I feel my point is either not understood, or is being argued for argument sake.
Let's say there are 10,000 people stranded on a tropical island. The island has one million coconuts (disregarding, for the sake of argument, the growth of new coconuts). Each person uses up one coconut a day. That would mean that the coconuts would only last one hundred days.
Now let's say one of those people realizes that the coconuts are a scarce resource, and decides not to partake. In that instance, the coconuts would last 100.01 days (or 100 days, plus fifteen minutes).
In this example, while there is clearly a difference, the effects of a single individual are, in my opinion, negligible to the overall conservation of that resource.
That was the point I made.
I never said that the effects of a single individual "didn't matter," because that's not true and I don't believe that.
It's important to get more people on board with conserving natural resources, and the benefits to our environment would improve.
But that has nothing to do with the technical point I made that was apparently misunderstood.
Originally Posted by Mario F.You have an interesting approach to discussions.Originally Posted by Mario F.