Unfortunately human nature is often to resist change, even when it is for the better. People become comfortable with what’s familiar to them and any attempt to change that can be construed as a threat to their way of life. It’s unfortunate but that’s just how some people are. What’s more, this attitude becomes more firmly entrenched with age.
Given that the person you described seems rather set in their ways, then I don’t see them changing any time soon.
Have you asked this person why they don’t want to do anything. Do they think it’s too much effort, will cost too much, can’t make any difference, isn’t their responsibility etc. Once you’ve identified this, it should be easier to address their concerns and demonstrate that their reasons are invalid.
The solution could be something as simple as planting trees in the garden. Maybe this chap likes gardening, likes nature and would benefit personally from having some trees, the small initial outlay would be more than compensated for by the added value it brings to his property.
Try and identify his reasoning, empathise, then demonstrate a practical and beneficial way to overcome his objections.
Have you considered this: maybe he's right, and you're wrong. Or perhaps the most ethical solution is somewhere in the middle.
Consider: is it possible to have an ethical duty to people who don't even exist yet? That is, he should reduce his current consumption so that people who don't exist currently, and he will never know, may be able to consume more?
1) You are also assuming a future of scarce resources. You can't know that. There could be a technological breakthrough that results in abundance. Humans not only discover resources, we also *invent* them - consider the "green revolution" which improved agriculture.
2) You are assuming that a future society has similar values to today's society. You can't know that. A future society could develop social norms and ethics that are quite different from today. Perhaps in the future most couples only have 1 child, and world population is declining. Or society adopts a religion that shuns material goods in favor of spiritual gifts.
3) Some other catastrophic event could severely reduce human population - natural disaster, disease, famine, war - so resources are not scarce (but labor would be).
Consider: Do you also lecture couples who have more than 2 children? Or more than 1? Aren't couples with children *also* consuming resources today - and tomorrow via their children - in lieu of saving them for future generations? If it is ethical to have children, then why isn't it ethical to drive an SUV? The SUV consumes fewer resources.
Consider: is life not worth living if the standard of living declines from what it is today? If yes, doesn't that say that life_worth = function(material_goods)?
But I will give you one axis of argument with your friend: moral equivalence. Would your friend support the killing of 2/3 of the world population today so that long term resource supplies are balanced with demand? If he doesn't, well, then isn't excess consumption today effectively the same thing? He is killing future people (in your model) just as surely as he would be if war killed 2/3 of the world population today.
A) Now, if he knows anything about population growth and resource scarcity, then he would know that the 2/3 dieoff is going to happen anyhow, no matter what he does. If *everyone* adopted server conservation measures *today*, it would only delay the dieoff by about 8 months. So why bother?
No, your best bet is to try and convince him that rising carbon dioxide levels causes erectile dysfunction. Good luck.
You don't have to persuade people who have no regard for other human beings, you have seen plenty of arguments from other people who lack empathy as to why he is right and should not care about future generations. Although a psychiatrist might be able to help him and this might even help him in his career. [1]
I believe the majority of humans are smarter then yeast, which either consumes all the available resources or dies in it's own excrement. So I suggest you vote for politicians who are willing to do what you believe is right. Regardless if you do or don't vote, there are plenty of things you can do for yourself by reducing waste, which are good for both your wallet and the environment at the same time.
P.S. A cut of 40 percent in Europe’s carbon emissions by 2030, double the current target of 20 percent by 2020 is dismissed as what?
Well, what does it matter what he thinks? Even if he had the ear of his country's leaders, what does it matter?
The US emits 16% of greenhouse gases, and this number is dropping. Combined the EU, USA, Russia, Canada, Japan, Australia, and South Korea emit less than 40% and this number is dropping. China is at 25% and growing. India is at 5% and growing. The rest of the world is over 30% and growing.
Now if the science is correct, then an 80% cut in emissions is required. China alone would have to instead of growing, would have to cut her emissions by 20%, while the rest of the world shut down completely with a 100% cut. This person you are trying to convince, probably is responsible for .00000001% of global emissions, and probably less than you with all your electronic gadgets. The amount he would cut if you made him interested would be .000000001% of global emissions.
In the meantime, China will have increased its emissions by ten times as much every second.
In terms of reducing use of coal, you could point out that burning less (or no) coal would make the air *he* breathes much cleaner, which would be much more pleasurable for him.
And, of course, doing things like buying more fuel-efficient cars or insulating his house would reduce his costs, leaving him more money to do other things, like hire a masseuse or something...
edit:
And, you can make a lot of similar arguments, basically on the principle of enlightened self interest. Or plain old long-term self interest. For example, solar panels and solar water heaters pay for themselves within... I think it's about 5-6 years now, as long as you don't overpay for installation. Well within Mr. 50-year-old hedonist's expected life span.
