132009"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756468972992&reply_comment_id=756474965982", "anchor": "fb-756468972992_756474965982", "service": "fb", "text": "→ George Personal advocacy on the side from your day job or paying for advocacy? The latter I think is the better bet beyond a few low-hanging fruit.", "timestamp": "1447132045"}, {"author": "George", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756468972992&reply_comment_id=756475115682", "anchor": "fb-756468972992_756475115682", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl Well if my budget is $ the latter and if my budget is time/energy the former. I just mean that I don't see a strong case for anything other than political action. Reducing my individual carbon footprint seems useless other than as a form of political activism to try and get actually effective policy changes. Collecting a lot of money from many people and trying to pay to prevent coal from being mined might be somewhat effective, but to do this properly we really need government-scale resources.", "timestamp": "1447132222"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756469980972", "anchor": "fb-756469980972", "service": "fb", "text": "Hot showers aren't as central and salient to the climate action movement as farm animal products are to the animal activist movement.
But people are pushing this kind of thing (and even more foolish restrictions like ones on serving drinking water in restaurants) in response to water issues in California.
http://slatestarcodex.com/.../11/california-water-you-doing/", "timestamp": "1447128621"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756469980972&reply_comment_id=756470140652", "anchor": "fb-756469980972_756470140652", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"Consider: When I used to live in California, even before this recent drought I was being told to take fewer showers, to install low-flush toilets that were inconvenient and didn\u2019t really work all that well, to limit my use of the washing machine and dishwasher, et cetera. It was actually pretty inconvenient. I assume all forty million residents of California were getting the same message, and that a lot of them would have liked to be able to pay for the right to take nice long relaxing showers.
But if all the savings from water rationing amounted to 20% of our residential water use, then that equals about 0.5 MAF, which is about 10% of the water used to irrigate alfalfa. The California alfalfa industry makes a total of $860 million worth of alfalfa hay per year. So if you calculate it out, a California resident who wants to spend her fair share of money to solve the water crisis without worrying about cutting back could do it by paying the alfalfa industry $2 to not grow $2 worth of alfalfa, thus saving as much water as if she very carefully rationed her own use.\"", "timestamp": "1447128803"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756469980972&reply_comment_id=756474447022", "anchor": "fb-756469980972_756474447022", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The United States has a proud history of paying farmers not to grow certain crops. But the problem is how easy that is to abuse. I'm going to not grow twice as much alfalfa next year. Look how my business is expanding! No, but really, big industrial farms have figured out how to take advantage of all of that, and they get the vast majority of farm subsidies, while small family farmers get very little.
I agree with the general idea, which I think is that industrial and farming industries are using WAY more water than households do. They would suffer only monetary consequences for using less, and could therefore be reimbursed. However, more farm subsidies are a likely problem, and I don't know how you would tweak the rules of new ones to avoid the same pitfalls of the ones that already exist.", "timestamp": "1447131482"}, {"author": "Chris", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756469980972&reply_comment_id=756474701512", "anchor": "fb-756469980972_756474701512", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Wouldn't a water tax have the desired affect? Along with a stipend for poor people to pay for their water?", "timestamp": "1447131733"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756469980972&reply_comment_id=756535883902", "anchor": "fb-756469980972_756535883902", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Chris: Or tax the water and then just distribute the money on a per capita basis: http://www.jefftk.com/p/pricing-benefiting-everyone", "timestamp": "1447154476"}, {"author": "Jim", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756470005922", "anchor": "fb-756470005922", "service": "fb", "text": "To anyone who thinks global warming is enough of a concern to consider giving up basic amenities: please go read the IPCC report, it's at least an order of magnitude less bad than you think.", "timestamp": "1447128662"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756470005922&reply_comment_id=756472281362", "anchor": "fb-756470005922_756472281362", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Using the EPA social cost of carbon estimate and EPA estimate of greenhouse gas emissions the average annual social cost of emissions for an American is under $1,000.
Using the 95th percentile severity estimate, under $3,000.
