A house divided: Syrian Refugees and Thanksgiving conversation...

[LDAHL]

I guess I'll bite. It depends on what "acting" means.

My question was if refraining from consumption means "we have more resources" that can be used for good purposes, is it not better still to work to create more resources in the most efficient way to can? The first implies a static quantity and a passive zero-sum distribution. The second implies that we can increase the resource base by our efforts.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't believe in consuming less to donate it all to the refugees, but if you donate a lot to help them, I do think it's very kind thing to do. It is a sad situation. I do believe kinda in consuming less for the environmental benefit. Oh yes the environmental cost of my leisure time, it's so ghastly and horrible isn't it? I mean look if I had really environmentally costly leisure activities I suppose the case could be made, but not otherwise.

And I don't believe money is what fundamentally motivates people, sure fear of starvation motivates up to a point (and it's a pretty darn poor motivation at that, it will motivate doing the least amount possible to avoid starvation, and some of what it motivates will be unethical behavior - some unethical behavior is motivated by greed for more money or even fears for economic security - just read the news) just like any other base fear, and then people want more from life than just basic bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. But money won't really buy that (it can help, but it's not really it).

[Ultralight]

My question was if refraining from consumption means "we have more resources" that can be used for good purposes, is it not better still to work to create more resources in the most efficient way to can? The first implies a static quantity and a passive zero-sum distribution. The second implies that we can increase the resource base by our efforts.

I don't think we create resources. I think we extract them.

I suggest that if they must be extracted then they be extracted not for the excesses of selfish and gluttonous folks but so that others can live enjoyable but simple lives with "enough."

Let me illustrate.

[Ultralight]

If we have a moral obligation to "live simply that others may simply live", do we also have an obligation to work as long and as hard as we can at whatever pays the most to earn as much wealth as possible for distribution to the less fortunate? If every dollar of "excess consumption" can be thought of as coming at someone else's expense, doesn't every hour of "excess leisure" also come at someone else's expense if the goal is a sort of utilitarian greatest good for the greatest number?

Would it be wrong, for instance, for an investment banker to spend two years in the Peace Corps digging wells in Malawi if his earnings could easily be used to employ several dozen local well-diggers? Should we recognize a sort of ethical opportunity cost for our free time?

Here is my illustration.

Suppose your investment banker does a lot of investment "work" in bottled water. And the source of this bottled water is Lake Malawi. So he empties the lake to fill bottles of water to sell to people in the first world (expensive exotic water for Whole Foods customers). Then he uses a portion of his earnings to dig wells in Malawi (Got to! The lake was drained!).

This was not helpful.

Now obviously I don't want you to take this illustration literally, but rather to help you imagine how extracting and exploiting certain resources on the front end to make a profit is not made right by "charity" on the tail end.

I think it is best to refrain from extracting resources whenever possible.

[bae]

Let me provide another example.

Lovely trees grow all over my land. They grow fast, they grow tall, and they grow strong. If I "extract" the resource of the wood, I have huge supplies of firewood, and marketable timber for producing wood to build other peoples' homes. If I don't "extract" the resource, the high winds here will eventually topple the nearby trees and crush my house and outbuildings, assuming a wildfire doesn't sweep through first and burn everything down. If I do "extract" the resource, it grows back quite swiftly - it is a never-ending struggle not to be overrun by trees here.

The same line of thinking goes for the deer on the land here.

And pretty much every drop of water that lands here from the sky.

[Ultralight]

Perhaps, if wilderness could talk, it'd say: "It is a never-ending struggle not to be overrun by humans here."

[bae]

Perhaps, if wilderness could talk, it'd say: "It is a never-ending struggle not to be overrun by humans here."

If I did not maintain this forest, it would be quite unhealthy, with frequent fires, disease, downed trees making the landscape impassable for wildlife.

The First Nations folks used to just come over here every few years and burn the whole island down to keep it in shape.

The trees themselves are a relatively recent arrival on scene, 11 thousand years ago the place was covered in a mile-thick sheet of ice.

But I get your basic message, humans are bad and should just die out. Are you going to lead the way?

[Ultralight]

If I did not maintain this forest, it would be quite unhealthy, with frequent fires, disease, downed trees making the landscape impassable for wildlife.

The First Nations folks used to just come over here every few years and burn the whole island down to keep it in shape.

The trees themselves are a relatively recent arrival on scene, 11 thousand years ago the place was covered in a mile-thick sheet of ice.

But I get your basic message, humans are bad and should just die out. Are you going to lead the way?

Nanny G of the forest. haha

[LDAHL]

Let me provide another example.

Lovely trees grow all over my land. They grow fast, they grow tall, and they grow strong. If I "extract" the resource of the wood, I have huge supplies of firewood, and marketable timber for producing wood to build other peoples' homes. If I don't "extract" the resource, the high winds here will eventually topple the nearby trees and crush my house and outbuildings, assuming a wildfire doesn't sweep through first and burn everything down. If I do "extract" the resource, it grows back quite swiftly - it is a never-ending struggle not to be overrun by trees here.

The same line of thinking goes for the deer on the land here.

And pretty much every drop of water that lands here from the sky.

That makes sense to me. Human labor and intellect must be applied to resources occurring in nature to give them value. In many cases, the "extracted" portion is nearly trivial. Modern medicine, a smartphone app, major league baseball or The Maltese Falcon all derive little of their value from ore taken from the ground or plants grown in the soil.

Simply assuming that every cheeseburger I refrain from eating will mean more grain available in South Sudan with no effort on my part doesn't strike me as a reasonable ethic.

[JaneV2.0]

That philosophy always reminds me of "Finish your vegetables; children are starving in Biafra." Not very compelling.