Mfs be blaming the corporations when they are the ones using their money to tell the corporations what to do. Of you want corporations to stop destroying the environment, don’t buy products that were made via environmental destruction. Vote with your money, not with your memes.
Unless you go live in a forest and grow your own food, your money will always end up in the hands of one of a dozen or two people.
Pretending you can solve systemic problems with individual action is exactly the kind of lazy thinking you were taught to make sure you never threaten the system you’re nothing but a dispensable cog in.
You’re not as clever or edgy as you think you are, you are literally licking the boot that is standing on your neck and think it’s a treat.
I’m not saying it’s entirely the consumers fault. But the mindset of, oh well all these companies produce all these emissions or China increases their emissions every year greater than the total output ever for some European countries. It’s just not taking any responsibility for your own actions. If you have ever used one of those online calculators that tells you how many earths we would need to be able to sustain consumerism at your level , it’s frightening really, you can put in some pretty average western statistics and it will say some absurd number like 3 or 4 earths. And you can reduce that. If you do one of those calculators and its more than 1.5, realistically you can make changes to your lifestyle to lower it hugely.
If everyone on earth took up a plant based diet, we would almost eliminate the emissions from animal farming which makes up a huge proportion of emissions. Deforestation in the amazon would stop since there is no one left to buy the cows they would raise there.
Think about what one person can do to help the environment everyday, one little action, and times that by 8 billion. And that’s huge. Of course you can blame corporations, and you should. I’m not arguing to not. But at the end of the day, it’s everyone’s problem, and we should all try our best to solve it.
This is right. Of course we should take individual action. I have a set of things I regularly do. That doesn’t change the fact that overall, people will choose the course of least resistance: the wasteful goods and services provided by corporations. At the same time, corporations will generally not self correct. They’ll always choose the course of highest profit. Bottom line: if we are concerned for the future of our home, we must demand changes in corporate behavior through policy and regulation.
Unless you go live in a forest and grow your own food, your money will always end up in the hands of one of a dozen or two people.
So let’s keep buying shit we don’t need? Using the straw example: You don’t need straws. They give a minor increase in convenience, while making the world a worse place. We don’t need them, but we buy them in mass making the world a worse place, then when some try to get rid of them we kick and scream because “it’s the corporation’s fault!”.
You’re not as clever or edgy as you think you are, you are literally licking the boot that is standing on your neck and think it’s a treat.
Someone’s saying “don’t give money to corporations” and “let’s not interact with the system”, and you’re saying that and calling them lazy, all as an excuse to keep giving money to corporations. Look in the fucking mirror. Literally your entire comment is an excuse to participate in the system you claim need to have problems with. Take some damn responsibility, and stop saying you want things to change while not being whiling to change your way of life. The one who’s lazy, is the one sitting at home making excuses to keep mindlessly consuming and saying other people need to find solutions and stop feeding your addiction - which they should, but that still doesn’t change the fact you have an addiction.
I don’t feel like writing another whole comment about this, so I’ll just copy and paste something I wrote a while ago:
When people say it’s not “we” and it’s just a few people, or just companies, it always seems to me that they are - consciously or subconsciously - just making excuses for not having to actually do anything and hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. They want the problem to be solved, while not having to do anything or change their lifestyle.
There are some very obvious and clear examples of this; here’s two of them:
Studies have shown most people are in favour of carbon taxes. But with carbon taxes, companies would just shift the extra cost onto the consumers by increasing prices. One thing affected by carbon tax, would be the price of gas itself. And when prices (especially gas prices) increase, that usually results in a lot of anger and protests. So why would any democratically elected politician ever implement a carbon tax? If they did, they would be voted out, and the next one to come in would just undo it.
Another obvious example, is meat. We know one of the major protagonists in CO2 emissions is animal farming. Red meat especially is responsible for a huge source of those emissions. And yet most people don’t even wanna think about eating less meat, and they will still crack jokes about vegans and look at them sideways. And as for regulations regarding meat, the example from before still applies.