12% of U.S. carbon emissions are from commercial and residential use (I'll assume half residential for this estimate). In Michigan 17% of residential energy use goes to heating water, and showers account for 25% of that. So maybe $2.5-$8 of social value from eliminating hot showers (although adding in terms for things like global warming impacts on wild animals and tail risk would increase estimate, the $8 comes from assuming the 95th percentile bad outcome in the EPA model with certainty).
And the cost of averting those emissions is much lower through buying carbon credits, and much lower even than that (I think) by supporting climate lobbying groups (based on measurable successes like the Sierra Club anti-coal campaign, or comparisons of all climate advocacy funding to the scale of emissions and allowing for any noticeable policy impact).
The donation equivalent of eliminating hot showers could plausibly be a few cents a year if given to strong lobbying groups.
http://www3.epa.gov/clim.../EPAactivities/economics/scc.html
http://www3.epa.gov/.../ghgemiss.../sources/agriculture.html
http://www.hrwc.org/.../Carbon-Footprint-brochure_single...
http://grist.org/.../anti-coal-campaign-is-the-most.../
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/.../charit.../climate-change", "timestamp": "1447130149"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756470005922&reply_comment_id=756555419752", "anchor": "fb-756470005922_756555419752", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Which report do you mean? This? https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/", "timestamp": "1447169365"}, {"author": "Jim", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756470005922&reply_comment_id=756559481612", "anchor": "fb-756470005922_756559481612", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes, that's the one.", "timestamp": "1447172568"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756470050832", "anchor": "fb-756470050832", "service": "fb", "text": "I do know (moderately famous) people who refuse to ride on airplanes, even with carbon offsets, in solidarity with climate action, although they are a very small minority among climate activists and supporters.", "timestamp": "1447128753"}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756470050832&reply_comment_id=756532291102", "anchor": "fb-756470050832_756532291102", "service": "fb", "text": "→ So do I. I think they're making a mistake though.", "timestamp": "1447147687"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756470050832&reply_comment_id=756588548362", "anchor": "fb-756470050832_756588548362", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Right, I agree.", "timestamp": "1447188731"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756473429062", "anchor": "fb-756473429062", "service": "fb", "text": "One possible disanalogy here is that the cost to you of giving up hot showers are plausibly greater than the social costs ($3-8 using the EPA numbers), even without needing to do any offsetting.
Vacation by airplane might be better for a case where you clearly harm others more than you benefit yourself (absent compensating actions).", "timestamp": "1447130653"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756473429062&reply_comment_id=756536392882", "anchor": "fb-756473429062_756536392882", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I chose showers because I wanted a case where the benefit to others was much lower than the cost to yourself, in order to demonstrate that this really is a consideration.", "timestamp": "1447155351"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756473429062&reply_comment_id=756574935642", "anchor": "fb-756473429062_756574935642", "service": "fb", "text": "→ For dairy would you spend several days a year living like the average cow in the dairy industry (calf separated from mother, or mother at elevated mastitis risk and with a separation from a calf within the last year) in order to get access to dairy?", "timestamp": "1447181001"}, {"author": "Steve", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756476058792", "anchor": "fb-756476058792", "service": "fb", "text": "Seems random. I spend a lot more on winter heat than showers. Why not advocate for more sweaters and slippers? And why showers, why not dish washing?", "timestamp": "1447133353"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756476058792&reply_comment_id=756536352962", "anchor": "fb-756476058792_756536352962", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Read to the end?", "timestamp": "1447155264"}, {"author": "Can", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756477485932", "anchor": "fb-756477485932", "service": "fb", "text": "I think nobody here read to the end.
