I’ve noticed that with social causes people often passionately and vehemently support improvements that are marginal/token at best. At the same time, they might be [obliviously?] engaging in actions that are contributing to the problem much more than their token activism. This is probably something we all engage in to a certain extent. Here are some examples, starting from the most radical:
- People who are passionate about the environment (whether through “reducing” carbon emissions through token petitions, campaigning to stop logging etc) who have children. You could fly several times a year, drive the most guzzling 4WD and buy products that are environmentally unfriendly. And yet, if you don’t have kids you are probably having a significantly lower detrimental impact than a modern environmentally conscious urban dweller with kids. As the comedian says, abortion is green
- People who are passionate about world hunger (eg. “sponsoring” a child or, worse, donated goods) while eating [western amounts of] meat. It’s I think pretty uncontroversial that meat consumption is very bad for food security and the ability of the 1-2 billion malnourished and undernourished people around the world to afford their staples. In anticipation of the proverbial hissy fit, let me qualify that saying what’s bad isn’t meat consumption per se but the kind practiced in many industrialised countries where meat is eaten once a day or more. If everyone had no more than 2 meat meals a week it would relieve the pressure significantly but I bet a huge percentage of people who consider themselves to be against world hunger are eating way more than that.
- People who are passionate about reducing conflict from war (or democracy or freedom) who have money in a standard superannuation fund without doing some research about where it’s invested. Military corporations and contractors are a huge part of the global economy and if you haven’t considered that your super fund could be investing there, think again. Same for companies that commit human rights violations, same for state-run companies in dictatorships and so on. Having a percentage of your super invested in those whilst engaging in active petition-signing, demonstration sign waving could well have a negative effect.
Perhaps the 3rd one could be disputed a bit but I think all 3 are pretty clearcut, really. So what could be the reasons for this?
- Obliviousness: perhaps most people don’t know, don’t realise and don’t take the time to think through these kinds of implications.
- Social signalling (a favourite amongst many economists): perhaps most people aren’t really interested in maximising their benefit for a given cause. Perhaps the main object is just to live up to the image of the type of person who cares about X (whether this image is for others or for yourself). In that case you would naturally be compelled to take on the more popular forms of activism, ones that will let others know how much you care. Taking one of the more radical approaches could have bad social consequences. Finally none of this need be done consciously, in fact if this is a real explanation it’s probably unconscious.
- Cognitive dissonance: perhaps it’s as simple as people knowing the contradiction but using the good ol’ tools of dissonance to keep it down in their heads. This could be especially true since the more significant ways to help outlined above may require a commitment that’s several orders of magnitude higher than the token action. In which case the motive to be dissonant and justify ourselves is strong.
Of course these reasons go well together as well…
What do you think? Have you seen people take token actions while making the problem worse in other areas? How have you seen people justify it? How do you do it? I can claim guilt on #3 and claim obliviousness for it — until now.
0 Comments