💾 Archived View for yujiri.xyz › argument › what-if-everyone.gmi captured on 2024-12-17 at 10:08:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-09-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
last edited 2024-11-05
A common argument raised against many good ideas is some variation of "if *everyone* thought that way, X would happen". For example, when I was young and indoctrinated with conservatism, I was taught to think, "it might not seem like my vote makes a difference, but if no one voted, the system would fall apart, therefore I should vote". This is just a blatant non-sequitur.
My decision is causally independent of everyone else's. Whether I vote doesn't affect whether everyone else does, so if it really is true that my vote is not an efficient way for me to create change, then I shouldn't vote, no matter what would happen if no one voted.
One version of the Wikipedia donation ad said:
If you donate just $2.75, the price of your Tuesday coffee, Wikipedia could keep thriving.
Dear Wikipedia admins, look I understand from experience the frustration of making non-scarce goods and not getting paid, but that's blatantly false. $2.75 will make no discernible difference. A truthful version of this would say "if *a whole bunch* of people donated just $2.75, Wikipedia could keep thriving".
Obviously, if one Y happens for each X, you can say that one X causes one Y, or you can say that a thousand Xs causes a thousand Ys. What you can't say is that one X causes a thousand Ys. That's what their ad said.
A final example is this tweet from a claimed anarchist back in 2020 meant to demonize anyone resisting COVID-19 lockdowns:
Death is a pretty big curtailment of freedom, and projects that seek to increase freedom should try hard to avoid mass death as much as possible.
But I dunno, maybe your personal entitlement to Baskin Robbins is worth killing millions.
There are many other problems with this tweet, but this is one of them.