I believe the alignment of our work and values is one of the most important question we need to ask ourselves as human beings. In our almost insatiable need for more, we end up telling ourselves stories to justify every decision we make. Thank you for articulating this so well.
When we are fighting strong enemies, unfortunately, it is important for us to be strong ourselves. But how we gain that strength is as important as fighting the enemy. As you said, it is not a binary.... ✊🏽
"Do your kids absolutely need to go to an elite private school as a prerequisite for a good life? Do they benefit from rooms full of toys, closets full of clothes they will outgrow, expensive cars?"
If one wanted to be snarky, and point out the obvious and ironic cognitive dissonance of this post they might say: Do we absolutely need yet another Substack such as yours? You're wasting valuable resources impacting the environment. You even got others to read and comment on your post, so the ripple effect of energy use is real!
Hi Michael, thank you for reading my essay and sharing your thoughts! Let me clarify a key point, since I don't believe my choice to write on Substack is a direct contradiction to my message. In the essay, I'm exploring goals and expectations that we set for ourselves, potentially encouraged by our individualistic, consumerist society, that then corner us into choosing careers that conflict with our more collectivist-minded values. Of course, this mostly applies to people who actually hold collectivist values in the first place. To use one of the examples you mention, if a person who is passionate about environmental destruction has decided that buying a new Mercedes is a necessity for a good life, it's not simply a matter of the significant environmental footprint of the Mercedes itself. They may also feel trapped into accepting a job at a corporation that actively perpetuates climate change / deforestation in order to provide the salary they require to afford the car. They are not able to view a career that directly works to address the issue they are passionate about as viable, because of the financial prerequisites they set for themselves. This is why I propose earnestly asking oneself, "What are my actual priorities?", material and non-material, to begin the process of decompartmentalizing. There is no objectively correct answer to the question - it is personal.
In my case, writing on Substack doesn't corner me into acting in ways that deeply conflict with my values. While there is a footprint for publishing my essay online, as you mention, the motivation for writing is actually directly tied to my collectivist values: I'm helping spread ideas that help drive what I believe to be a more equitable society. In addition, publishing these essays is not a huge financial burden that I am trapped into funding through other misaligned activities, such as a career in a harmful industry.
My initial comment was reductive, but raises a legitimate question about consistency by applying the your own framework of questioning consumption back to your digital content creation.
But the core argument of the essay is not much better, which could be viewed as a lengthy rationalization for cognitive dissonance rather than a solution to it.
The irony is that in attempting to address compartmentalization, it creates another form of it... one where people can feel virtuous about different choices while still participating in the same economic system.
Michael, apologies if I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I follow your point. This essay talks about exploring opportunities to further live in alignment with ones own values. This isn't a finite destination, so much as an ongoing practice, a never ending optimization. Let's say someone decides they want to reduce their carbon footprint, because slowing climate change is important to them, so instead of driving to work every day, they switch to biking. You might look at this person and see that they also eat meat, and say, "You bike to work, but you eat meat, which also contributes to climate change - hypocrisy! ", but this argument feels sloppy and unproductive. The person went from driving to work AND eating meat, to now biking to work and eating meat, which is an improvement in alignment with their values. The claim of "hypocrisy" pushes a false binary that it's "all or nothing", that the only way to show you care about climate is to essentially cease to exist, because it stops emissions fully. This "all or nothing" mindset feels like a justification for doing absolutely nothing towards collectivist ends, because pure collectivism is an impossibility, so trying at all makes one a "hypocrite". I don't subscribe to this viewpoint. I'm always looking for opportunities for my own improvement, and I don't dismiss those efforts simply because someone can point out more extreme measures that can still be taken.
That said, I'm always open to genuine suggestions for improvement from people interested in a healthier collective. Do you have thoughts on how I can effectively share the ideas in these essays that I feel champion a better world, but doing so in a way that is more environment-friendly / society-friendly than posting on Substack - as I'm currently doing? Would love to hear!
The entire framework is built on selectively redefining “necessary” and “unnecessary” consumption based on one's own values. The critiquing of others for needing elite schools or luxury goods but excusing your own use of Substack as an ideological necessity. But what’s the mechanism for determining what’s “truly necessary” versus “consumerist fluff”? If it’s just personal feelings, the entire framework collapses into arbitrary rationalization.
Framing your approach as a constant process of improvement is pretty wild too. In practice, this means one can always justify their participation in the system by claiming they’re “working on it.” This makes their framework unfalsifiable. There is no threshold where their own consumption would become unacceptable because they can always say, “Well, I’m doing better than before.”