Interesting stance on doing good.", "timestamp": "1447135165"}, {"author": "Mars", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756477485932&reply_comment_id=756481258372", "anchor": "fb-756477485932_756481258372", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I did, though.", "timestamp": "1447137965"}, {"author": "Can", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756477485932&reply_comment_id=756481343202", "anchor": "fb-756477485932_756481343202", "service": "fb", "text": "→ You didn't comment, so I wasn't regarding you included in 'here' :)", "timestamp": "1447138153"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756477485932&reply_comment_id=756528917862", "anchor": "fb-756477485932_756528917862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I did comment and did read it (beforehand).", "timestamp": "1447142008"}, {"author": "Abe", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756508064652", "anchor": "fb-756508064652", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff- thoughtful writing as always.", "timestamp": "1447140941"}, {"author": "Abe", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756518982772", "anchor": "fb-756518982772", "service": "fb", "text": "I am buying carbon offsets for our family usage and all the organizations I work at from Carbonfund.org. But my wonderful spouse still wants us to wear sweaters at home.", "timestamp": "1447141167"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756518982772&reply_comment_id=756536337992", "anchor": "fb-756518982772_756536337992", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Sweaters to save money or to reduce emissions?", "timestamp": "1447155233"}, {"author": "Denise", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756530379932", "anchor": "fb-756530379932", "service": "fb", "text": "I like this article because even when I was totally on the \"consumption is the evilz\" line, I was never able to give up long hot showers. ;)", "timestamp": "1447145250"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756530379932&reply_comment_id=756574606302", "anchor": "fb-756530379932_756574606302", "service": "fb", "text": "→ When you were, was it environmentalist, anti-capitalist, or save-the-money-to-donate evilz?", "timestamp": "1447180832"}, {"author": "Denise", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756530379932&reply_comment_id=756644346542", "anchor": "fb-756530379932_756644346542", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Mostly the first. :) In retrospect, I invested too little in myself occasionally. Right now I've flipped to the other side though, wasting money where it's not necessary.", "timestamp": "1447229577"}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756532365952", "anchor": "fb-756532365952", "service": "fb", "text": "Wait while I make everyone deontologically opposed to hot showers (I'll call it \"planet-murdering\" or something) and then we can have this discussion again. ;)", "timestamp": "1447147813"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756532740202", "anchor": "fb-756532740202", "service": "fb", "text": "Huh. Cool. A very convincing argument for eating meat. Thanks. I feel much happier about that now. =)", "timestamp": "1447148991"}, {"author": "Adrian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756536926812", "anchor": "fb-756536926812", "service": "fb", "text": "I think this comparison helps highlighting some problems with the original text about giving up dairy. I see the biggest problems with the role the question of consistency plays in the two cases and with the amount of personal sacrifice.
Consistency: It is obvious that for dairy, the amount of suffering for a given quantity of dairy is much smaller than the amount of suffering for a comparable amount of meat or eggs. Therefore, in my view, it certainly makes sense to focus on meat and eggs with campaigns that are aimed at specific food items. I don't know of any advocacy group that specifically focuses on dairy, mostly dairy is just included with other kinds of animal products that cause more harm per amount. On the other hand, consistency of the message can also be important. If people not only choose to focus on meat and eggs, but directly advocate lacto-vegetarianism, farmers reply by saying \"well, if you want to have your dairy, you will also get meat, cows have to have a calf every year, and in order for this business to be viable, a large part of them has to be slaughtered, and the cows themselves are also slaughtered when they get older and would provide less milk, so you can't really be against the meat industry if you still want to have dairy.\" Of course, there would be different ways to respond to this, the actual amount of meat would be quite small if it was exclusively used as a by-product of dairy production, and if most people were utilitarians and quantitatively orientated, this \"argument\" by farmers would not weaken the case against meat very much. But probably most people are neither utilitarians nor very much quantitatively orientated, and many probably find the line of thought \"if you want milk, you also get meat\" quite convincing. Therefore, I think it makes sense a) to focus on meat and eggs as far as campaigns against specific food items are concerned and b) to emphasize that all animal products are not needed and we can do without them very well. The text about showers includes an analogy about consistency, but I don't think it really captures the situation very well. While explicitly excluding dairy from advocacy against animal product, whose main effect comes from people giving up meat and eggs, makes the message more complex because the dairy and meat industry are tightly intertwined, it would be hard to argue that the message for advocating more environmentally friendly behavior in general (which certainly has more to do with areas like flights, cars and meat) gets more complicated by excluding hot showers that have a small effect.
