By WeBuyItGreen: promoting green living and fair trade
Warning: Contains abstract, philosophical references that may cause boredom.
Several decades ago, as a young political science student, I was impressed by a little classic called The Logic of Collective Action, by Mancur Olson. Olson explained why large groups of people who share a common interest in securing public goods often fail to act collectively to attain them. For example, consumers may have a common interest in making sure that the automobiles they drive are safe, but for decades, Ralph Nader and a comparatively small group of people had to work very hard in order to mobilize enough public opinion to successfully impose stricter federal safety standards on the automobile industry.
A key underlying assumption in Olson’s book is that people are basically self-interested and that "reasonable behavior" is behavior that enables an individual to achieve his own goals. Olson explains that it is difficult to create public goods in large groups through self-interested behavior because of what he calls the "free rider" problem. This can be illustrated with the automobile safety example. Although it is in the interest of all drivers to assure that they are safe, the average individual consumer has very little power or responsibility for creating federal legislation on the matter. They would have considerable power if they joined together and all became actively involved in a large, common, political interest group, but they don’t do that. Why not? Olson’s answer is that each individual realizes that he would have very little impact or responsibility in such a group, and therefore, he might as well allow others to form the group if they wish. If they achieve their aim, he will be the beneficiary as well. (Hence, the term "free rider.")
In other words, as with voting, from a purely self-interested perspective, it is reasonable for each individual to think, "Chances are very slim that my input will make a difference in the outcome. Therefore, I will stay on the sidelines and hope that others will fight the good fight for our common goals. If they do, I get what I want without participating. If they do not, my participation will not help anyway."
If Olson is right, then it will be very difficult for us to achieve the public good of reduced carbon emissions through "reasonable" behavior that is motivated by self-interest alone. If everyone else makes sacrifices in order to reduce carbon emissions, then I enjoy the benefits as well regardless of whether I participate in the effort. And if others do not make such sacrifices, well, my little bit wouldn’t help anyway.
Although many of us may not personally endorse such self-interested thinking, we commonly proclaim that it is "unrealistic" to expect anything more than this from "most people." One participant on the Daily Kos regarded Chrysler’s decision to offer their customers free gasoline above $2.99 a gallon as a "freaking brilliant marketing move" because Chrysler is motivated to make money, and this marketing campaign is helping them to achieve that aim. Never mind that donating gasoline rather than cash blunts consumer motivation to conserve energy and limit carbon emissions. That is irrelevant when our measurement of intelligent or reasonable behavior is whether the behavior achieves our self-interested goals irrespective of impact on the public good.
I’m intrigued by whether the magnitude of the climate problem might not modify this current, widespread view of reason as motivated by self-interest. John Grant recently wrote a book called The Green Marketing Manifesto in which he argues that future green marketers will not succeed if they simply measure their success in terms of sales and profit. The public is beginning to recognize that climate change is too important to be handled in this manner and will be more responsive to innovative marketing models that create win-win situations that benefit not only companies but also the environment. "Rational" marketing would then require a shift in aim toward achieving not only profit, but also behavior that reduces carbon emissions, a public good.
As histories of philosophical views on reason illustrate, our present perspective on what is considered reasonable is just that—a perspective, subject to change. If the IPCC’s predictions about climate are accurate, many things will be changing in our future. We shouldn’t be surprised if that includes our present notions about "reason."