The Compound Effect and the Self-Interest of the Individual
| The Compound Effect and the Self-Interest of the Individual23-01-2020 15:00 | |
| USProblemSolver☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
Government regulation is not the way to solve this problem. It is by millions of people doing what they can (and are showed in this report) do. When millions of people do something, it changes the course of human history. Solving Climate Change with Compound Effect and the Individual Logan Twitchell The compound effect is the idea that little actions taken over a period of time lead to massive results (small actions=massive results). This has proven true in every instance. Because the longer you do something, and the more you do it, the better you become, thus the results become better. For example: Having an apple per day doesn't immediately yield incredible results. It is the constant and continuous application of your daily apple that leads to your desired results. Here's another: You don't get shredded by going to the gym once a week. It is multiple times per week over a long time that leads to your desired body. (Including nutrition and more, but that is standard). One more: Reading a book per week isn't going to make you incredible and successful. It is the application and actions taken from those books over a period of time that gives you your results. The Individual: It all begins with you and me. Because no real change will ever happen unless many people, most individuals, decide to change themselves and change the world. A government law to "cut emissions by 85% in 4 years" isn't going to do it. It is by getting most of the population, and showing them how "it is in your best interest to do all you can to help out." Because you can make that law, but if 90% of the population doesn't like it, not only will it not work, but you'll be out of a job! With the individual, you must apply self-interest. For self interest is the most powerful of all motivators. When anyone stands to gain something from anything, they do all they can to get it. If you were able to get a year of free food if you just stood outside overnight, then quite a few people would do it. If you were able to implement a new system that "leaned" your bills and utilities and consumption, you would do all you can to get it, use it, and reap the benefits of it. The issue with laws is that they don't take human behavior into consideration. For example, the law "It is illegal to Murder." It is illegal, but in 2018, there was still "16,214 murders and non-negligent manslaughter in the us." (Statista). So, that doesn't work. What about illegal downloading of music and movies? There is a $250,000 fine and 5, and it is still rampant. "35% of music buyers have acquired music illegally." (Statista) It sure isn't stopping millions of people from pirating music and movies and eBooks. (Statista). With any law, there are going to be people who break it, because it is in their best self interest to avoid the law, because it benefits them to do so! That is the ultimate reason why laws are so ineffective. (Plus, when you add in our sin condition, it sure doesn't add up nicely). With the illegal pirates, there are several measures you can take, such as implementing code in all downloading equipment that lets an agency or company know where their license is being used illegally. Also, actually punishing more and more of these pirates will send a stronger message. One that is sure to kick is that their tax rate will double if they are caught illegally downloading content, AND they have to pay the license holders for their misdeeds. Another way is to prevent the websites from hosting the downloads at all. There should be weekly or monthly internet scrubs, which wipes off all the illegal content on websites (only ones that are targeted and hosting illegal downloads). Back to the environment. Consider E-waste. It is a really nasty product when not correctly recycled, affecting water, earth and sky. So, if it is so terrible, why is only 12.5% of E-waste ever recycled? (YouTube). One reason is not a lot of people are going to drive many miles to drop off a few pieces of electronics. What is the solution? Well, if the problem is the facilities being too far away, then the solution will be to bring them closer. How? Well, we could start with each city (of a certain size and above) has a city-wide drop-off site, perhaps close to city hall, where all their citizens can drop off their e-waste, which can then be funneled to the major facility. (So, the drop-off will be just a few miles away, which will lead to a large increase of recycled electronics). What about cross-contamination in recycling containers? Well, the issue there is people not being well informed. One solution would be to have a massive imprint on the container, located on the bin where you can't miss it. Included with that is to make it obvious that "you don't recycle trash that has food still in it...like ice cream!" How does this benefit individuals to learn this and change their behavior? Well, it means that they will make a greater impact on the air they breath, the land they walk, and the water they drink. Phrase it as "if you don't do this correctly, your health is going to deteriorate, the water you drink is going to taste even worse, and the air you breath is going to be foul." Now, most people are going to be more open to that specific tidbit than "well, it's good for the planet!" Well, how is good for the planet good for you? Another aspect to consider is that which will be compounded over time. Absolutely, it is going to be expensive to get this new information out there. (Not billions of dollars expensive, a few million and some administrative changes). But the effects over the long term is going to be astounding. If we get just 10,000 people to make these practical and self-motivating changes, we can cut their presence by 25+%! That means that if there was say, 100 trash articles going, now there is only 75. (I am being conservative about this because I can only speak of my own life and theory, some people are still not going to care even with this explanation). "But Logan! 