Reply #16: That is one point of view [View All]

Another is that shame is a powerful social force for motivating people to adhere to social norms. I read taitertots' post as objecting to the way we evaluate the effects of resource consumption. The current social norm is that it is purely an economic evaluation; if I can afford to consume resources then there is nothing wrong with doing so. Taitertot wants to add a new dimension to that evaluation where a person also has to add some form of social cost/reward into the mix.

For that to be effective, the initial assumption would be that such deviation from the norm (180 miles just to work and back is more than 6X the total average daily miles driven of most people) is negative; not neutral, not positive. The person making the evaluation of whether or not to drive that much would then have to weigh the negative social costs into the list of factors you cite that probably go into making the decision.

Essentially, you object to resource consumption being viewed negatively.