True that we haven't talked about the environmental impact of the 1 million shirts debate. I wonder why it didn't come up. But ultimately, I don't really see how this is a different debate or viewpoint than the aid v. trade ideologies. I suppose that I don't completely understand your point yet. Are you saying that we should look at the environmental impact of any project and then make a decision about its value/effectiveness based on that?

I haven't heard of Generation Debt either.

One of the key early people in green economics is Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen*, who not only helped found the field, but was Mohammed Yunus professor in Tennessee: http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-inst… And remember– Grameen didn't start out dealing with Individuals– they only lent to a group of, say, five women. Did you know that? It is key to the concept.
social microcredit is social, not individual.

Other key founders include Herman Daly*, & Howard Odum. Professional societies devoted to this include the Intl and US societies for ecological economics. Good twitter tags are #degrowth & #postgrowth. Elinor Ostrom is friendly to this line of thinking.

A key problem here is that people compartmentalize into siloes– many of the folks who talked about the coming sub-prime crisis ignored peak oil; many peak oil folks initially didn't pay attention to the subprime crisis. Helpful here is the art of systems thinking. A leading systems thinker is the late Donella Meadows, who helped write the Club of Rome report. Another is Thomas Homer-Dixon, a political scientist who started out thinking about human rights in Africa & now spends a lot of time thinking about complexity, climate, peak oil & financial collapse.

I didn't see ecological footprint, eco-collapse, climate/peak oil emerge anywhere in the #1millionshirts discussion– many of the posters who gave themselves credit for thinking sooo much more intelligently than Jason S were perhaps more narrow in their thinking than they gave themselves credit for. None mentioned Annie Leonard's Story of Stuff, for instance
http://www.storyofstuff.com

If we take the individual, narrow-minded route, your generation is toast.
Have you heard of Anya Kamenetz Generation Debt?

Personally, I still haven't quite decided which path I want to take myself since they both appeal to me for various reasons. Thanks for this post, as it puts a lot of my thoughts into perspective.

I understand what you are saying, but I wonder if the distinction is not as clear as you make it seem. It's true that the first approach might cause people to emphasize personal gain, but what if it does result in less inequality? And is that approach ultimately more sensible? Because, what if more good can be done by exploiting people's interests in personal gain than from trying to make them change into believing in the redistribution of wealth? If you take the “social justice” approach to it's ultimate end, wouldn't it result in complete redistribution of wealth, leading to the wealthy revolting as a result?

Perhaps I'm taking this to an extreme, but I wonder if it is too much to believe that the rich around the world will consent to redistributing their wealth to the oppressed and poor.

Certainly if the second approach works out, I do agree that it would lead to a kinder world of greater equality. However, I just wonder if it is feasible in reality. Or maybe I'm just cynical about humanity!

So I'm curious, what is the goal – ultimately?

I believe your two alternatives lead to fundamentally different places. One leads to a world much like modern society where personal gain is a major priority for individuals – though perhaps with less inequality. It may be a bold claim to make, but I feel the modern social climate was created and is perpetuated by selfish tendencies.

The other alternative leads to another – kinder – world of homogenized justice and a reduced level of global suffering. And I feel this should be the main aim for anyone interested in social change and development. Selflessness is more than a cultivator for equality. It possesses the power of profound personal expansion. It precludes abhorrent personal loss or suffering. It is the first step to attaining what Prince Gautama Siddhartha called enlightenment. For a better future and for a better humanity, this is the alternative that will work.