Personal cost: I think the other area where the weakness of the comparison also becomes visible is the personal cost of behavior change. Temperature is important for well-being in many ways, and while there are people who like cold showers, it can hardly be argued that it is just a matter of habit whether someone prefers ice-cold or warmer showers. On the other hand, whether someone uses dairy or similar plant-based food items with a slightly different taste is obviously mostly a question of habits and getting used to something slightly different, and it is rather unlikely that for someone the difference between dairy and similar non-dairy food is as big as the difference between cold and warm showers is for many people.", "timestamp": "1447156573"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756536926812&reply_comment_id=756545509612", "anchor": "fb-756536926812_756545509612", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Just addressing the last part of your post: personally I'd rather give up warm showers than give up dairy.", "timestamp": "1447161573"}, {"author": "Jordy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756555160272", "anchor": "fb-756555160272", "service": "fb", "text": "A few comments I had that seem to have been missed from this conversation:
-You could avoid taking showers altogether, which would not only save you on fuel, but also water and gas, since you wouldn't have to drive to you friends' houses anymore... since they don't want to hang out with you.
- Some value has to be assigned to hot showers as well, and not just as a \"luxury\". They are cathartic, and while I'm in support of reducing footprints, there is no way to fully reduce your consumption without going ahead and killing yourself. So... as B concludes, there has to be somewhere where you don't cut off your own nose for the cause of your face.
- Further to that point: I had a vegan roommate once who was incredibly militant about her impact on this earth, which I supported. But she was also pretty nasty about it, and took it out on her roommates who were not fully on board with her lifestyle. While this sucked, it was something of an isolated case. We did get into arguments however, and I would (jokingly) suggest she kill herself to reduce down to 0 impact. Where does the guilt line stop? Can't we /always/ do more, thus never being able to exist on this planet without heaping guilt upon ourselves (if we are conscious to this)? I read the article about you and your wife's giving, and that she was also racked with guilt about her impact and place in the world. Where does one feel satisfied?
- You folks donate large amounts (as much as you affordably can). Many are likely not prepared to do this. But could someone, say, donate a medium to large amount, and then still keep their showers and the small pleasant things in life? While showers do have an impact, doesn't... *everything*? Can you not still enjoy the mini impact things while creating big steps in other directions?", "timestamp": "1447169193"}, {"author": "Jordy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756555160272&reply_comment_id=756555205182", "anchor": "fb-756555160272_756555205182", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Like dairy?", "timestamp": "1447169213"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756555160272&reply_comment_id=756555794002", "anchor": "fb-756555160272_756555794002", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think Jeff was actually arguing for exactly what you argue for here.", "timestamp": "1447169690"}, {"author": "Jordy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756555160272&reply_comment_id=756555858872", "anchor": "fb-756555160272_756555858872", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oh yes I definitely caught that. I was directing my questions sort of into the ether, not especially at Jeff. I have generally found Jeff's thoughts to pair EA with sanity and clarity :)", "timestamp": "1447169769"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756555160272&reply_comment_id=756574361792", "anchor": "fb-756555160272_756574361792", "service": "fb", "text": "→ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Dave-Whitlock-MIT...", "timestamp": "1447180681"}, {"author": "Jordy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756555160272&reply_comment_id=756575135242", "anchor": "fb-756555160272_756575135242", "service": "fb", "text": "→ And gee, he looks great..... 8(", "timestamp": "1447181231"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756555519552", "anchor": "fb-756555519552", "service": "fb", "text": "B is selling their position short with \"I'm pushing for a different norm instead: find the places where you can do the most good for the least self sacrifice.