Pitch for Current Affairs
Nov 22, 2025 Update
On much reflection, may main argument is that we need to do less work, that we should actively be trying to reduce working hours in society, NOT trying to build full employment. A part of this argument is the reduction in consumerism which leads to some sacrifices. But I also wish to include how many of the resulting changes will come without sacrifice.
My old argument was focused too heavily on sacrifice. While I feel the sacrifice point is really important to call out, and is part of what I'm advocating for, it isn't really the point. But then I also struggle with that because some of the sacrifices we need to make aren't actually about reducing labor hours - like eating less beef. So I want to find a way to make both of these arguments together, so I guess I'm kind of backpedaling on what I said in the previous paragraph.
So I could come in with the angle that we can't expect corporations and governments to fix climate change without impacting the way we live.
Attempt #3:
Bernie Sanders writes "While the world burns, fossil fuel CEOs are lining their pockets" and that fossil fuel companies "must finally be held accountable." While this is undoubtedly true - fossil fuel companies (and other large corporations) deserve much of the blame for the climate crisis we're in, advocacy like this misses an important point: The changes we need to make cannot happen without major changes to the way regular people live our lives, and the crisis has not happened without our participation.
Many of the pleasures and conveniences of our modern labor-driven economies come at a real and unavoidable cost. My biggest beef is with animal agriculture - especially the production of beef. Not only is modern animal farming incredibly cruel - calves are mutilated, can die to infection and weather, and are shipped to massive feedlots where they are "crammed together by the thousands" in "feces- and mud-filled holding pens" and often live with "chronic respiratory problems, making breathing painful" due to toxic air - but it is incredibly destructive to the environment, being "the largest driver of tropical deforestation globally" according to a 2016 report.
Even "vegan" foods like palm oil - is it really vegan if it destroys animal habitats? - can have devastating impacts, with it's production "[directly contributing] to regional tropical deforestation ... ranging from an estimated 3% in West Africa to 50% in Malaysian Borneo," according to a 2020 review article. This production also causes "biodiversity declines, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution," and "[g]lobal demand for vegetable oils is projected to increase by 46% by 2050". Even though "oil palm generally produces more oil per area than other oil crops," it does not come without harm. The authors write that palm oil "is often economically viable in sites unsuitable for most other crops and generates considerable wealth for at least some actors," which brings us to the crux of the climate crisis: Our modern world, with all of it's abundance, advanced technology, and "sustainable" alternatives, fundamentally depends on economic viability, which amounts to unsustainable consumption and labor.
While corporations control the production of beef, this practice can't be made truly sustainable, especially when compared to chicken and eggs which use 18 to 27 times less land than beef (though is also cruel), or nuts and wheat and root vegetables, which use 3 to 7 times less land than poultry. A more sustainable - and humane - future requires that beef production be reduced, which requires regular people - not just rich shareholders and CEOs - to eat less beef. Similarly, dairy milk is much less efficient to produce than plant based milks, in terms of land and water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution of bodies of water.
Of course, not all the changes require sacrifice. Right to repair laws and mandatory software maintenance could end a great deal of planned obsolescence. As-is, we're practically forced into frequent new purchases of smartphones, home appliances, cars, and many other goods, because devices are designed to fail, to be irreparable, and often times necessary parts are not available or are overpriced. Most of us would be perfectly happy with the option to keep our devices and cars longer-term and in good repair. To this end, we should integrate repair curriculum into our elementary and high-school education programs. Rather than trying to create repair jobs, we should equip ourselves and our neighbors with these skills, making it both a personal responsibility and an opportunity for mutual aid.
But we should also reduce the rate of "innovation" of new products. Some people certainly like getting new phone cameras with more pixels than your eye can see. Some people like getting new foldables phones, or new cars with sleek designs and fancy tech. While I think having a tablet and ai in a laundry machine is downright stupid, others disagree, like Tom's Guide's Senior Homes Editor Millie Fender: "Sure, the streaming functions feel a little unnecessary, but a lot of the features actually feel, well, very necessary." She gripes that her current Samsung washer requires the "SmartThings app to control it," but seems to entirely forget that washing machines used to have buttons and knobs that got the job done.
And I get it. My eyes sparkle, too, when I see new technology. Much of it is undoubtedly cool. Very little of it is actually innovative; much less of it is actually important.
One small sacrifice we did have to make with dishwashers was adapting to new models that take much longer to run, thanks to Obama. The upside of saving energy (and $500 billion in energy bills over 30 years) also comes with the downside of waiting 2 hours for dishes to wash. Many changes we need to make are like this - requiring changes from corporations, while also impacting everyday people, even if the inconvenience is minor. Though, it is also worth noting that Obama dropping 26 thousand bombs in 2016 probably cost more energy than all the savings from the appliance regulations.
War-related emissions were excluded from reporting under the Paris Climate Agreement, which are estimated at about 5.5% of global CO2 emissions, higher than Russia's emissions. Ukraine is seeking $44 billion from Russia for climate-related damges, "marking the first time a country will claim damages for an increase in emissions caused by conflict."
