The easiest things we can do immediately to cease generating negative utility is to become vegan and stop driving cars. Also, to echo Aleksei; why worry about a lack of focus or commitment to traditional leftist projects? Their current support is immense. Why do people need you to tell them to support them?
Then Aleksei Riikonen added:
It is, by the way, quite telling that folks like Mike Treder and James Hughes *don't* find it necessary to promote veganism, even though they start on this "meanwhile, there is suffering" line.
It's probably because they like the sort of "ethics" that mostly just means writing on the internet how other people are evil, but they don't like the sort of ethics that would have actual implications for their own real day-to-day choices.
There are three points I'd like to make in response to these comments. The first is about Aleksei's accusation that James Hughes and I are essentially lazy liberals who only complain but don't make any hard choices; the second is about the alleged surfeit of support for "traditional leftist projects"; and the third is about veganism and driving cars.
With regard to the first item -- the assertion that we at the IEET are little more than armchair activists -- I hesitate even to dignify that attack with a response. I'm bringing it up mainly as an example of the type of snide flamebait that we have little tolerance for and normally will not approve for posting. Aleksei has already been warned that his comments will receive extra scrutiny since he seems inclined toward such juvenile nastiness.
But this goes for everyone, not only Aleksei. We want this site to be "a center for voices arguing for a responsible, constructive, ethical approach to the most powerful emerging technologies." Thus, destructive and irresponsible voices will find no audience here. As for Aleksei's supposition that James and I don't put our words into action, anyone who is genuinely interested can easily learn out about my record of working for what I believe to be the common good (often at my own considerable expense), and Dr. Hughes has a long history of engagement with causes that he has supported through endless hours of volunteer work. Without trying to be defensive, all I can say is that Aleksei makes himself look pretty stupid by trying to pin that label on either one of us.
As for Michael's contention that the "current support is immense" for traditional leftist projects, I have to ask, quoting U.S. Representative Barney Frank, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"
If Michael has been paying any attention at all to the ongoing debate over health insurance reform, he must be aware that support for even moderate change is fast dwindling. Meanwhile, the potential for gains on other traditional leftist projects -- like a properly progressive tax system, or a basic income guarantee, or a significant reduction in defense spending, or urgent action on climate change -- is basically zilch. It is only because people in the left-wing blogosphere along with other online progressive activists are working so hard to keep these and other initiatives alive that we can have any hope at all. The fact that we elected a center-left Democrat as President does not mean that the U.S. is well on its way to becoming a European-style social democracy. Far from it.
Now, on the topic of cars and veganism, I have not owned a car for more than six years: I'm a proud supporter and user of mass transit. Or a bicycle. Or walking. And although I'm not a strict vegetarian, I do eat meat only sparingly, maybe twice a week or so.
But it's not about me. The question here is whether veganism, or for that matter, public transportation, is something that technoprogressives should adopt as part of a policy platform.
Most of us would agree, I think, that mass transit is intrinsically a good idea. If it can be provided at a reasonable cost and with substantial efficiency, then it seems a no-brainer. Of course we want it. The concept that anyone has an inalienable right to own and drive their own car seems like an anachronism, a relic of the petroleum era, and hardly worth debating.
Veganism is another story.
There are at least three good reasons to become a vegan/vegetarian and to encourage others in that choice. First, it's generally healthier, assuming that you replace the meat and dairy in your diet with wholesome alternatives like fresh fruits and vegetables, plus nuts, seeds, and other grains. Second, it's better for the environment, since the carbon footprint of a vegan diet is a lot smaller than that of a meat-based diet. And third, because the way cows, pigs, chickens and other animals are treated in order to speed their growth and increase the profits of factory farm owners is truly reprehensible.
All of that makes a pretty strong argument in favor of dropping meat, and maybe dairy too, from our diets. Agreement about this, however, is not as monolithic as is support for public transportation. It's similar, in a funny way, to the debate over the value of religion. Belief in the supernatural apparently is endemic to the human species and we have also evolved to be omnivores.
This doesn't mean we can't change our ways, of course. As intelligent, thinking animals, we can reject the tendency toward belief in superstition and we can also amend our natural eating habits, if we choose. And given the the three reasons for becoming vegan/vegetarian, it's probably the moral choice.