\" B's strongest point is not that B gets to personally live a better life with less sacrifice, but that we as a society can actually discover which lifestyles are generally sustainable and which ones are not. If everyone internalized the externalities like B suggests, we should be at the right level of consumption based on what the planet can support. A and B also have complimentary messages - A is essentially saying \"make fewer messes\", B is saying \"if you make a mess, clean it up\" - both are useful statements promoting different values. I'd call B's position \"Thoughtful consumption\"", "timestamp": "1447169443"}, {"author": "Perry", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756573728062", "anchor": "fb-756573728062", "service": "fb", "text": "I do believe that everyone can do their part to reduce their consumption, but it is also true that often people call others hypocrites for calling themselves environmentalists while consuming. I drive a car that is not a Prius, but for what it is it's rather efficient. I fly in airplanes and take hot showers. I admire those who can and do sacrifice everything and anything to get a footprint close to zero, but for most people that's not feasible. Sacrifice is worthwhile but at some point there has to be diminishing returns. By that I mean, if you have no carbon footprint but your quality of life is really low, have you gained everything? Some people take that as a point of personal pride, I get that. But it shouldn't be a contest on who can sacrifice the most to have the smallest carbon footprint over all others. I recycle and take public transportation/walk when I can, but that's not always feasible. We should be promoting a position of \"every little bit counts\" rather than \"do more or you're a hypocrite\".", "timestamp": "1447179930"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756575000512", "anchor": "fb-756575000512", "service": "fb", "text": "The post need an edit saying \"read to the end.\"", "timestamp": "1447181104"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756575000512&reply_comment_id=756649321572", "anchor": "fb-756575000512_756649321572", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Done!", "timestamp": "1447237088"}, {"author": "Aaron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756631711862", "anchor": "fb-756631711862", "service": "fb", "text": "\"...finding work that pays a little less but helps find non-combustible uses for coal so we end up burning less of it.\"
Is there an actual organization you were thinking of as you wrote this (which works on non-combustible uses for coal)?
If there's an organization out there thinking of things to do with milk other than drinking it, I'd also want to know abotu that.", "timestamp": "1447216724"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756631711862&reply_comment_id=756649566082", "anchor": "fb-756631711862_756649566082", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I was in Pittsburgh this weekend playing for contra dancing and got a ride to the airport with an engineer who works on removing the volatiles from coal to make carbon blocks. These blocks are then useful as a building material that has some properties you can't get with other materials and could be very cheap in large volumes. Right now they're mostly selling small quantities to the government but they're still looking for more applications for it. Seemed interesting, and like a way to reduce how much coal gets burnt. Hard to judge the effectiveness, though.
In terms of doing the same for milk, you'd want something that increased demand for one of the inputs of dairy farming. No real ideas there.", "timestamp": "1447237832"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756642495252", "anchor": "fb-756642495252", "service": "fb", "text": "I continue to think that the biggest problem with B's argument here is the inference from \"giving up showers is only as good as donating $5\" to \"therefore I will neither give $5 more nor give up showers.\" You do hint at a response here from B (the induction one), which ends with \"I'm not saying everyone should give until another $5 would be extraordinarily painful to do without, just that unless you're pushing yourself to that point \"donate another $5\" does just as much good with less sacrifice than \"give up hot showers\".\" But note that this still leaves B, whose reaction was to take seriously the initial idea that climate change demands she give up hot showers, donating $5 instead. My impression is that your current model is not to actually increase your charitable contribution each time you're presented with a welfare-increasing alternative, and so I'm not sure what the appeal to $5 is supposed to get you here.
Maybe not helpful, but I think A is actually saying: sacrifice some more of your welfare to take this globally welfare-improving action. B is responding: I already decided how much of my welfare to sacrifice, and I won't sacrifice any more, but I will consider taking this action instead of others if achieves more benefits for the cost. Doesn't look like it does. A's response is: is your process for determining your sacrifice cap really better than my argument that you should take this welfare-improving action? Shouldn't you raise your cap? (To be clear, I don't think you should give up hot showers, for reasons that are spiritually related to your argument for prioritizing, I just think this \"it's only worth $5\" argument doesn't get you anywhere.)
