Nick, Yes, you individually can't do anything about climate change, but since animal agriculture--NOT energy use--causes more than 50% of climate change, if there is a mass global movement away from meat--that can make a big difference. If you haven't seen "Cowspiracy", I think you'd like it and by now it may be on YouTube. It's also about both decision making and behavior.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:18 PM, glen ep ropella <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/28/2015 12:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > >> Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the >> decision-making patterns you describe here. >> > > I don't understand the question. How similar is my behavior is to my > decision-making? That's so over-loaded with implications I can't think > straight. 8^) First, what I tried to describe was my behavior, not my > decision-making. Your question not only implies that I failed in that, but > that there's a difference between decision-making and behavior. > Decision-making and behavior are the same thing. > > Second, it's not clear that anything I do can affect climate change at > all. Or, let me put it another way. There are things I can control (like > voting, calling a representative, arguing in bars, drinking out of reusable > containers, etc.). But the connection of any of those things with climate > change is tenuous. So, when making my decisions (i.e. behaving) I rely on > _lots_ of broad spectrum inputs, parallax, not merely climate change ... > not a single input. My decisions (voting, getting to-go beer in a growler, > etc) are all multiply and heterogeneously justified. Hence it's misleading > to impute a single cause for any given behavior/decision. > > Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here. Is it >> REASONABLE. Is it REASONING. Is it EVER reasonable to change your >> individual behavior on the basis of a population average? >> > > Well, like a broken record, there is no "reason" independent of my > biological milieu. I think that implies the answer to your question is "of > course". If my biology is driven by, say, the trace minerals in my tap > water, and most people in my city drink the same tap water, then of course, > it's reasonable to assume we'll change our behavior _toward_ a population > average ... probably the same reason we all react to "house music" or > fruit. You may _say_ you don't like fructose ... but that highlights the > ambiguity in "like", not the biology that processs it. > > But if your question is intended to invoke the deus ex machina, where > _thought_ (esp. a single thought) is the causa prima for action, then > absolutely NO. That never happens in me and I deny that it happens in you > or anyone else. > > -- > glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > -- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA [email protected] mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merlelefkoff
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
