> I am not saying real change for the better will happen, but I see no meaningful social change without the individual taking on personal responsibility for his actions. In this case, that means divesting from technology on a personal level — not waiting for some law to force it on us.
Certainly an ethical person ought to take responsibility and abstain from something if they have concluded it is a net harm to the environment or society. I am less sanguine about the idea that this will be enough to solve the really big issues (e.g., climate change), because these are “tragedy of the commons”-type problems.
> we appear to already be well into a sixth mass extinction event — the first brought on by so-called intelligent beings.
At this point, mass extinction isn’t an accident — it’s a relatively conscious tradeoff we are making in modern society. We are trading nonhuman lives for human lives. Most of these extinctions (except the ocean) happen because land is being cleared for farming. That food is feeding people who would otherwise starve and/or allowing the human population to grow. The extinctions in the ocean are occurring because fossil fuels are being used for industrialization, which (most would say) improves human quality of life. Whether these are overall good tradeoffs or not is beyond my pay grade. I would like to have *both* a healthy, industrialized human society and thriving nonhuman ecosystems, but at some level a tradeoff is inevitable.