This isn’t escaping consumerism at all... just shifting consumption into a different category. You still rely on the same tech platforms, the same attention economy, the same economic incentives as the people they critique. In reality, they aren’t challenging the system, you’re just carving out a moral exemption for yourself.
If Substack is okay but private schools aren’t, what’s the actual principle that makes one justifiable and the other excessive? Give me a standard that applies to both you and the people you’re critiquing. Otherwise, your argument isn’t an ethical critique it’s just a way for making one's self feel better.
Hi Michael, my intention is not to critique others for viewing elite private schools or expensive cars as "necessary". I'm providing prompts and examples for people to explore their own feelings on those expenses and consider their repercussions. The higher the $ value of the expense, the more limitations it may impose on choosing a values-aligned career. The bigger the material footprint of the item, the more planetary resources it may require. What is "necessary" still remains a personal choice, I'm just framing a path towards exploring one's choices with a certain kind of intentionality. Each can do with it what they will. I don't see it as a competition for moral purity, nor is my argument really an ethical critique. If a person is happy with the direction society is heading, and they feel good about how they participate in that direction - this essay is not really for them. That said, I've observed a reality for many (and experienced it myself) where they feel a certain cognitive dissonance between what they believe is good for society, and the actions they feel trapped to perform in their careers - which they chose. This is the audience I'm offering perspective for them to consider, which may help them see opportunities to participate in society in a way that helps move it in the direction they'd like to see.
Framing my choices as a constant optimization is not to provide ethical cover for myself independent of my behavior. It's an acknowledgement that my understanding of the systems that surround me is always evolving (ideally, improving), as well as the systems themselves evolving. My priorities also shift over time, so logically my behavior will adjust in accordance with the state of my priorities, as well as my sense of how to participate within systems in a values-aligned way (sorry, a bit of buzzword soup there ha).
Given that my priorities, values, and morals are fully subjective, yes, these personal choices are not really falsifiable, but there is certainly room to litigate my understanding of systems. I do have ways of assessing the influence of a company on society, and therefore determining whether I want to help fuel that direction by joining that company or creating a company that operates like it. I discuss this a bit in part 1 of this essay series on compartmentalization: https://vsanchezgomez.substack.com/p/our-economy-is-sick-compartmentalization . I also explore the logical fallacies companies and orgs commit when attempting to optimize for societal impact, and present an alternative approach in my first essay here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-150522815 .
In response to your point, "This isn’t escaping consumerism at all... just shifting consumption into a different category. You still rely on the same tech platforms, the same attention economy, the same economic incentives as the people they critique": I encourage you to read the above 2 essays that I wrote, where I dive into paths for building alternative systems. If your argument is that there is no path to escape or change these systems, and therefore no point in trying (essentially implying we have 0 agency), then I disagree, but I think that will become clear in those essays 🙂.
Just following up on my previous question, since you brought up the ethics of my choice to write on Substack, do you have thoughts on how I can effectively share the ideas in these essays that I feel champion a better world, but doing so in a way that is more environment-friendly / society-friendly than posting on Substack - as I'm currently doing? Genuinely interested in hearing your suggestion! Also, if you have written any essays on your understanding of economic systems and how we can participate within them to help drive different outcomes, please share them with me. I'd be curious to understand how you see things. Thank you!
There's a fundamental inconsistency in your framework and I'm trying to demonstrate that your framing of alignment as an ongoing process creates an unfalsifiable position. The criteria for what consumption is "justified" versus "unnecessary" lacks a consistent principle that applies equally to you and those you critique. Youre struggling to address this core challenge to your argument.
You frame your response as "just an exploration" rather than a critique, which allows you to avoid responsibility for making real claims. But in practice, you do smuggle in a moral framework...just without being explicit about it.
Your argument clearly implies that some choices (eg, expensive schools, luxury goods) impose 'limitations' or have negative societal consequences, while others (e.g., choosing a 'values aligned' career) are preferable. You cant both present a path toward a "better" set of choices and claim you’re making no ethical judgment.
You also position your choices as part of an evolving understanding rather than a moral stance, but this functions as a built in exemption for yourself. If priorities are always shifting and the system is always evolving, at what point does your own consumption become "problematic"? Or does self awareness itself grant immunity?
And finally, you subtly accuse me of a defeatist stance, suggesting that unless I propose an alternative, my critique is invalid. This is a classic rhetorical move...when a reformer is challenged, they demand the critic provide a better reform rather than proving their own idea actually works.
