I have a little theory about this. When one issue moves into the mainstream, the avant-garde of the self-righteous find a new issue to focus on. They need to, in order to preserve their identity of being distinct from (morally superior to) the masses. It's analogous to music hipsters who immediately discard a band when it becomes popular.

It's funny how "morality" is trendy.

- EDIT -

quotes around morality

It's not clear to me that conspicuous conservation has that much to do with morality.

Exactly. I think it has to do with identity: "I'm the kind of person who..." We seek ways to distinguish ourselves from other people because differences produce meaning, or at least a feeling of it. Constructing an identity to fortify one's ego is an intrinsically selfish activity (I mean "self-ish" literally, i.e. concerning self), which may be why the morality-based identities seem more often to be hypocritical.

By the way, "conspicuous conservation" is a great term! I hadn't heard that.

Which "brand" of self-identity is fashionable and acceptable matters, though. I'd rather be part of a society where "I"m the kind of person who conserves and thinks about morality" is fashionable than one where the dominant self-identity is, say, "I'm the kind of person who'd rather kill and die than take disrespect from anyone."

I just made up "conspicuous conservation" on the spot, although I doubt I'm the first to do so. In this case it seems almost obvious.

if you cause harm to others, and are aware that you do so, you act immorally.

Then "immorality" is so prevalent that calling something immoral is pointless.

you have to include the effects on yourself as well.so in the case of the bottled water you don't have to drink poissoned water instead of bottled water in order to act morally.

Everything we do impacts on others, tracking small and arbitrary infractions and calling that morality is a far greater wrong than a less CO2 efficient source of water. Just cap and trade already, I hate these taboo based social manipulations.

"cause harm to others" is such a loose phrase you could drive a bulldozer through it. It could encompass everything from flatulence to the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I'd tighten up that language a little bit if you are trying to make a point.

If there are externalities, they should be fixed. That is not telling other people what to do with their lives, it is telling them to not steal from others.

Not sure why the CO2 aspect doesn't get regulated through the prize of fuel, though.

Because the price of fuel doesn't account for the damage fuel consumptions costs in the long run.

We do very little to assess and monetize the environmental damage corporations cause, especially over the long term.

The problem to he here is that the price of bottled water doesn't (evidently) reflect the true cost.

Driving a hummer, drinking bottled water, eating a big steak, taking airplanes everywhere. No prob, just pay for it. The price of these activities should be high enough that everyone is just delighted when someone does it, because the amount paid back into the commons makes it a great deal for everyone else.

That would end the moralizing, which doesn't make much sense in the first place (and is truly a hopeless way to influence anyone other than the choir anyway)

On the other hand, I did think it was pretty silly the other day when I saw water from New Zealand for sale here in California. Loading water onto a ship to ship it across more water to sell in a place which already has plenty of water seems pretty wasteful.

But I said "silly", not "immoral".

> Loading water onto a ship to ship it across more water to sell in a place which already has plenty of water seems pretty wasteful.

Gee, I thought we were talking about California, for a second.