> We're not a cohesive organization but a collection of randos, how and why would we want to align on what we care about?
The “we” here is the collective we. Humanity and its stance regarding the environment and the animals that live in it. This is absolutely worth caring about.
I find the comparison with McDonalds unhelpful, but the general idea that humanity should evolve beyond the abuse of animals is still valid regardless.
This logic could be applied to every major advancement throughout human history. Yet here we are. Ideas grow and spread. We no longer accept slavery. Is this universal? No. Better than it’s ever been? Yes. The spread of ideas is the only way that broader collaboration can ever happen.
For a species so self interested, we’ve managed to invent the medium that I’m typing this comment from, and that in itself is proof that self interest led to global advancements that achieved more than any single group of humans could achieve by themselves.
And self interested or not, we’re still fundamentally a social species, clearly capable of understanding that survival of the collective is critical to our own survival.
If you don’t grow your own food, if you drive a car or ride a bus, live in a building you didn’t construct, stopped at a red light, baked food in an oven, and on the list goes, you are already intrinsically linked and dependent on the cooperation of a large web of other people. And it’s in your own self interest to preserve the conditions that allow that web of support to continue.
Whether one stops to consider/acknowledge this is another question, but the “collective we” is already completely interdependent, and acting in a self interested manner is modulated by education.
So what is helpful? Hopefully a growing awareness of the situations we face and the realities of what we’re doing as a species. When awareness grows, self interested behavior starts achieving new/different results. History proves this.
I see people use this “we” a lot. It’s the same kind of “we” that people use in the sense “why haven’t we gotten jet packs yet?” Well, because there is no we. Some people have jet packs, and it could be said that humanity “has” jetpacks, but that’s not really a useful assertion. Why not say “I wish there were jetpacks I could buy at reasonable prices”? Why bring all of humanity into it?
I think you've missed the point here.
My point is that it doesn't matter who you consider to be part of your "we". They are part of your we whether or not you acknowledge it. Most people never stop to consider the hundreds of thousands of people that impact their lives on a daily basis. Not stopping to think about this or choosing to ignore this doesn't change the reality of what is.
> It’s the same kind of “we” that people use in the sense “why haven’t we gotten jet packs yet?”
Sure, it's a similar kind of "we", but the impact of these we statements cannot be considered equivalent. Jetpacks and the future of earth are not in the same category. If jetpacks happen, cool! Their existence doesn't have much existential impact on me or you.
"We must stop doing a bad thing" in the context of environmental issues eventually becomes an existential statement whether you like it or not. Pondering the non-existence of jetpacks and pondering the collapse of the ecosystem that supports life cannot be lumped into the came category.
> Why bring all of humanity into it?
Because the survival of humanity depends on it, unlike the creation of jetpacks.
You're implying that in the Venn diagram of people fixating on animal treatment at Neuralink and people stopping at McDonalds for a hamburger and chicken nuggets, the first is completely contained in the second which is not the case. You get all kinds of opinions here but they're all made by different people, some eating animals, some not eating animals.
> Feels like we should really align on what we care about?
We're not a cohesive organization but a collection of randos, how and why would we want to align on what we care about?