I believe the alignment of our work and values is one of the most important question we need to ask ourselves as human beings. In our almost insatiable need for more, we end up telling ourselves stories to justify every decision we make. Thank you for articulating this so well.
Thank you reading Sandeep, glad it resonated with you!
When we are fighting strong enemies, unfortunately, it is important for us to be strong ourselves. But how we gain that strength is as important as fighting the enemy. As you said, it is not a binary.... ✊🏽
"Do your kids absolutely need to go to an elite private school as a prerequisite for a good life? Do they benefit from rooms full of toys, closets full of clothes they will outgrow, expensive cars?"
If one wanted to be snarky, and point out the obvious and ironic cognitive dissonance of this post they might say: Do we absolutely need yet another Substack such as yours? You're wasting valuable resources impacting the environment. You even got others to read and comment on your post, so the ripple effect of energy use is real!
Hi Michael, thank you for reading my essay and sharing your thoughts! Let me clarify a key point, since I don't believe my choice to write on Substack is a direct contradiction to my message. In the essay, I'm exploring goals and expectations that we set for ourselves, potentially encouraged by our individualistic, consumerist society, that then corner us into choosing careers that conflict with our more collectivist-minded values. Of course, this mostly applies to people who actually hold collectivist values in the first place. To use one of the examples you mention, if a person who is passionate about environmental destruction has decided that buying a new Mercedes is a necessity for a good life, it's not simply a matter of the significant environmental footprint of the Mercedes itself. They may also feel trapped into accepting a job at a corporation that actively perpetuates climate change / deforestation in order to provide the salary they require to afford the car. They are not able to view a career that directly works to address the issue they are passionate about as viable, because of the financial prerequisites they set for themselves. This is why I propose earnestly asking oneself, "What are my actual priorities?", material and non-material, to begin the process of decompartmentalizing. There is no objectively correct answer to the question - it is personal.
In my case, writing on Substack doesn't corner me into acting in ways that deeply conflict with my values. While there is a footprint for publishing my essay online, as you mention, the motivation for writing is actually directly tied to my collectivist values: I'm helping spread ideas that help drive what I believe to be a more equitable society. In addition, publishing these essays is not a huge financial burden that I am trapped into funding through other misaligned activities, such as a career in a harmful industry.
Hope that helps clarify things!
My initial comment was reductive, but raises a legitimate question about consistency by applying the your own framework of questioning consumption back to your digital content creation.
But the core argument of the essay is not much better, which could be viewed as a lengthy rationalization for cognitive dissonance rather than a solution to it.
The irony is that in attempting to address compartmentalization, it creates another form of it... one where people can feel virtuous about different choices while still participating in the same economic system.
Michael, apologies if I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I follow your point. This essay talks about exploring opportunities to further live in alignment with ones own values. This isn't a finite destination, so much as an ongoing practice, a never ending optimization. Let's say someone decides they want to reduce their carbon footprint, because slowing climate change is important to them, so instead of driving to work every day, they switch to biking. You might look at this person and see that they also eat meat, and say, "You bike to work, but you eat meat, which also contributes to climate change - hypocrisy! ", but this argument feels sloppy and unproductive. The person went from driving to work AND eating meat, to now biking to work and eating meat, which is an improvement in alignment with their values. The claim of "hypocrisy" pushes a false binary that it's "all or nothing", that the only way to show you care about climate is to essentially cease to exist, because it stops emissions fully. This "all or nothing" mindset feels like a justification for doing absolutely nothing towards collectivist ends, because pure collectivism is an impossibility, so trying at all makes one a "hypocrite". I don't subscribe to this viewpoint. I'm always looking for opportunities for my own improvement, and I don't dismiss those efforts simply because someone can point out more extreme measures that can still be taken.
That said, I'm always open to genuine suggestions for improvement from people interested in a healthier collective. Do you have thoughts on how I can effectively share the ideas in these essays that I feel champion a better world, but doing so in a way that is more environment-friendly / society-friendly than posting on Substack - as I'm currently doing? Would love to hear!
The entire framework is built on selectively redefining “necessary” and “unnecessary” consumption based on one's own values. The critiquing of others for needing elite schools or luxury goods but excusing your own use of Substack as an ideological necessity. But what’s the mechanism for determining what’s “truly necessary” versus “consumerist fluff”? If it’s just personal feelings, the entire framework collapses into arbitrary rationalization.
Framing your approach as a constant process of improvement is pretty wild too. In practice, this means one can always justify their participation in the system by claiming they’re “working on it.” This makes their framework unfalsifiable. There is no threshold where their own consumption would become unacceptable because they can always say, “Well, I’m doing better than before.”
