"K.Feete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The hard part seems less to be convincing *people* than convincing
>companies. Since companies are made up of people this doesn't seem very
>logical, but one always seems to hear "I'm just one person in a big
>company; there's nothing I can do." It's one reason why I really feel
>like capitalism is becoming undemocratic, and in fact making democratic
>nations undemocratic.
I think if it were this simple (people in companies feel powerless) then it
would be a simple matter to pass laws which require companies to have
minimal or zero environmental impact. This doesn't require the individuals
to affect the course of their company from the inside, but restrain it from
the outside.
So, why doesn't this happen?
People aren't as dumb as us elitist intellectuals would like to think. When
a company - their employer, or one in which they hold shares -tells them,
"this upcoming legislation may cost you your income" they do a cost/benefit
analysis and decide they'd prefer their income, and vote against the
regulations.
The company is also likely to lobby in the political arena against
regulations; again, for the benefit of its employees and shareholders.
IMHO, there's not *enough* lobbying; it's a game that will inevitably be
played, but the majority of the citizens of the US do not participate
intentionally. How much of the earnings of an average citizen - with
environmentalist leanings - go to the Sierra Club vs. the Beverage
Manufacturers of America?
...
The last few chapters of Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" (compiled from
articles and writing in the early 1980's) is filled with doom and gloom
about nuclear war. He discusses how powerless an individual citizen of the
US or USSR feels and how the nations continue to build stockpiles of death
machines. He then explores analogies, such as a small town which has a
1/25,000 (4e-5) chance of being destroyed by a demon each day; the citizens
of the town can reduce the chance to 1/25,000,000,000 (4e-11) if they all
send 10 2-page handwritten letters to the demon. If they don't, the town
will likely be destroyed within 70 years. If they do, 70 million years is a
safer bet. If fewer people send letters the probablity is reduced a
proportionally lower amount. Perhaps everyone starts off sending letters -
after all, the 70-year argument is very convincing - but eventually the
letter writing starts to slacken off; after all, "my contribution is tiny".
The same arguments and analogies apply to the environment. Surely it would
probably take only a search/replace to update the book to vintage 1996. :)
Joshua
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
