Not at all.
> A doctor overworking physically injures only their body
> while uber-rich persons flying in private jets, rather than simply
> flying first-class, hurt everyone. A doctor doing such research
> adds to
> our understanding but celebrities simply add to their own celebrity
> much
> more than they contribute to any consciousness raising.
The last point is dealt with in my message (see "accept the premise"). The first point addresses the issue of hypocrisy. With regard to impact, I doubt it will make difference in overall impact if Streisand and Laurie David stopped jet-setting around, especially relative to large scale issue.
> Also if one takes the premise that celebrities can have such an impact
> then their hypocrisies will only serve to undermine it.
Only if the public perceives the "hypocrisy" as weakening the argument offered or neutering the celebrity appeal. I doubt the last is the case and I think that the public sees that the "hypocrisy" does not make the argument invalid.
> Either shut the fuck up about how "others" need to change their
> ways in
> order to reduce carbon emissions or serve as an example.
Not necessary. See above (and below).
> Since the
> wealthy have greater resources at their disposal they can physically
> reduce their carbon output more easily from a financial standpoint
> since
> the technology to do so is currently expensive. Celebrities can do
> more
> to affect change in regards to the climate by serving as early
> adopters
> of green technology and helping to drive the costs down for others
> than
> they can as hypocritical mouthpieces moaning about the excesses of
> others.
Except celebrities cannot (generally) influence other celebrities, and the few who do campaign for mass changes will not make any impact on the issue, even if they act in the manner above.
> The Henwoods (and Heartfields) who fly commercial jets are
> contributing
> significantly less than someone in a private jet.
And so on and so forth: the Streisand jet-setting is contributing insignificantly compared to mass transportation or even other celebrities jet-setting.
> Is the answer to ban long distance travel?
I don't know. Barbara is the one who has the answers ;-).
> Individual consumption choices are generally indeed nearly
> meaningless.
That is arguable but fortunately, a different argument. IOW I am glad to let that be another argument. Those who believe that individual consumption choices do not matter should, without objection from me, consider my argument fundamentally flawed.
> If one prattles on about the importance of
> reducing carbon output, even without the finger wagging, but refuse to
> put such measures into practice oneself is also being massively
> hypocritical. Massive hypocrites generally offer society very
> little. It
> isn't about a technique for hypothesis verification. It is about how
> effective someone can be in raising the consciousness of society.
> Hypocrisy undermines effectiveness.
This begs the question on what does raise the consciousness of society. I believe consciousness is raised by learning something (a "hypothesis") that is meaningful, true ("verification"), explanatory, etc. Whom I learn it from, what they do, etc is mostly irrelevant to this process.
There is only one case I can think of where the behaviour of the individual matters: its effect as a feedback mechanism into the [evaluation of the] reasoning behind the hypothesis (prescription). Does Streisand's inability to give up her perks suggest something about the ability of others to follow her prescription (I am assuming here that she has some, such as "fly less" -- if she is only working to highlight the problem, without offering prescriptions, then she is even less guilty)? If the problem is real, and the suggested behaviour addresses it and does not contradict prior commitments, then the burden of that proof lies elsewhere.
--ravi