This isn’t escaping consumerism at all... just shifting consumption into a different category. You still rely on the same tech platforms, the same attention economy, the same economic incentives as the people they critique. In reality, they aren’t challenging the system, you’re just carving out a moral exemption for yourself.
If Substack is okay but private schools aren’t, what’s the actual principle that makes one justifiable and the other excessive? Give me a standard that applies to both you and the people you’re critiquing. Otherwise, your argument isn’t an ethical critique it’s just a way for making one's self feel better.
Hi Michael, my intention is not to critique others for viewing elite private schools or expensive cars as "necessary". I'm providing prompts and examples for people to explore their own feelings on those expenses and consider their repercussions. The higher the $ value of the expense, the more limitations it may impose on choosing a values-aligned career. The bigger the material footprint of the item, the more planetary resources it may require. What is "necessary" still remains a personal choice, I'm just framing a path towards exploring one's choices with a certain kind of intentionality. Each can do with it what they will. I don't see it as a competition for moral purity, nor is my argument really an ethical critique. If a person is happy with the direction society is heading, and they feel good about how they participate in that direction - this essay is not really for them. That said, I've observed a reality for many (and experienced it myself) where they feel a certain cognitive dissonance between what they believe is good for society, and the actions they feel trapped to perform in their careers - which they chose. This is the audience I'm offering perspective for them to consider, which may help them see opportunities to participate in society in a way that helps move it in the direction they'd like to see.
Framing my choices as a constant optimization is not to provide ethical cover for myself independent of my behavior. It's an acknowledgement that my understanding of the systems that surround me is always evolving (ideally, improving), as well as the systems themselves evolving. My priorities also shift over time, so logically my behavior will adjust in accordance with the state of my priorities, as well as my sense of how to participate within systems in a values-aligned way (sorry, a bit of buzzword soup there ha).
Given that my priorities, values, and morals are fully subjective, yes, these personal choices are not really falsifiable, but there is certainly room to litigate my understanding of systems. I do have ways of assessing the influence of a company on society, and therefore determining whether I want to help fuel that direction by joining that company or creating a company that operates like it. I discuss this a bit in part 1 of this essay series on compartmentalization: https://vsanchezgomez.substack.com/p/our-economy-is-sick-compartmentalization . I also explore the logical fallacies companies and orgs commit when attempting to optimize for societal impact, and present an alternative approach in my first essay here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-150522815 .
In response to your point, "This isn’t escaping consumerism at all... just shifting consumption into a different category. You still rely on the same tech platforms, the same attention economy, the same economic incentives as the people they critique": I encourage you to read the above 2 essays that I wrote, where I dive into paths for building alternative systems. If your argument is that there is no path to escape or change these systems, and therefore no point in trying (essentially implying we have 0 agency), then I disagree, but I think that will become clear in those essays 🙂.
Just following up on my previous question, since you brought up the ethics of my choice to write on Substack, do you have thoughts on how I can effectively share the ideas in these essays that I feel champion a better world, but doing so in a way that is more environment-friendly / society-friendly than posting on Substack - as I'm currently doing? Genuinely interested in hearing your suggestion! Also, if you have written any essays on your understanding of economic systems and how we can participate within them to help drive different outcomes, please share them with me. I'd be curious to understand how you see things. Thank you!
There's a fundamental inconsistency in your framework and I'm trying to demonstrate that your framing of alignment as an ongoing process creates an unfalsifiable position. The criteria for what consumption is "justified" versus "unnecessary" lacks a consistent principle that applies equally to you and those you critique. Youre struggling to address this core challenge to your argument.
You frame your response as "just an exploration" rather than a critique, which allows you to avoid responsibility for making real claims. But in practice, you do smuggle in a moral framework...just without being explicit about it.
Your argument clearly implies that some choices (eg, expensive schools, luxury goods) impose 'limitations' or have negative societal consequences, while others (e.g., choosing a 'values aligned' career) are preferable. You cant both present a path toward a "better" set of choices and claim you’re making no ethical judgment.
You also position your choices as part of an evolving understanding rather than a moral stance, but this functions as a built in exemption for yourself. If priorities are always shifting and the system is always evolving, at what point does your own consumption become "problematic"? Or does self awareness itself grant immunity?
And finally, you subtly accuse me of a defeatist stance, suggesting that unless I propose an alternative, my critique is invalid. This is a classic rhetorical move...when a reformer is challenged, they demand the critic provide a better reform rather than proving their own idea actually works.