> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.
First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion. Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime). This happens all the time, because laws don't fully align with morality in a culture. Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in.
I don't see any shaming. It was all matter of fact, free from judgement.
Do you think that comparing someone's CO2 emissions with the average and pointing out that it is much higher is value-free, just a totally neutral observation for no reason? That the commenter is fine with it? Or even that it's a good thing?
But I'll also respond to your questions: my purpose is to show that your claim that the original comment was "free from judgement" is wrong. I'm not neutral, I'm attempting to show that your claim is obviously false, that it's not plausible at all. Of course I'm trying to judge a comment that seems wrong.
So now that I've replied honestly to your questions, will you reply honestly to mine? Repeating:
> So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
Because if the purpose wasn't to shame the person for their carbon footprint, I can't imagine what else it possibly could have been.
But you see: not one comment here is neutral. It would be silly to expect a comment to be neutral, such a comment wouldn't be written in the first place. I think the original comment expressed the point while staying as neutral as possible.
> So you think the commenter was neutral?
Yes, it stated some facts.
> No judgment?
Yes, it contained no explicit value judgement. Any value judgement we bring into it is our own.
> Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
How would I know the purpose of someone else's comments? I don't even really know what my purpose is debating here with you. I certainly don't see myself persuading you of anything :)
That said there are probably some work-arounds, tax free twice a year, tax rebate or some-such.
Let's raise the tax on an activity according to its negative side effects, while pointing out individuals that do a lot of it and dont take personal responsibility.
I don't know this guy's personal life, but the people I know who fly tons fit into this profile. E.g. the wife can't move because she's a tenured professor at her university, and he's got to be at both offices regularly. He's best qualified to run the company/companies, and he's not going to get divorced to reduce his CO2 emissions.
What exactly is the solution you propose? What personal responsibility do you expect them to take? You think he should get divorced? Only see his wife and kids four times a year? Have his company/companies suffer because he can't be there in person? Quit his jobs?
And let's be clear, there are lots of jobs that require tons of air travel. If you're a highly specialized repair technician for certain equipment, all you do is constantly fly around the world fixing equipment wherever it is. If you're a CEO of a multinational company, you're constantly flying around to different offices. Are you looking for "personal responsibility" here too? How?
I'm sorry, I don't want HN to to be the place where we get into a fight over the mildest inconvenience for people who are already living extravagant lifestyles.
I suggested raising taxes in the first place.
What I'm opposed to is some hand-wavy demand to "take personal responsibility" without suggesting exactly what they're supposed to do and whether any tradeoffs involved are reasonable.
And please don't call people names. You can write comments here without calling other people "keyboard warriors". Nor is it helpful to try to shut down some viewpoint by claiming that somebody doesn't need any extra support.
And I think most people would consider not seeing their family more than e.g. four times a year more than just the "mildest inconvenience".
Knowing this completely changes the tone, I’d missed that you were that same commenter too.
I don't see how much support from history for that viewpoint. Some examples of positive societal change driven in part by shaming individuals: drink-driving, civil rights, sexual harassment, automobile safety, the slave trade, McCarthyism.
Automobile safety in my life has only changed after fines. Sexual harrassment still happens and doesn't seem to be helped by shaming someone as much as firing them. Though we often don't have the guts or legal backing to publically shame someone.
This hasn’t been a good few years for your examples.