2005-01-20 [wwwwwwwww]: That is an interesting point to make, although I think that even if a person isn't doing it in a truly noble way, a step in the right direction is always desirable to no step at all. I'd rather have a bunch of hypocrites out there, crying for reform but doing nothing substantial themselves, than silence. For if and when these hypocrites do triumph, then they will be forced, to uphold appearance if nothing else, to make the change without complaint.

2005-01-20 [Amtharnis]: No, I don't accept that. I think change has to start with yourself, and if you are not part of the solution then you are a part of the problem. Take mobile phones for example. There is an element that makes mobile phones affordable and it is mined in the Congo Jungle. It is in the phone companies interest that the war continues in the congo region so that they can continue to exploit the people and the resource. Where they mine is the home of the gorilla, and the miners (probably being poorly paid by the corporate giants) kill the gorilla's for food. Now tell me, who

2005-01-20 [Amtharnis]: here is going to give up their mobile phones? How can you expect someone else to change, if you don't change your own ways. Half the time, it is the hypocrites who are the root cause of the problem, because they demand all these wonderful products but are not prepared to pay the true cost of them. If they did, then perhaps people in the third world wouldn't have to exploit their resources to stay alive.

2005-01-20 [wwwwwwwww]: That's not the type of hypocrite I am talking about. I'm not defending the fact that people in the Developed World live at ease while in other countries people are on the verge of starvation. I'm defending the people who cry for an end to it, even if they don't do anything REAL, it's better than keeping silent. Like I said, if more people from this developed world cried for their governments to do something more drastic about problems the third world face (even thought they might not understand that they would be recquired to make a personal sacrifice along with everyone else)

2005-01-20 [wwwwwwwww]: , then it is a considerable improvement to nobody saying anything, and the decent people of the developed world going and doing work for international starvation relief organizations, or something to that effect.

2005-01-20 [Forbidden Rampage]: I agree that we each have to change individually before any real good can be achieved. But neither talking about it nor talking about the right way to do it does anyone any real good. I think that it is important not to make yourself the proverbial hypocriate and just whine about it. Do something.

2005-01-20 [Amtharnis]: I am not a big fan of quotes, but seeing as this wiki is about philosophy, I shall quote Gandhi - "Be the change that you expect." There is also another common saying and that is a good leader leads by example. As long as everyone points the finger at someone else, the world is not going to change.

2005-01-20 [wwwwwwwww]: Alright then, although I don't really think you quite get the point of my argument, I must ask exactly what you suggest a person should do in order to facilitate this "change"?

2005-01-21 [Amtharnis]: Well, there is a lot you can do as a consumer. You it easy enough to do a bit of research on the companies that supply your goods, and you can vote with your dollar. If you don't like pesticides in agriculture, you can buy apples that have spots and blemishes on them instead of the shiny umblemished ones that have probably been saturated in pesticides. If you build a house, you can choose a design that is energy efficient and put in a waste recycling system. When you buy a car, you can choose one that has good fuel economy or uses an alternative power source (hopefully we'll have fuel cells in a few years). If you invest in the stock market, you can check the activities of the companies you

2005-01-21 [wwwwwwwww]: That's all well and good, but it's not enough. I am not saying that it isn't important, what I'm saying is that it must be a mass movement in order for it to be effective, and therefore the masses have to be persuaded to adapt these practices if any real good is going to become of them.

2005-01-21 [Amtharnis]: are thinking about investing in and choose the ones with ethical goals. I understand what you say about people making noise, but it doesn't do much unless you provide solutions. And often good intentions can go wrong. For example, I am a farmer. Under the pressure of the mainstream green movement, they have tried to use legislation to change farming practises. Over the last 15 years, I have re-established native grasses on my property through management, but under legislation I am no longer allowed to use that land for cropping if I need to; whereas, the blokes who keep plooughing their land, can continue to plough it up forever. If the market falls out of the grazing enterprises, I cannot

2005-01-21 [Amtharnis]: use any of my land to crop until prices come good again. In effect, I am being told I am a bad manager because I've allowed natural vegetation to regenerate on my farm, and I can't be relied on to manage my land. So I am forced to go broke, while the bad farmer whose farm is in a bad ecological state continues to do what he has always done. If you try to manage things like that with legislation, all you end up with is a huge bureaucracy - voila 1984 and big brother is watching you! What needs to be done instead is to train people and encourage them in good decision making.

2005-01-21 [wwwwwwwww]: One moment, the example you're using is actually you?

2005-01-21 [Amtharnis]: What is an example of this mass movement you propose? 

2005-01-21 [Amtharnis]: Yes, it is.

2005-01-21 [wwwwwwwww]: I'm saying that, ridiculous as it sounds, the masses of the developed countries would spend alot more time doing whats good for the environment. For example, minimizing pollution in every way possible to them, as well as protesting against unneccessary hazards towards the environment. Also , there must a great change in culture. People should identify success with contributing towards the good of the human race, rather than amassing as much money as possible. This itself could be done easily enough, if I'm not mistaken, should national and international media change their own goals in such a way.

2005-01-21 [Amtharnis]: But why isn't that happening? I don't think it is happening, because in spite of all our talk, we are still supporting that which we say we are against. It is like going to the shop and buying a mobile phone, then ringing up the goverment and complaining about what is happening in the Congo. To inspire a mass movement, I think you have to lead by example, otherwise you are not going to have any credibility.

2005-01-21 [wwwwwwwww]: Acknowledged and agreed, I never said that leaders could afford hypocracy. They must be what they preach, but the preaching part is more important than the being.

2005-01-21 [Amtharnis]: My experience of being expecting to do things by people who don't practise themselves what they preach, has resulted in resentment... and resentment is something that can result in militancy and rebellion. Militant and rebellious people are not very co-operative to your cause.

2005-01-21 [wwwwwwwww]: Er.. I thought we had established that in the hypothetical world movement, the leaders and as many followers as possible would practise what they preached...

2005-01-21 [Amtharnis]: Well, I guess in the hypothetical world our problems are solved if they did do that. The philosophy of communism had a lot of good ideas within it, but it failed because of human nature. It is a matter to as whether or not you want your philosophy tested in the real world.