Why being an activist is usually wrong
We all know what the word "activism" means. It's demanding the
government and the common people to do something about some complicated
problem, usually while having only a vague idea of what exactly should
be done. I am about to explain why I think that's almost never a good
thing to do.
The first thing we need to understand is that, for some global problems, it's obvious what the government should do. For example, superbacteria. Around 70% of antibiotics these days goes to the egg industry, which is without a doubt the biggest cause of superbacteria. And it's obvious what the government should do about that problem: regulate the hell out of the egg industry. And... guess what... governments all over the world are already doing that. No need for activism. You might argue they are not doing enough, and that some activism is needed for that, but the problem is that activists rarely choose such simple problems as superbacteria.
On the other hand, you have complicated global problems such as global warming. Activists are often demanding the governments to do something about that problem, but it's not at all obvious what the governments should do about that problem. Punishing companies that use a lot of fossil fuels? In other words, punishing companies that enable poor people access to cheap energy? Doesn't that sound ridiculous on the face of it? Or do something about methane? What about methane? Considering that grass-fed cows emit 3 times as much methane per a gallon of milk than grain-fed cows, should we end all pasture-raised livestock? But, wait, doesn't that in practice mean more factory farming? And therefore more antibiotics given to animals and therefore increased chance of a superbacteria pandemic? Isn't that at least as dangerous as global warming is? And so on... Yet, many more activists are demanding something to be done about global warming than more to be done about superbacteria.
Look, if governments are doing nothing about some problem, that's usually because nothing can reasonably be done about that problem. And if you feel the need to pressure governments to do something about some problem, chances are, there is another side of the story which you are unaware of.
Today, most of the people (at least the more intellectual ones) are able to participate in the discussions about global warming. Wouldn't the world be a better place if instead most people knew that, if we want to decrease the chance of another pandemic happening within our lifetimes, the number one thing we should do is to either stop eating eggs or make sure the eggs we are eating don't come from factory farms?
Activism is redirecting energy from solving simple problems which can be solved to "solving" complicated problems which cannot be solved. That's why it is usually immoral.
The first thing we need to understand is that, for some global problems, it's obvious what the government should do. For example, superbacteria. Around 70% of antibiotics these days goes to the egg industry, which is without a doubt the biggest cause of superbacteria. And it's obvious what the government should do about that problem: regulate the hell out of the egg industry. And... guess what... governments all over the world are already doing that. No need for activism. You might argue they are not doing enough, and that some activism is needed for that, but the problem is that activists rarely choose such simple problems as superbacteria.
On the other hand, you have complicated global problems such as global warming. Activists are often demanding the governments to do something about that problem, but it's not at all obvious what the governments should do about that problem. Punishing companies that use a lot of fossil fuels? In other words, punishing companies that enable poor people access to cheap energy? Doesn't that sound ridiculous on the face of it? Or do something about methane? What about methane? Considering that grass-fed cows emit 3 times as much methane per a gallon of milk than grain-fed cows, should we end all pasture-raised livestock? But, wait, doesn't that in practice mean more factory farming? And therefore more antibiotics given to animals and therefore increased chance of a superbacteria pandemic? Isn't that at least as dangerous as global warming is? And so on... Yet, many more activists are demanding something to be done about global warming than more to be done about superbacteria.
Look, if governments are doing nothing about some problem, that's usually because nothing can reasonably be done about that problem. And if you feel the need to pressure governments to do something about some problem, chances are, there is another side of the story which you are unaware of.
Today, most of the people (at least the more intellectual ones) are able to participate in the discussions about global warming. Wouldn't the world be a better place if instead most people knew that, if we want to decrease the chance of another pandemic happening within our lifetimes, the number one thing we should do is to either stop eating eggs or make sure the eggs we are eating don't come from factory farms?
Activism is redirecting energy from solving simple problems which can be solved to "solving" complicated problems which cannot be solved. That's why it is usually immoral.