But I think you know where I stand on this argument :)", "timestamp": "1447226661"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756642495252&reply_comment_id=756685039992", "anchor": "fb-756642495252_756685039992", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"Doesn't look like it does. A's response is: is your process for determining your sacrifice cap really better than my argument that you should take this welfare-improving action?\"
If the process for determining the sacrifice cap already evaluated things using a much more efficient intervention (in good per sacrifice) then that is a better process, no? If I have stress-tested a bridge by driving huge trucks over it, I am not going to worry about riding a bike.", "timestamp": "1447266774"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756642495252&reply_comment_id=756755558672", "anchor": "fb-756642495252_756755558672", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think my version of A's response conflates two different senses of \"better,\" one stemming from instrumental rationality and one stemming from morality/utility. I agree that B is behaving rationally because she's decided that she's not willing to make lots of globally utility-enhancing personal sacrifices, and her choice not to take cold showers is consistent with that. But A is saying to B: so far you've granted that it's morally appropriate (optimal? required?) to give up hot showers, and your unwillingness to do so is a moral failure. The fact that B is also morally failing by not donating more money in a utility-increasing way is irrelevant to A, though perhaps a bigger deal according to B's own values.", "timestamp": "1447307567"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756642495252&reply_comment_id=756760678412", "anchor": "fb-756642495252_756760678412", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Ok, so we distinguish 1) Arguments for which actions to take given a sacrifice cap; 2) How high a sacrifice cap to have.
You agree that A has no case re #1, but suggest that bringing up hot showers is an argument for #2, i.e.
\"my argument that you should take this welfare-improving action? Shouldn't you raise your cap?\"
Re #2 B's cap-setting process involved a better moral argument for raising the cap than anything A offers:
\"Should the cap be $125,000 in donation-equivalents this year (deducting a cash equivalent from donations for non-monetary contributions), or $125,005? In the latter case we would produce additional benefit X.\"
A's moral argument for a higher cap seems strictly weaker, replacing X with Y<<<X.
\"But note that this still leaves B, whose reaction was to take seriously the initial idea that climate change demands she give up hot showers, donating $5 instead. My impression is that your current model is not to actually increase your charitable contribution each time you're presented with a welfare-increasing alternative, and so I'm not sure what the appeal to $5 is supposed to get you here.\"
The increase in donations came when the standards were set, basically dealing with situations like this in advance. The welfare-increasing alternative is inframarginal so it doesn't actually add any new information. If B discovered a new opportunity that was far more cost-effective than he had been aware of when setting the sacrifice cap, that would be relevant information.
\"But A is saying to B: so far you've granted that it's morally appropriate (optimal? required?) to give up hot showers, and your unwillingness to do so is a moral failure. The fact that B is also morally failing by not donating more money in a utility-increasing way is irrelevant to A\"
What is A's purpose to which it is irrelevant? If the purpose is using blame to pressure B to do more good, then it has some serious problems.
Since the ask does comparatively little good even if implemented, it would seem to have to be much more effective at persuasion than asking for a larger donation budget directly (or praising donation, or being helpful with it, etc). And I doubt that's true.
Under B's favored norms of praise and blame, they reinforce patterns of actions more in line with their goodness. A's norms look likely to blame and censure B more than those doing less good while making less total sacrifice but more of the practices A has happened to focus on, rather than encouraging B's tremendously helpful behavior.", "timestamp": "1447312941"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756642495252&reply_comment_id=756768392952", "anchor": "fb-756642495252_756768392952", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Answering what I take to be your 3 arguments in order:
1. I agree that arguments for cap raising from more impactful actions are strictly better rationally, but that doesn't represent a convincing defense of anyone's actually existing cap. Again, I don't see what makes this different from saying, \"I previously decided not to do X net-positive thing, therefore I will now not do Y net-positive thing, because X>Y.\" A better moral norm is \"I'll do net-positive things when the opportunity costs are manageable.\"
2. I think the information is relevant if it might have moved B to action prior to her \"one thought too many.\" If B's response to hearing about the harm caused by hot showers (assuming that the hot showers are bad argument were true, which, importantly, I think it's not) were to just stop taking hot showers with not other impacts in the world, that would be good. As I've written elsewhere, I think the expansive understanding of \"cap\" or \"sacrifice\" here is not psychologically typical and leads to perverse leveling down in which people decide not to pursue net-positive actions that they might otherwise (even if doing so was irrational on some specification of their values).
