Why double standards can not be solved individually

[Nilsi]

The problem with uncovering ones own double standards puts one in the classic game theoretic conundrum of the multipolar trap (it would be better for all if noone did it, but since everyone else is doing it, I have to do it to stay competitive). Say I dont want the oceans to be overfished, yet fish is an integral part of my diet. If I bring this contradiction to light, I can a) not eat fish anymore; this puts me at an absolute disadvantage, since I miss important nutrients like proteins and Omega-3s, that I cant easily substitute; it also puts me at a relative disadvantage since my fellow humans will keep eating fish anyways OR b) change my ethics around overfishing; this results in me adopting some kind of libertarian worldview, thus reinforcing a race to the bottom, where everyone is seeking a short-term advantage to the long-term detriment of all (at some point there will be no fish left).

Whats needed here (and in any example of double standards) is actually a systemic solution e.g. understanding population dynamics of fish and fishing an optimal amount of fish, to keep the population in a fluctuating equilibrium; advancing synthetic biology to create fish analogs etc.

There are two strange attractors on the other side of uncovering ones personal double standards; you either end up an ascetic or a libertarian. This is why you ultimately can not separate personal development and systems theory, and doing so is only a red hering, that distracts from the real underlying problmes that have to be solved.

[Razard86]

You kind of overcomplicated something very simple. You could still fish, unless the population of the fish was very small you alone are not going to kill out all the fish. Also you cannot directly control how much others do without force, but you could influence them through dialogue. You would be more convincing if you didn't fish at all as some will believe you are just saying to catch more but that is an issue you will have to work through.

In the end they will either listen to you, or do their own thing anyway. Your quote says it all "We all must be, and can only be, a light unto ourselves." Everything else you said overly complicates something very simple. Stick to the quote you have, no systems theory can work unless you can get people to buy in. Ever notice that scientists rarely get elected? They aren't good at the art of persuasion. Theories and systems don't matter if you cannot get buy in. 

How do you get buy in? Focus on simplifying whatever concepts you are sharing otherwise you are just using words to express how intelligent and wordy you are. 

[Nilsi]

37 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Ever notice that scientists rarely get elected? They aren't good at the art of persuasion. Theories and systems don't matter if you cannot get buy in. 

Im working on both I dont mean to over-complicate things, its just that there is precise language to communicate my point, so I might as well use it. I dont think my point requires any prior knowledge of these concepts to be understood.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Nilsi

[puporing]

Yes you're right it requires both individual awareness and the system change. A very "woke" person probably will starve to death in a stage red place, assuming that we still care about survival. But I guess the work is more focused on what individuals are doing, which will influence the collective.

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by puporing

[Nilsi]

Just now, puporing said:

Yes you're right it requires both individual awareness and the system change. A very "woke" person probably will starve to death in a stage red place. 

That would be a very naive "woke" person. A person that thinks holistically would know that starving to death isnt helping all your brothers and sisters that are starving to death as well, and that sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to build a better, more just system. Its a slippery slope of course, but just rolling over and dying is unacceptable in my view.

[puporing]

18 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

That would be a very naive "woke" person. A person that thinks holistically would know that starving to death isnt helping all your brothers and sisters that are starving to death as well, and that sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to build a better, more just system. Its a slippery slope of course, but just rolling over and dying is unacceptable in my view.

Well yeah I was illustrating a point that basically the group dynamic can force your hand when it comes to acting in accordance with the highest values and truths. If survival in the environment means going against the truth. But I think those don't really count within double standards/hypocrisy as it was forced on you.

Edited August 31, 2022 by puporing

[Nilsi]

4 minutes ago, puporing said:

Well yeah I was illustrating a point that basically the group dynamic can force your hand when it comes to acting in accordance with the highest values and truths. If survival in the environment means going against the truth. But I think those don't really count within double standards/hypocrisy as it was forced on you.

All environmental circumstances are kinda "forced on you," no? Yet, you have to make choices about ethics anyway. If you choose "selflessness" everytime, your organism will end up dead in no time, so thats not a viable strategy.

[puporing]

28 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

All environmental circumstances are kinda "forced on you," no? Yet, you have to make choices about ethics anyway. If you choose "selflessness" everytime, your organism will end up dead in no time, so thats not a viable strategy.

To varying degrees yeah, I guess just the simple fact you have basic survival to think about is forced on you. And all other factors like your health, genetics, upbringing, location, etc are not exactly in your control. 

So it's a counterintuitive thing where you need to meet a certain amount of basic needs to have room for increased virtuosity/aligning with truth. But often when things start to get "comfortable" people can continue ballooning their "needs" and not examining the ways in which they're going about it or how it's affecting others.

