I’m going to horribly oversimply this. For example. Say I am wearing a shirt a cheap one for Wal-Mart.

This shirt was produced in a sweat shop. That sweat shop has .0005 deaths per day. Thus by wearing this shirt and supporting the mechanisms that brought it to me. I have a killcount for today a number substantially smaller then .0005 and obviously there’s a tonne of subjectivity on what that number might be.

Now include the dye factory that made the shirt green, the shoes I am wearing, the bus I am riding in, the coffee I drink. All these luxuries and that number may go up a little.

I am wondering if this is somthing that is being considered anywhere is somone building a calculation to determine our daily kill counts.

I’m sure most of us probably don’t what to know what ours might be, but knowing what parts of our daily lives have the highest values we might work harder to change for the better.

  • AgedashiTofu
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    This reminds me of the point system used in The Good Place.
    Back in earlier times, buying flowers for your mom was a net positive in your “goodness” points. But nowadays, doing the same action, because of the different new levels of consumption - basically, were the flower farms practicing ethically? was the plastic processed in a safe manner? how much carbon emissions did the shipping and transport of the flowers produce? did you walk/bike to the shop or did you use a car? - results in a net negative.

    • @neanderthal
      link
      81 year ago

      Perhaps we should create a new unit. Some options:

      • Chidi stomach ache seconds
      • Chidi indecision minutes
      • Shawn chuckle seconds
      • Trevor star rating
      • teft
        link
        21 year ago

        I prefer Jason’s star rating. I rate your comment an 8 on his scale.

        • @neanderthal
          link
          11 year ago

          On a serious note, Jason’s scale makes sense in a way. Anything over 8 is try hard range.