Save Yourself

And what are you if you won't?

Photo by Mariusz Słoński on Unsplash

There is an old paper that came out in 1972 written by the Australian Philosopher Peter Singer that I want to discuss a bit here. I first came across it in a college philosophy class, and I stumbled across it again recently. The paper, Famine, Affluence, and Morality argues that if you are affluent you are obligated to fight famine. Singer argues that this isn’t charity, it shouldn’t be thought of as something supererogatory (extra, or above what is required). It should be looked at as obligatory – or required.

It is worth a read if you are so inclined, but his main thesis is summarized in a hypothetical example Singer gives to prove his point. In his example, Singer tells the story of a hypothetical young boy drowning in a shallow pond. Singer says that it would be easy to save the young boy, but you would ruin your clothes, or at the very least get them very dirty. Singer argues that this minor inconvenience to you is well worth saving the child’s life, so you are obligated to do it. It’s that simple. Singer likens this example to the obligation to fight famine. Helping those impacted by the famine may slightly inconvenience you, but according to Singer, you are obligated to do so.

Singer argues that if we have the power to prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything that is morally significant, then we must do it. This is a revolutionary idea. Most people don’t live their lives this way. If you take Singer’s conclusion to its extreme, you could argue that you should never eat out at a restaurant, because that is a luxury. You could just make dinner at home instead and send the money saved to charity to fight famine.

It is an interesting argument to think about. You could conclude that Singer would say you are a bad person if you don’t save other people when you can. This could lead to the conclusion that you should spend your whole life and most of your wealth saving others who are less fortunate than you. There are people who live this way, and that is extremely admirable.

I think we should be charitable and should look to help and save others when we can and have the means to do so. But I don’t think you have to give away most of what you have. We give a certain amount to charities each year, and have our kids pick out a cause they want to support. So far they have picked causes that save cute animals to donate to each year, but that will likely change as they get older.

We want to foster a charitable mindset in them and to have them appreciate what they have and to use the little wealth and power that they may have to help others when they can.

Singer may think I’m not going far enough. I’m fine with that.

I’m not asking for much.

Singer concludes that if we have the means to save others and it is not morally wrong to do so, we must do so.

I’m saying the same thing, with just one word changed. If we have the means to save ourselves and it is not morally wrong to do so, we must do so.

We live in a society that gives us extreme wealth and privilege compared to any other time in human history, and if we want to keep that society intact we must address climate change. (I would also say overshoot and inequality, but for walking through the argument we will stick with climate change for now). Living in a society comes with it a tacit obligation that no one ever mentions or talks about.

Don’t do anything to ruin society.

So, we generally don’t, and if we break those norms or laws, we are often punished either with jail, monetary fines or at the very least social ostracization from some part of society that disapproves of our actions. Climate change is ruining our society, our civilization. If we don’t care that much about society and just want to be a free rider and take all the benefits of society and shoulder none of the obligations, climate change tells us that simply isn’t an option. Climate change is coming for you no matter what. You don’t have a choice in the matter.

If we don’t do anything about climate change when we have the power to do so, we are either saying climate change isn’t real, isn’t that bad, or that giving up the power and luxury we enjoy now isn’t worth it. People may also respond to the climate crisis with either; I can’t make a difference, or someone else will take care of it.

Let’s address each of these:

Climate change isn’t real – If you believe climate change isn’t real and you’ve read this far, don’t bother with the rest. I’m not going to argue with you.

Climate change isn’t that bad – If you don’t believe that climate change is that bad and you’ve read this far, good on you. I vehemently disagree with you, but I’m not going to yell at you.

Giving up power and luxury isn’t worth it – If you don’t believe climate change is real or isn’t that bad, then of course you hold this position. If you believe climate change is real and you don’t think doing something about it is necessary, I don’t know what to say. You sound like a psychopath. You don’t have a good argument. What you are saying is that you value your power, comfort, and status over the ability of your children to live a good life. That is insane.

Humans have always adapted to big changes. We will just adapt - No you won’t. Things will change too fast for you to adapt. Our lives are built around the community around us staying largely the same. We tell ourselves that “corn was grown here 100 years ago, it will be here in another 100 years”. No, it won’t. It might be grown 100 miles north of where you are now, if at all. Since the start of the industrial revolution there has been about a 1.5 C rise in average global temperatures. That is a 1.5C temperature rise from about 1880 to 2025, when I am writing this. It took over 140 years to go from 0.0 to 1.5. The pace is just accelerating. You are riding on a logarithmic rocket of negative change in the livability of your world. “You” are not likely to adapt to that seamlessly b/c you are dependent on systems that are already starting to break down and will only break down with increasing frequency at an increasing speed. If by any chance, you are very fortunate, or self-sufficient, or wealthy enough to buy all you need in the near future, rest assured, society at large is not, and that collapse will eventually get to you.

I can’t make a difference – Yes you can. One person, by themselves, isn't going to solve anything. But one person, by themselves, never does. Anything you accomplish comes with help, from parents and teachers and mentors who helped you to get where you are to the actual people helping you on a project.

There are billions of people out there who want to fight climate change.

Go out and find them. Go out and help them.

Someone else will take care of it­ – Yes, they will, but no one can do anything alone. Go out and find them. Go out and help them.

We create our own monsters.

For the most part, we in affluent countries don’t feel obligated to solve the climate crisis. We feel that we can if we want, but it is not obligatory – it is a choice. It is not a choice, because the people we are choosing not to save are ourselves. You can choose not to save yourself, but that is just slow-motion suicide. That doesn’t make any sense.

What we have to do is pull the throttle back on the way we live. Trade a system that focuses on economic growth as the reason for our society, to a system where meeting our fundamental needs is the reason for our society.

We have to take a hard look at what we have and what we are currently striving for and ask ourselves the hard question of, do we really need that, or do we only want it.

So ask yourself; are you obligated to save that boy drowning in shallow water if it only means a minor inconvenience to you? Most of us would probably answer yes, or at the very least; “No, I’m not obligated, but I’ll do it because I’m not a monster, and watching a boy drown so I can keep my clothes clean makes me a monster”.

Then ask yourself, what does it make you if you won’t even save yourself because of some minor inconveniences?