In yesterday’s Post, philosopher Martin Bunzl says: I spend most of my waking hours worrying about how to reduce my output of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Yet my behavior seems to march to a different drummer. I
I conclude Bunzi cares mainly about changing the rest of us, but was unwilling to admit this directly. Why, I wonder?
Because he gets a, to use the vernacular, metric assload more disutility from everyone else using a Hummer (and hence dumping greenhouse gases, creating road hazards, raising oil prices, etc.) than he does from using it himself?
I mean, come on. The climate change issue is a massive honking collective action problem. It might not be individually irrational for him to own a Hummer, but it sure is collectively irrational for everyone who can afford one to have one. Isn't solving collective action problems what the state is for? (Even Milton Friedman could have agreed with that.)
Admittedly, Bunzl expressed this very badly, and the issue of hyperbolic discounting seems like a red herring here. Who cares whether it's individually rational or not to buy the less energy-efficient washing machine? I mean, really, who cares? At all? The point is the collective problem.
I'm not a rationalist, myself, but I'm surprised that some rationalist hasn't yet pointed out that hypocrisy is a rational strategy. It's classic game theory stuff, right? Encourage lots of people to move in one direction, then if they do, you get an advantage as the only cheater. It's like the tragedy of the commons, except that it's not a tragedy for the one person who abuses the commons, if ONLY one person abuses them.
Are desires subject to rationality or is desire just another word for preference?
As I understand their usages, 'preference' is passive, while 'desire' is active. Preference are inert unless you're presented with a choice. Desires are motivations to bring about or create the desired state.
Intransitive preferences, at least, are irrational; and while (say) a discount rate of 100% a day may not be strictly irrational, it's clearly unreasonable, even insane.
It seems pretty clear that he cares mostly about "changing the rest of us" as you put it, given that he's directing something called the Institute on Climate Change. I don't see anything underhanded about it, though; he's using himself as an illustrative instance of the difficulty of the problem, not doing some sort of self-help meditation about the tortured choices he must endure. That he wants everyone to change is pretty much assumed in the article.
This article is not about carbon dioxide. What he is trying to do is show much enjoyment he gets from these simple, happy, everyday objects, and he uses the device of exaggerated inner conflict to do this.The point of the article is to get you to sit on the porch and giggle at how wonderful it is that finally, at this stage of life, your biggest worry is which washing machine to buy.
Oh, and as for discerning what Bunzl wants, I disagree that it's changing all of us per se. Remember, a tax on the negative externality does that. Most environmentalists want the behavior changes to be visible so as to show who's on whose "team", which is consistent with other common biases. In many cases, the most energy-saving thing to do is e.g. change insulation at home, but that doesn't make your "sacrifice" visible to others.
So I would agree with Mike_Kenney's assessment that he dislikes seeing those who thumb their noses by not making a *visible* sacrifice.
Robin says: "I conclude Bunzi cares mainly about changing the rest of us, but was unwilling to admit this directly. Why, I wonder?"
I'm more inclined to think he wants everyone to change together. "I won't do it if no one else does." You go it alone, you might be thumbing your nose at your community, which might be something a social animal might not be inclined to do.
Bunzl's conclusion doesn't follow. An ideal environmental externality tax would apply the funds toward canceling the environmental damage from his decision. It therefore wouldn't matter, with respect to the environment, if he gives in to his desires. That's the beauty of it: monitor your environmental cost, and save money, or don't, and you cancel the damage another way. Since he says he'll pay any price to use a Hummer, that implies there must be a tax that allows him to do the "right thing".
See the "added" above.
I conclude Bunzi cares mainly about changing the rest of us, but was unwilling to admit this directly. Why, I wonder?
Because he gets a, to use the vernacular, metric assload more disutility from everyone else using a Hummer (and hence dumping greenhouse gases, creating road hazards, raising oil prices, etc.) than he does from using it himself?
I mean, come on. The climate change issue is a massive honking collective action problem. It might not be individually irrational for him to own a Hummer, but it sure is collectively irrational for everyone who can afford one to have one. Isn't solving collective action problems what the state is for? (Even Milton Friedman could have agreed with that.)
Admittedly, Bunzl expressed this very badly, and the issue of hyperbolic discounting seems like a red herring here. Who cares whether it's individually rational or not to buy the less energy-efficient washing machine? I mean, really, who cares? At all? The point is the collective problem.
I'm not a rationalist, myself, but I'm surprised that some rationalist hasn't yet pointed out that hypocrisy is a rational strategy. It's classic game theory stuff, right? Encourage lots of people to move in one direction, then if they do, you get an advantage as the only cheater. It's like the tragedy of the commons, except that it's not a tragedy for the one person who abuses the commons, if ONLY one person abuses them.
Are desires subject to rationality or is desire just another word for preference?
As I understand their usages, 'preference' is passive, while 'desire' is active. Preference are inert unless you're presented with a choice. Desires are motivations to bring about or create the desired state.
Intransitive preferences, at least, are irrational; and while (say) a discount rate of 100% a day may not be strictly irrational, it's clearly unreasonable, even insane.
Are desires subject to rationality or is desire just another word for preference?
People have irrational desires, therefore fulfilling their desires is irrational.
Fulfilling their irrational desires is irrational.
It seems pretty clear that he cares mostly about "changing the rest of us" as you put it, given that he's directing something called the Institute on Climate Change. I don't see anything underhanded about it, though; he's using himself as an illustrative instance of the difficulty of the problem, not doing some sort of self-help meditation about the tortured choices he must endure. That he wants everyone to change is pretty much assumed in the article.
Satire or not, the man has a point: People have irrational desires, therefore fulfilling their desires is irrational.
Steven, thanks; fixed the spelling error.
Silas, good points.
Dudes, it's satire.
This article is not about carbon dioxide. What he is trying to do is show much enjoyment he gets from these simple, happy, everyday objects, and he uses the device of exaggerated inner conflict to do this.The point of the article is to get you to sit on the porch and giggle at how wonderful it is that finally, at this stage of life, your biggest worry is which washing machine to buy.
Oh, and as for discerning what Bunzl wants, I disagree that it's changing all of us per se. Remember, a tax on the negative externality does that. Most environmentalists want the behavior changes to be visible so as to show who's on whose "team", which is consistent with other common biases. In many cases, the most energy-saving thing to do is e.g. change insulation at home, but that doesn't make your "sacrifice" visible to others.
So I would agree with Mike_Kenney's assessment that he dislikes seeing those who thumb their noses by not making a *visible* sacrifice.
A little off topic but...
There is also another problem it is sometimes difficult to know what action releases less co2 into the air.
BTW Biochar seems to me to be a promising method to reduce atmospheric co2.
Robin says: "I conclude Bunzi cares mainly about changing the rest of us, but was unwilling to admit this directly. Why, I wonder?"
I'm more inclined to think he wants everyone to change together. "I won't do it if no one else does." You go it alone, you might be thumbing your nose at your community, which might be something a social animal might not be inclined to do.
Bunzl's conclusion doesn't follow. An ideal environmental externality tax would apply the funds toward canceling the environmental damage from his decision. It therefore wouldn't matter, with respect to the environment, if he gives in to his desires. That's the beauty of it: monitor your environmental cost, and save money, or don't, and you cancel the damage another way. Since he says he'll pay any price to use a Hummer, that implies there must be a tax that allows him to do the "right thing".