So I would say the burden is in fact more on those who have basic needs met (how you define that is another story), and those who have more power to influence the environment. ? But people with more power (whether it's earned or birthed or both) are often very good at deflecting any such responsibility as they continue to enjoy the power differential. And hence the system change needed to redistribute power tends to get "locked" in place.

Edited August 31, 2022 by puporing

[Kksd74628]

@Nilsi

Problem with double standards is that either you lie about your values or you don't act according to them. The problem in both of the scenarios is that you are not developing as a person the pace you could. In the fish analogy if you think it's wrong decision to you stop eating fish then you shouldn't and vice versa. Eating fish doesn't still mean that you vote for overfishing and therefore anyone who argues against you on this tries argumenting tactics. I agree that big picture problems should always be solved in structure level though.

[Nilsi]

22 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@Nilsi

 Eating fish doesn't still mean that you vote for overfishing and therefore anyone who argues against you on this tries argumenting tactics. 

The problem is that if I buy fish, Im part of the problem. Everybody that eats fish doesnt think they vote for overfishing, yet if enough people buy it, thats exactly how the vote is cast. 

[Nilsi]

48 minutes ago, puporing said:

So it's a counterintuitive thing where you need to meet a certain amount of basic needs to have room for increased virtuosity/aligning with truth.

Even basic survival needs like food, shelter, electricity are currently not sustainable and will cause our system to break down, if it keeps going on thus trajectory. In your day to day choices, you almost always have to choose between giving up some advantage for the benefit of the whole OR gaining an advantage to the detriment of the whole. What we have to do is to set up our systems in such a way, that there are more possible choices, that benefit you and the whole simultaneously.

[Kksd74628]

That's actually wrong in many levels. So by existing you vote for overpopulation, by breathing to climate change and by eating to hungriness in africa :D??? There's difference in what you do personally and what you think should be done structurally. The point is that you have to take in accont your needs when you decide your actions and people's needs when you decide everyone's actions. So the action you ask for can be different if the needs are different.

[Nilsi]

Just now, Kksd74628 said:

That's actually wrong in many levels. So by existing you vote for overpopulation, by breathing to climate change and by eating to hungriness in africa :D??? There's difference in what you do personally and what you think should be done structurally. The point is that you have to take in accont your needs when you decide your actions and people's needs when you decide everyone's actions. So the action you ask for can be different if the needs are different.

Im not saying I cast the vote. Im saying many people eating fish is how the vote is cast. If I stop, nothing changes. If we all stop, there will be no more overfishing. Overfishing, in this case, is an emergent phenomenon of many people consuming fish.

[Tyler Robinson]

I agree with the user above. By simply being yourself you aren't supporting double standards. You only want systemic change. When a structural change happens you automatically try to align to it. That is what humans have been doing for years. 

 

[Tyler Robinson]

2 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Overfishing, in this case, is an emergent phenomenon of many people consuming fish.

Overfishing has less to do with consumption and more to do with reckless illegal fishing. 

 

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, Tyler Robinson said:

I agree with the user above. By simply being yourself you aren't supporting double standards. You only want systemic change. When a structural change happens you automatically try to align to it. That is what humans have been doing for years. 

 

Being myself i.e. eating fish, while worrying about overfishing IS the double standard. Im precisely not suggesting that this is me doing something wrong, its just the nature of the beast, hence the title of this thred.

[Tyler Robinson]

Just now, Nilsi said:

Being myself i.e. eating fish, while worrying about overfishing IS the double standard. Im precisely not suggesting that this is me doing something wrong, its just the nature of the beast, hence the title of this thred.

I explained the difference above. 

I can eat meat and at the same time demand ethical organic farming as well 

 

 

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Overfishing has less to do with consumption and more to do with reckless illegal fishing. 

 

lol Why do you think there is reckless (illegal) fishing? Fishers are not manufacturing demand for fish. People demand a lot of fish, which the fishers supply to them. There is no one to blame here.

[Tyler Robinson]

Just now, Nilsi said:

lol Why do you think there is reckless (illegal) fishing? Fishers are not manufacturing demand for fish. People demand a lot of fish, which the fishers supply to them. There is no one to blame here.

Because they don't follow rules around legality. Certain places aren't allowed to be fished. They can fulfill the demand even by following rules. It's the same thing that goes with animal poaching. The demand is just an excuse. 

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

I can eat meat and at the same time demand ethical organic farming as well 

 

 

Because youre a hypocrite