While ending war may seem an obvious humanitarian thing to do, and may not appear to have an impact on our day-to-day lives (in America), Tom's Dispatch reports that Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program, alone, provided about 150,000 jobs in 2023 (half of what Lockheed Martin calimed), and the entire U.S. "defense" sector employed around 1 million people. This particular jobs program "creates about 11,200 jobs per billion dollars spent." Additionally, "As of March 2025, the US military consisted of 2.86 million people worldwide," according to USA Facts."
While most would see ending war as a purely positive endeavor, we must also grapple with the fact that millions of jobs worldwide would be lost. Rather than seeing this as a negative side-effect of ending war, we should pursue this as a secondary (or thirdendary) goal of ending war. First and foremost, we should stop murdering people. Secondly, we should reduce our climate impact. But third, we should actually want to free people from working (and killing) for money. We should want to create lives that revolve around enjoyment, meaningful service to our communities, human creativity, and connection with our loved ones.
... TO BE CONTINUED
Sources to use
This forest loss coupled with conversion of carbon rich peat soils are throwing out millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contributing to climate change. There also remains some exploitation of workers and child labour.
The WFF page offers solutions and actually recommends the continued use of palm oil, so perhaps my "sacrifice" angle is not useful for this part of it. So this can be an aside to talk about how some of the solutions do not require sacrifice, I think something that is an important part of the picture.
We're getting there (Nov 7, 2025)
This is my latest attempt at working through my main argument and what I would write about in my essay.
Once Again, for my own sake, what am I arguing? Regular people need to make personal sacrifices in order for us to live in a sustainable and just world. These sacrifices will lead to massive job losses, which is a good thing, and something we should actually be working toward.
Now I present counter-arguments that others will have, and I address them briefly.
Corporations are at fault for climate change, not me - Corporations do share a great deal of blame. But corporations only function when they are funded through consumerism. Many of the changes we need to make are actually a reduction in consumerism and a change in WHAT we consume. You may wish to blame corporations for clearing forests to produce beef (citation needed), but there is not a viable alternative to clearing forests (are you sure? And ethical ramifications of more compact systems). The only way to reduce the clearing of forests is for people to consume less beef. Even if corporations make these changes on their own, regular people will have less beef to eat. (we can also talk about palm oil) (I have other arguments on this point, but beef is probably my strongest one) A solution for the beef farming is to consume meat with lower impacts like chicken, or (even better) to consume more plant-based food.
Corporations are at fault for unethical labor practices - It is not directly your fault that a corporation uses slave labor and child labor in sweat-shops overseas to produce the clothes you buy, and I agree there are often few viable alternatives. But some alternatives do exist (examples needed) - the problem for many of us is that they are more expensive and less convenient (local cottage industry / using retailers who are not on amazon). To a large degree though, the best alternative is to not consume. To not buy new clothes at all except when it is truly needed. New clothes are typically a superficial "need" born out of modern industry and mass production. A choice not to buy new clothes, on a mass scale, would cause massive loss of employment (how many people are employed in clothing manufacture and sale?), which would cripple clothing stores and clothing manufacturers. This would necessitate a massive shifting of how we distribute crucial resources in society like food and land and shelter.
Governments need to fix climate change - Again, the necessity of personal sacrifice, as many climate solutions do involve personal sacrifice. Obama bragged about (citation and exact quote needed) a massive move he made for climate - legislating that dishwashers must meet certain efficiency standards. While our dishes still get clean in our dishwashers, we must typically wait about 2 hours for a cycle to run. This is not a big sacrifice, all things considered, but it is a sacrifice. Governments should make these kinds of regulations, but we cannot pretend that these solutions come without any personal cost. We must be willing to bear that cost, and actually advocate for it. (Related: repairability and job loss)
Technology will save us - Some solutions minimize personal sacrifice, like electric cars. But even electric cars have a problem - mining of rare earth minerals, often using unethical labor practices (citation needed), and creating local pollution (citation needed). While public transit brings some of it's own problems too, it is a far more efficient alternative to electric cars. Even when public transit is excellent, choosing this over driving is a sacrifice in some regards. You have to ride with other people, pay taxes to fund the infrastructure, wait for buses to arrive, walk at least some distance from the bus stop, etc. The central problem is our over-consumption, not the method by which we over-consume. But the solutions to these problems are often untenable because of how much we work as a society. Using a bus instead of a car may not be viable when you're working 40+ hours per week and have all the responsibilities of parenting. Even if you're a non-parent, a bus becomes a much more approachable option when you feel you have time to kill.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism - While there is some truth to this idea, it is a cop-out. Ethics are not black-and-white, and buying into a defeatist mindset like this only serves to fuel the consumerist machine. Further, the climate issue at play is not capitalism alone, but largely consumerism. Even the USSR, under Gorbachev's leadership, had an interest in increasing consumerism under a socialist structure. Governments can centrally plan economies or workers can own factories and this does not guarantee an end to over-consumption of resources if those factories still produce new products every year that have planned obsolescense built into them. While profit-seeking bolsters this problem, it is not the underlying issue. The underlying issue is that we require massive amounts of labor from our adult populations (because people can't survive without money gotten from jobs), and we reward this labor with money. A portion of adults do live on welfare, but even these welfare systems depend on the labor and consumption systems and the taxes produced by it. Replacing capitalist systems with socialist systems does not eliminate the labor system. And meaningfully reducing consumerism necessitates the elimination of a massive number of work-hours across the globe. The actual problem is the labor-system. (Sidenote: Bolsheviks and the desire for full employment)