25% is not enough!" Well, if we get 25% from this, and a few percent from a legislative action and a global economic recession from that, then we should take the economic growth and self-motivated path. 25% is one-fourth reduction in all pollution...that is HUGE! Imagine if we can get even 2 million people to change like this?? Or several hundred million around the globe?? That is what would make a real difference! But what about those greedy and evil corporations? Well, if the corporations were to lose massive amounts of their profit and reputation by not endorsing this new wave, then they will absolutely chip in. If a company makes and sells shoes, and they realized that "If we can eliminate almost all the water used in the manufacturing process, we will make more money!" Then they are going to do it! Alternatively, if they thought "We can stay the same, they need us!" Then they would quite likely be forced out of business as sales collapse and their image is irreversibly tarnished. And that is not good for business, so they would have to innovate, or die. Now, there are going to be some discrepancies along the whole route, but if even 10% of these businesses changed along these routes, that would make an insane impact on global health. (It would improve mental and physical health, because people would not be getting as sick as often, and less crap being breathed in) It would also be good for the planet, for every ton of pollution eliminated at all stages, means that everyone is better. And if everyone is benefiting from it, then more people and businesses will jump on the gravy train and do their part. Because people spend more money on the things they want and support. Incidentally, I am well aware that I am speaking in theory, and what occurs in theory does not always lead to that result in practice. However, there is always a time for implementation, and that starts with the individual. For when one person makes this change, then it will lead to another person making this change, which will then lead to another...and another until a multitude of people are changing the world. Don't wait for the government to make a "change." Start with yourself, and start now. Because if you wait a few years for results by the government and it doesn't happen, imagine all the progress you missed out on. You missed out on changing your life and the world. Even if the steps and actions are small, they are better than inaction and backward action. When we all change, everything changes! "But Logan! That is all fine and dandy, but how can I start changing this world?" There is a multitude of actions you can take, including but not limited to: cutting electricity usage, cutting water usage, LED'S, tell others about this, better equipment(efficiency, such as instant shower heaters), let the sunlight flow in, recycle correctly, energy star appliances, creative shower heads, water saving faucets. For each area of consumption, and all the things you do, write them down, explain all the steps, and see where you can "lean" your life. This is simply the tip of the spear, but for each individual, the innovation and choices are up to you. Thank you so much and may God bless you! Regards, Logan Twitchell |
| 23-01-2020 16:46 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14389) |
USProblemSolver wrote:Government regulation is not the way to solve this problem. What is the "problem" exactly. Could you start with an unambiguous definition of the global climate? Thank you in advance. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 01-02-2021 13:00 | |
| IOPan933☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
I agree that institutional changes need to take place to make greening less costly; it is not clear how green-behavior will be incentivized as you argue it must be. Making it easier does not make it personally beneficial. Furthermore, penalties for not greening or banning dirty consumption are an incentive, they are incentivized by not being punished. The examples you give involve lack enforcement as the problem; people greening out of the "goodness of their hearts" is not, according to your construction going to happen. Yet you don't make clear how agents will be incentivized. Your argument fundamentally does not make sense: how are laws not an incentive and how does not having laws incentivize people? There is no real incentive in most cases for greening and if we start to offer financial ones we are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul as more money spent is more non-renewable resources consumed. |
| 01-02-2021 19:15 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5196) |
Unless you haven't left you mother's rat infested, shit-hole basement in a while, this planet is still plenty green. If we continue on the path we've been on for the past couple centuries, the planet will be even green. CO2 is vital for plant life, and all life on this planet. Destroying our food source, isn't going green, it's just plain stupid. Ask your local commercial greenhouse if they augment CO2, and why. Also inquire at what level. No plants, no food, we all die... |
| 02-02-2021 01:29 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21588) |
IOPan933 wrote: You want greening? Plant a lawn. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-02-2021 01:58 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
IOPan933 wrote: I agree that institutional changes need to take place to make greening less costly; I'm more into firearms. I want blueing to be less costly. Greening shouldn't be our priority until we have blueing costs thoroughly addressed. Then we need to address the Redding issues. This place in California has bona fide wildlife and power grid issues that also need to be addressed before we even consider any greening issues. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
Join the debate The Compound Effect and the Self-Interest of the Individual:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist | 140 | 15-04-2024 19:43 |
| Physicists 'entangle' individual molecules for the first time, bringing about a new platform for | 17 | 21-12-2023 13:02 |
| Optical tweezers building qubits out of individual molecules, this is the first step toward | 0 | 08-12-2023 03:08 |
| 'Greenhouse' Effect? | 49 | 30-11-2023 06:45 |
| The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect" | 291 | 05-11-2023 22:46 |