As you seem to be implying, what really needs to happen is a whole cultural shift. Trying to shift blame onto to a few people and hope they get the guillotine, won’t change anything as long as people keep demanding all the same things because then someone else will come in to fulfil that demand. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that it’s the sum of all our actions that will determine the future, and our actions can influence other people’s actions; therefore, one way or another, we are all responsible.
The fact that you’re choosing plastic straws (that consist of 0.003% of plastics in the ocean and are literally a life line for many disabled people) as your hill to die on, while whining that systemic change will never happen (because making it happen would demand too much effort from you) shows me just how not only wilfully ignorant and lazy you really are, but also how ableist, and how you care more about patting yourself on the back than actually doing anything productive.
But sure, keep licking that boot and blaming people who have no control over how things are run, I’m sure that’ll get you far.
It’s just one example, and in this case one out of 3 that I gave. It’s also what the main post is about. But clearly you’re also too lazy to read the whole thing, which is why in the end you are repeating something I’ve already addressed, and your whole comment is ad-hominem with not a single argument presented.
But sure thing, I’ll keep being “lazy” and “licking the boot” by actively making an effort to change my lifestyle, fight against the system and find alternatives, and trying to convince other people to do the same.
here you have it folks the most purposefully oblivious statement made on the fediverse today.
dude thinks corporations, whose purpose is to increase shareholder value, are the same as individuals who mostly strive to provide roofs, food, clothing, education and safety to their families, who do not have the time or ability to decide if they’re going to take their horse and buggy to the fields to gather crops, but rather must drive to walmart for hamburger helper. individuals have choices, and bear responsibility in the places they choose to spend their money, but when every choice is whittled down by the corporations which have been polluting the planet for the last 300 years, and the governments who purposefully prosper from the same, the point that straws being held up as some sort of shiboleth, and that personal responsibility in retail choices is equal in corporate responsibility in wholesale worldwide pollution, is purposefully fucking obtuse.
Good points, although quite a hard to read format. Companies do often narrow choices down substantially. Especially in terms of food, the amount of ultra processed foods available in the US is astounding, and it is a much easier choice for the family with no money to choose the unsustainable, unhealthy but easy and cheap meal. And for the people who can’t afford the luxury of real choice in where they source their food, they share much much less blame.
But it is a hard task to find someone who is willing to take the first step and reduce their environmental impact when those around them do not, when someone is told their actions have no impact, the choice and the effort and often the cost seem pointless. And maybe it is, maybe we should all give up and succumb to the climate and environmental disaster we are building up to. It will come either way now, we can’t stop it. But to take the stance that individual choices will not make a difference so why bother is selfish. We can all do our part to make the world a better place, you might not think so but it’s true. And it requires hard work and dedication. And it won’t be easy and we will face an environmental catastrophe. But we can still do our part to make this world better.
My original comment was in poor taste perhaps. I don’t mean to say that corporations take no blame, or that companies take less blame. But that we must also take some blame. Us, our parents, our grandparents all played a part in the world and we are all responsible for our own actions. Why not try and change your ways for the better, even if it is futile, at least you will have done your part.
Sustainable practises, especially energy generation are way cheaper than non renewable sources, so why would corporations try to make energy cost more for themselves? And it’s definitely cheaper to wash and reuse glass bottles than it is to fabricate entirely new disposable plastic ones. But the general public preferred not having to return their glass bottles for some change back and would rather have the convenience of the plastic bottle and aluminium can.
Buildings use concrete because it’s cheap and strong, and people want to live in well built, sturdy and most importantly cheap buildings. Obviously, corporations could make their buildings out of more expensive sustainable materials and they don’t because publicly traded companies have a legal duty to make profit and clearly there is not enough of a push from the consumer to make the change to more sustainable buildings worth it.
If you want to change companies you need to show them that with your money, and of course you can always vote for a representative who has environmental interests at heart and they can directly show companies what the consumer wants.
But the truth is, not enough people care enough about the environment to prioritise choosing sustainable companies over consuming endless products.