We just need to end planned obsolescence - We do. We need to make devices more repairable and all goods longer lasting. But we cannot pretend this comes without personal sacrifice. Even if your smartphone is designed with repairability in mind - easily replaceable charging ports and batteries and screens, software updates for a decade or more, and even upgradeable components like cameras - Many people, self included, LIKE getting new things. When you see a commercial for a new iPhone or a sleek new car with heated seats and other luxury features, it is EXCITING to think about getting that new thing. It is NICE getting that new thing. It is cool getting new form-factors for phones, like compact flip-phone like foldables or massive screens on tablet-like foldable smartphones. Seriously addressing planned obsolescence does not eliminate this desire for newness. So once again, we must sacrifice this constant newness, this constant sense of growth in order to keep our devices and clothes and cars for longer. And the related problem is that planned obsolescence creates economic activity and jobs - people to design the new model every year, people to mine the resources, to manufacture and transport the goods, to stock the shelves and work the cash registers. If we meaningfully address planned obsolescence and end the constant-upgrading in our current consumerist system, then we once again lose a massive number of work-hours per year, and once again are faced with redesigning the system by which we distribute food, land, and shelter.
Old notes and writing
(the new stuff is above)
This is an adaption of Is new tech cool enough to justify the harm, or the labor?. I'm looking to write a full draft that is at minimum 1,200 words (per their writing guide). My original piece is about 700 words and only about 70% of them fit the tone and style of Current Affairs. So, I need to flesh out my argument further, structure it more intentionally, and also I need to make it more pointed.
The Premise
In part, I am arguing that everything we consume comes at a cost, and the cost goes beyond money. The reality of our current world involves a hell of a lot of unethical practices, and so part of my argument is that [such and such new tech] is not worth those unethical practices.
But the real meat of my argument is that work is stupid. Not all work, but work without meaning or purpose. I argue that a sustainable future requires us to reduce working hours, and thereby rework how we distribute resources.
I just do not believe it is possible to maintain full employment if we cease wasteful consumerism, UNLESS we also abandon many of the modern conveniences, such as factory production and large-scale agricultural machines.
But all of this sounds like a fucking mess. So I need to figure out how to be "compelling and direct" in the opening, "move from point to point" throughout, and only have one introduction and one conclusion.
Perhaps it is easier to start with my conclusion: A sustainable future requires less consumerism, less consumerism requires BOTH sacrifices by the people AND less work, less work requires a rethinking of how we distribute resources and spend our time.
I feel like they want me to argue one thing only. But I really want to argue two things: We must work less AND we must make personal sacrifices.
Throughout the article, I am supposed to anticipate counter arguments and address them. I am not supposed to be partisan either. This feels hard, like, really hard.
Drafting (attempt 1, even though I already kinda did two versions before)
1920s Communists dreamt of a society with full employment, freedom to move between jobs, and an end to money. Today's pundits and capitalist governments are equally obsessed with employment. Even Mamdani is obsessed with work, promoting his bus program by saying that a single mother depends on a fast-running bus to make it to work on time.
At the same time, we decry the excesses of capitalism, the pollution, and labor exploitation. We criticize the corporations and governments for failing to address these problems. Yet we buy their products and fail to recognize that we must individually sacrifice to see the sustainable future we dream of.
There is no utopia where we continue getting new products and consuming at this rate while also sustaining the planet for generations to come. We are distracted from the changes we must make in our own lives, and we fail to appreciate that these sacrifices will lead to a massive loss of employment.
Since our global economy is built on employment, we must reckon with our competitive cultures, our desire for growth, and the idea that work in-and-of-itself is a good thing. You are not a better person for having a job, when that job causes suffering. You are not a worse person for being jobless when there is already enough food available for everyone to eat.
Work does still need to be done. Food needs to be grown, houses need to be built, cars need repaired, and so much more. Many of our modern conveniences are deeply beneficial.
Dishwashers save water, energy, and a lot of home labor. But if we produce dishwashers that last for 30+ years and are easily repaired at home, we lose jobs manufacturing, transporting, selling, and repairing dishwashers. This job loss should be the goal of progress in our society, not a side-effect we need to mitigate. We must dream of a future where each of us works less, fewer working hours per week, and taking multiple months off throughout the year.