3. A doesn't necessarily share B's moral framework or system for evaluating claims, so the fact that B thinks many things are more important than A doesn't move A much. Also, I tend to think praise and censure serve useful social purposes outside of moral evaluation. Anyway, those are both an aside - I agree that we should prioritize more important high-leverage stuff than the hot showers of the world. That's why I don't like seeing Jeff continue to fight this fight :)", "timestamp": "1447323950"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756642495252&reply_comment_id=756806406772", "anchor": "fb-756642495252_756806406772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \" that doesn't represent a convincing defense of anyone's actually existing cap...I'll do net-positive things when the opportunity costs are manageable.\"\"
Sounds like you're saying view M is not formally principled in its line-drawing, so follow this other view N [which also involves line-drawing about 'manageable'].
It seems then one should have a separate debate about 'sacrifice everything up to zero marginal impact.' No one in this discussion makes every sacrifice they could, and most don't want to press a button that would make us sacrifice friends and family and personal projects at every such margin.
For myself, I see some elements of morality as terms of mutually and collectively beneficial social cooperation (where predictably demanding total sacrifice means that it is not mutually beneficial), others as personal projects and generalizations of empathetic and caring impulses (among other concerns, which do not automatically override others).
I'd be curious to hear Jeff Kaufman's or your reasons for not making all the sacrifices you could and capping or setting a 'manageable' threshold.
I'd also kind of like to see a debate between you and Holden on this:
\"I'm generally uncomfortable with (and disagree with) the \"obligation\" frame of EA. I'm particularly uncomfortable with messages along the lines of \"The arts are a waste when there are people suffering,\" \"You should feel bad about (or feel the need to defend) every dollar you spend on yourself beyond necessities,\" etc. I think messages along these lines make EA sound overly demanding/costly to affiliate with as well as intellectually misguided.\"
http://effective-altruism.com/.../why_the_open.../5ie", "timestamp": "1447353132"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756642495252&reply_comment_id=756806751082", "anchor": "fb-756642495252_756806751082", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \" I agree that we should prioritize more important high-leverage stuff than the hot showers of the world. That's why I don't like seeing Jeff continue to fight this fight\"
I think the impact of things of this kind collectively on the well-being and functionality of EAs like Jeff and Julia is nontrivial, especially letting large contributions and involvement in do-gooding relieve rather than exacerbate pain from scrupulosity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrupulosity
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/10/infinite-debt/", "timestamp": "1447353308"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756642939362", "anchor": "fb-756642939362", "service": "fb", "text": "BTW, I just had fun re-reading our back and forth on this from 2012 (http://lesswrong.com/lw/d4v/altruistic_kidney_donation/6vpw). plus \u00e7a change :)", "timestamp": "1447227714"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756642939362&reply_comment_id=756649301612", "anchor": "fb-756642939362_756649301612", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes, I'm still arguing something pretty similar!