Why don't you apply that logic the the US President who frequently takes lavish unnecessary vacations, that produce more greenhouse gases in one minute than people like me do in a year? Why don't you apply that to Al Gore and his cronies who fly off to give speeches on environment on their private jets?
Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
Notice dear old Maurice does not include himself in those sacrifices. Does he really care about the future generations? IT IS THE PEONS (MIDDLE CLASS) THAT MUST SACRIFICE, NOT THE HEDONISTIC ELITES!
Ha! Ha! This shows, and questions like this, the dumbing down of our institutions of higher learning.
Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
Some people are reorientated more easily than others. Ha! Ha!
Most people in their fifties have kids, and in many cases grandkids already. Even most childless older people have close friends or relatives with kids and grandkids. The generational issue is a serious one, but it is not insurmountable. Millions of people who gave their lives in wars have done so with at least the hope that their sacrifice would make life better for those who came after them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergenera...
I'm fully convinced that many deniers are similar. While they pretend to believe the "evidence" against AGW, I'm quite sure than many realize that the evidence is bogus. They would gain more respect if they just admitted they believe in AGW but don't care about the future.
I don't think such people really can be persuaded, unless perhaps they have children that they worry about.
I wonder if you try to persuade him that we need to preserve our freedom and prosperity for future generations. At least we have empirical evidence that the various forms of statism (e.g fascism, marxism, socialism, communism, progressivism, etc) have all be demonstrated to be abject failures and even resulted in the murder of a hundred million people last century.
You accuse them of not caring because they don't share your paranoias. Maybe they just know more about it than you do. You can tell him what you would like him to do but once you feel like you have the right to force him, you are becoming one of the above statists.
Since you actually have very little evidence on your side except your opinion, I suspect he isn't going to listen to you and honestly I wouldn't either. I have learned a great deal in my years and one of those things is that some people live to control the lives of others.
Everyone minimizes their energy use when they pay their bills but they decide how comfortable they want to be. I prefer to let people decide how comfortable they want to be but then again, I am not convinced there is a significant risk.
Perhaps what you described about this person is how you perceive him rather than how he actually is. If it's exactly as you say, then you're correct he is hedonistic and thus selfish or self-centered. My opinion is that you would be wasting your time trying to persuade him.
Frankly, you have to ask yourself why you feel the need to do so? Look at these other questions. Are these things you also ask yourself?
? did I use too much water or other resources?
? what if I eat an endangered fish?
? should I become a vegetarian?
? did I endanger myself using my cell phone?
? am I recycling enough?
I'm guessing you're not even close to being mid-fifties and when you do get there, you'll have a totally different outlook on life.
I have a question concerning how to persuade individuals that do not see any urgency in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, simply because they will die before the really serious adverse effects of global warming take place.
Much of the argument for reducing greenhouse gases is a moral argument, i.e., that we owe it to future generations to preserve the Earth for their benefit. What if you have someone who completely dismisses this argument?
Suppose you have someone in his mid-fifties or so and believes, in some hedonistic or Ayn Rand type of way, that his primary moral obligation is to maximize his own comfort and convenience, even if this comes at the expense of future generations. Say he feels no obligation to future generations, and in essence doesn’t care if the Earth ceases to be habitable for humans or animals at some time in the future, because he won’t be around to enjoy it anyway. On the contrary, far more than preserving the Earth beyond his death, he wants to make sure that the time remaining for him on Earth, the next thirty to forty years only, is of maximum pleasure, comfort, and convenience. Damn the future, while I’m alive I want my life to be free and easy.
So he doesn’t argue that the science on global warming is flawed. He in fact accepts that it is true, but he just doesn’t care.
Without criticizing his moral framework, how is such an individual to be persuaded, for non-moral scientific reasons, that it is in his benefit to take efforts to reduce greenhouse gases? He sees it only as a burden, with no benefit that he can take pleasure in.
Some of the ancient Greeks were hedonists. Their carbon footprint was pretty low.
You have a very narrow point of view, you live in the west with all amenities, while billions have to live without electricity, clean water, refrigeration, where children die from lung disorders from living in huts heated with firewood.
Read this please
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/22/bi...
Any response can be quickly dismissed with the news that came out today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/busine...
First job is to prove that warming is a problem
Then prove that CO2 is causing it, then prove it is man made CO2 causing it and if we stop making it, all will be ok, simple.
Remember concensus is not a proof.
