True... but the question is, does it get less entertaining if it's not true? For most people it doesn't... Mackey himself invoked the quote "The perfect is the enemy of the good" in response to this question...

So, if you fill up your cart at Whole Foods you may not be 100% cruelty free and 100% organic.. maybe you're 40% cruelty free and 30% organic.... the question is, is it worth it to you?

Maybe someone will be able to create a profitable business by making a real promise in the marketing about what kind of food is being sold... But until society is ready for it, it won't be a profitable business. For now people prefer the feel good approach of making a minor difference and signaling it strongly... Just look around at all the Priuses for an example of this phenomenon in action.

Anyway... the perfect is the enemy of the good...

I'm not claiming that he's necessarily right, but Slavoj Zizek claims that so-called "consumer capitalism" actually does more harm than good. He says the fiction makes people feel good and complacent, and actually serves to prevent the frustration that leads to real change. I can't find a link, atm, but if I do I'll update the post.

I think that's a valid point, but couldn't you argue that any social movement may be imperfect and may actually serve to prevent "real change". After all, social entrepreneurs (revolutionaries, thought leaders) often profit from the existence of the problem they are trying to solve.

You probably could. I think perhaps whats different here is that the eco-movement is asking people to do things that make almost 0 difference in reality (taking a shorter shower, remembering to bring your green bag to take home groceries in), but still make them feel like they've made an effort. Perhaps we should only ask people to make changes for things that will make a significant difference, otherwise we risk squandering their will to change on basically pointless actions.

Then again, you could argue that getting people involved at all may lead to better things. Political campaigns use this principle; first they just try and get a sign on your yard. If you'll do that, then they ask for you to talk to your friends, call people, etc. Baby steps.

I'm not sure I'm convinced either way, but it's interesting to think about.

That's a very good point. Considering the sorts of things that people are able to ignore (while paying attention to other, highly insignificant things) I think it's mostly about what feels good to the people doing it.

In a world in which seeming "socially responsible" and "environmentally responsible" is a status signal, people will do small things to give off that signal.... while ignoring all sorts of other areas in which the slightest awareness or outrage would lead to immediate change.

I've enjoyed reading this discussion.

Psyonic - I'm helping make http://www.idrumskins.com/CPIT001/index.html ... would you like to contribute?

grandalf - I'm curious, what do you do professionally?

-Zack [email protected]