Though kidney donation is different in that the benefit to others is very high compared to the cost to yourself, and I intentionally picked showers because the tradeoff is so much worse.", "timestamp": "1447237064"}, {"author": "Lex", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111102660583646544610", "anchor": "gp-1447268426679", "service": "gp", "text": "It's a fun and logical read.\n
\n
\nI tend to think human well-being is the bigger goal, though. To put it in a slightly cutesy way, \nhot showers are part of our environment now\n.\n
\n
\nNo, hot showers aren't a \nnatural\n part of the environment, but they're there now, and they seem on the surface like a very positive change. Why not embrace this change, the same way we embrace the lack of wolves and bears inside our settlements?\n
\n
\nJust because there's a movement for it?", "timestamp": 1447268426}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1447269748453", "service": "gp", "text": "@Lex\n\u00a0Does that apply equally well to consuming animals? \u00a0Would it have applied equally well to slavery?", "timestamp": 1447269748}, {"author": "Lex", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111102660583646544610", "anchor": "gp-1447281526666", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I do put people ahead of animals, and I don't think slavery is a good thing.", "timestamp": 1447281526}, {"author": "Wolf", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/756462585792?comment_id=756767664412", "anchor": "fb-756767664412", "service": "fb", "text": "About the analogy, I think one could make the same argument for using 'comfort women' if the legal status quo were different. Hence, I suggest changing the legal status of nonhuman animals.", "timestamp": "1447321790"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1447342702604", "service": "gp", "text": "@Lex\n\u00a0It seems like you're saying that things that are part of our culture, comforts we're now used to, should be embraced if we enjoy them even if they make the lives of others worse? \u00a0Maybe a cleaner example here would be flying. \u00a0Let's say we look at the environmental impact of flying to a far away vacation instead of driving to a closer one, and we see that the cost to others is much greater than the enjoyment you get out of it. \u00a0Do we just say \"flying is part of our environment now\"? \u00a0Or do we try to figure out whether it's worth it?", "timestamp": 1447342702}, {"author": "Lex", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111102660583646544610", "anchor": "gp-1447347967986", "service": "gp", "text": "I would emphasize two points. Sorry this is so terse.\n
\n
\nFirst, the benefits to humanity are a crucial part of the calculation. I don't even believe in \"improving the environment\" except insofar as it comes back around and helps people. The pre-human environment was awful, and I see no reason to want to return to it. People who treat \"anthropogenic\" as another word for \"bad\" seem really off base to me.\n
\n
\nSecond, the \"environment\" includes more than wildlife and sunshine. It includes all the artificial changes that non-humans make, such as bird nests. It also includes all the artificial changes that humans make, such as running water. When you look at the environment in such a way, you have a very different calculus for what counts as helping or harming the environment.\n
\n
\nPutting it together, an environment where hardly anyone gets to fly sounds bad to me. It sounds much worse \nfor human beings\n than the world we have now.\n
\n
\nAnyway, kudos for being willing to make sacrifices for what you believe in. It's nice to see in a world that's so full of instant gratification.", "timestamp": 1447347967}, {"author": "Bill", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/108760936971088604094", "anchor": "gp-1447650775446", "service": "gp", "text": "Jeff, enjoyed reading your post and wanted to share a couple of thoughts (though I'm sure much of this has already been said on the various comment threads).\u00a0\n
\n
\n1) First of all, I really liked the format -- more people should get into the habit of quasi-summarizing / rebutting internet comment discussions in this type of way! Would be keen to read more like this.\n
\n
\n2) B's argument in the final paragraph on finite willpower / ego depletion: I wonder if someone who thinks about minimally-harmful daily luxuries such as hot showers, dairy consumption is actually MORE likely to donate $5 to charity because a daily avoidance of luxury is a daily reminder to be altruistic. So self sacrifice is a net positive. I suppose this argument has already been explored?\n
\n
\n3) I would be concerned that an EAer who is open to the minimally-harmful daily luxuries is therefore overly caught up in this mental calculus, and that paralyzes their actions. I.e. it would be more willpower depleting for an EAer to run a cost-benefit analysis, rather than always trying to avoid the luxuries and then not minding too much if he/she backslides one day.\n
\n
\n4) Is there an alternative paradigm for personal choices other than mentally viewing ourselves like little characters from \"The Sims\" who need to have their \"happiness bar\" topped up every now and again by little luxuries? I guess I am maybe getting at an \"fulfilment through asceticism\" argument here...\n
\n
\n5) I would rather hold up the \"no luxuries, even if they are minimally-harmful\" as an ideal, but it being OK to fall short -- rather than saying \"OK, sometimes it's alright to indulge in a luxury, but you need to decide if the willpower you're saving by not indulging in the luxury is outweighed by the willpower you'd use to do something more effective\". That seems like it'd lead to a lot of tough calls.\n
\n
\nThanks, enjoy your blog and look forward to reading more. -Bill", "timestamp": 1447650775}]}