www-us.org

Chapter 86: The Feel-Good Fallacy

The campaign’s courageous stand on the energy crisis had solidified Julian’s image as a serious, long-term thinker. It had also, to the surprise of his team, significantly boosted his credibility on environmental issues. Ben Carter, his communications director, saw an opportunity.

He walked into the war room one morning, holding a tablet with a positive news story. “Good morning, Mr. President-elect,” he said, using the still-unfamiliar title with a touch of irony. “Some good news for the planet. A grassroots campaign in Oregon has successfully saved a small population of the Western Pond Turtle. It’s a great, feel-good story. I think we should amplify it.”

Julian looked at the story. It showed a group of smiling volunteers holding a small, unremarkable turtle. He then looked at the data feeds on the main screen in the war room, which were showing the real-time price of Brent crude oil ticking relentlessly upwards.

He shook his head. “No, Ben,” he said, his voice quiet but firm.

Ben was taken aback. “But… it’s a positive environmental story. It shows people care.”

“Exactly,” Julian said. “And that is the problem.” He stood and walked to the whiteboard. “We are losing the war for the future of this planet. And one of the primary reasons we are losing is because we have been sedated by a constant drip-feed of these small, insignificant, and ultimately distracting ‘feel-good’ victories.”

He wrote two words on the board: THE FEEL-GOOD FALLACY.

“The average, well-intentioned citizen,” he explained, “believes they are contributing to the solution. They pay a premium for organic food. They spend hours carefully sorting their recycling. They donate a hundred dollars to save a panda. And they feel good about themselves. They feel they have done their part. But these actions, while noble in their intent, are a catastrophic misallocation of our collective will. They are a rounding error in the face of the real crisis.”

He used a simple, almost comical, example. “I was at a guesthouse recently. A beautiful, eco-conscious place. They had a complex, seven-bin recycling system. I watched for an hour as guest after well-meaning guest stood in front of the bins, completely confused, and just threw their trash into whatever bin was closest. The result? The staff had to spend two hours every night re-sorting all the contaminated recycling, a task that was so inefficient they admitted they often just sent it all to the landfill. It was a perfect system of performative virtue that achieved a net-negative result.”

His tone hardened. He turned to the main data screen. “Now let’s look at reality. The latest reports show that the global extraction of carbon from the ground is not just increasing; it is accelerating. Our transition to electric vehicles, while a positive step, is a drop in the ocean. A standard EV does not reach carbon neutrality until it has been driven for tens of thousands of kilometers, and we are still powering our grids with fossil fuels to charge them. They are not a cure-all.”

He pointed to another set of data from a recent UN biodiversity report. “And while we are celebrating the saving of one pond turtle, the best scientific estimates are that we are losing between fifty and one hundred and fifty species of plants, insects, and animals every single day. They are not just dying; they are being erased from existence forever.”

He looked at Ben, his eyes full of a cold, analytical fire. “This is not about cute and cuddly animals. It is not about saving the whales because we like to pretend they are intelligent, while ignoring the fact that a cow is a complex and fascinating creature in its own right. This is not about the moral preferences of vegetarians. This is about the fundamental integrity of the planetary system.”

“The goal is not to protect individual animals,” he declared. “It is to protect species. It is to protect the vast, complex, and deeply interconnected biological architecture upon which our own survival depends.”

He put the marker down. “Charities are not enough. NGOs are not enough. Individual action is not enough. They are trying to bail out a sinking aircraft carrier with a teacup. The problem is on a governmental and civilizational scale. And it requires a solution of equal scale.”

The room was silent. The happy, simple story of the saved turtle now seemed like a cruel and bitter joke. The diagnosis was complete. The patient was dying. And the feel-good remedies were nothing more than a placebo.

The Discourse, 86; The Unsentimental Environmentalist

Section 86.1: A Critique of "Performative Environmentalism"

The central argument is a direct critique of what could be called "performative environmentalism." This is the phenomenon where individuals and societies engage in small, highly visible, but ultimately low-impact actions (like household recycling or avoiding plastic straws) that provide a psychological sense of virtue—a "feel-good" moment—without requiring any significant, systemic change.

Julian Corbin's "feel-good fallacy" is the argument that these actions are not just insufficient; they can be counter-productive. By creating the illusion of progress and satisfying the individual's desire to "do something," they can reduce the political will and the sense of urgency required to tackle the much larger, more difficult, and more impactful systemic drivers of the environmental crisis. The humorous example of the guesthouse recycling is a microcosm of this: a well-intentioned individual effort that, due to a lack of a functional system, results in a net-zero or even negative outcome.

Section 86.2: The Unsentimental Logic of Biodiversity

Corbin's critique of the focus on "cute and cuddly" animals like pandas and whales is a crucial and deeply scientific point. It is a rejection of an emotional, anthropocentric view of conservation in favor of a cold, logical, systems-based ecological view.

His argument is twofold:

1. The Fallacy of the "Symbolic Species": Focusing conservation efforts on a handful of charismatic megafauna is a massive misallocation of resources. It saves the symbol while the system itself—the vast, interconnected web of less "cute" but ecologically vital species like insects, fungi, and plankton—continues to collapse.

2. Species vs. Individuals: His statement that the goal is to protect species, not individual animals (as vegetarians do), is a classic distinction in conservation biology. It is a hard-nosed, unsentimental, and scientifically correct position. It argues that the health of the overall system (the species, the habitat, the gene pool) is more important than the fate of any single animal. This positions his environmentalism as a form of pragmatic, scientific management, not a sentimental or spiritual movement.

Section 86.3: Establishing the Scale of the Problem

The chapter's primary strategic function is to establish the true, terrifying scale of the crisis. By presenting the hard data—the acceleration of carbon extraction, the limitations of EVs, and the daily extinction rate—Corbin is performing a necessary act of intellectual "shock and awe."

He is making the case that the current approach to environmentalism is like trying to bail out a sinking aircraft carrier with a teacup. The scale of the solutions being proposed by individuals, charities, and even most governments is catastrophically mismatched to the scale of the problem. This is a classic rhetorical strategy: before you can sell a radical solution, you must first convince your audience that the problem is so immense that all conventional solutions are doomed to fail. This chapter is the intellectual justification for the radical, multi-trillion-dollar "2% Mandate" that he will propose in the next.