And you can blame companies for marketing useless or cheap products to the world, which will obviously cause consumers to want it (if the marketing is any good), and this time the main blame is on the government for not putting the environment first and not forcing adverts for unsustainable products to have warnings about their environmental impact. But the government is installed by people (in democracies) and the people clearly don’t care.
Me and you might care, I suspect we both do care deeply. But not everyone cares, and that’s the problem.
Sustainable practises, especially energy generation are way cheaper than non renewable sources, so why would corporations try to make energy cost more for themselves?
Sadly, that’s not the whole story. I don’t share all of his takes on how to move forward (he’s a tankie, I lean towards anarchism), but Second Thought summarized very well what the weak point in your argument about cost is: https://youtu.be/3gSzzuY1Yw0
this time the main blame is on the government for not putting the environment first and not forcing adverts for unsustainable products to have warnings about their environmental impact. But the government is installed by people (in democracies) and the people clearly don’t care.
Sadly, you’re also wrong here. For the USA it has been shown that the opinion of average citizens on proposals of individual policies has no significant impact on the probability of the policies being implemented. It is only the position of lobbyists that have an impact. Lobbyists also include environmentalist groups, of course, but more often than not corporate lobbyists all take similar stances whereas non-corporate groups are very often single-issue groups who only make themselves heard on relatively few occasions, making them less impactful overall.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
I don’t know of a similar study for EU countries. My guess is that the multi-party systems here work in favor of more voices being heard but also against implementation of new actually useful policies because of the need for compromise and coalitions.
People always babble on about voting with your wallet and consoomers driving the market. Despite the vast majority of business not being public facing.
Are we supposed to vet the supply chain of every product we buy?
No of course not, that’s where governments should step in. But most governments are reluctant to do anything that will get them voted out and so will not implement any policy that has even the slightest of chance for increasing the price of a product or service for the consumer. In general, on environmental issues, the larger population says one thing, but then is resistant to any change that it would take to implement solutions. If you add a carbon tax, very effective at getting companies to lower emissions. Then there are some industries where carbon will be emitted no matter what, especially big manufacturers. And that cost is passed down the line until a company decides to tank the increased cost (unlikely) or it gets to the consumer, at which point the end customer gets upset that their new item, be it a house, a car, or a coffee table now costs more, and the first people they blame are the ones in charge. And out they go. So any government who wants to make environmental change, real change, will have to willingly and knowingly sacrifice their own careers (and in most places, that of their party’s as well). And it isn’t something most will do, and that’s the problem. The government will not force the change we desperately need in order to save their own careers.
As always thw downvote machine is at work. If people would care as much, as they do when downvoting opinions that put up personal responsibility maybe the world would be a better place. But here we are.
Mfs be blaming the corporations when they are the ones using their money to tell the corporations what to do. Of you want corporations to stop destroying the environment, don’t buy products that were made via environmental destruction. Vote with your money, not with your memes.
Unless you go live in a forest and grow your own food, your money will always end up in the hands of one of a dozen or two people.
Pretending you can solve systemic problems with individual action is exactly the kind of lazy thinking you were taught to make sure you never threaten the system you’re nothing but a dispensable cog in.
You’re not as clever or edgy as you think you are, you are literally licking the boot that is standing on your neck and think it’s a treat.
I’m not saying it’s entirely the consumers fault. But the mindset of, oh well all these companies produce all these emissions or China increases their emissions every year greater than the total output ever for some European countries. It’s just not taking any responsibility for your own actions. If you have ever used one of those online calculators that tells you how many earths we would need to be able to sustain consumerism at your level , it’s frightening really, you can put in some pretty average western statistics and it will say some absurd number like 3 or 4 earths. And you can reduce that. If you do one of those calculators and its more than 1.5, realistically you can make changes to your lifestyle to lower it hugely.
If everyone on earth took up a plant based diet, we would almost eliminate the emissions from animal farming which makes up a huge proportion of emissions. Deforestation in the amazon would stop since there is no one left to buy the cows they would raise there.
Think about what one person can do to help the environment everyday, one little action, and times that by 8 billion. And that’s huge. Of course you can blame corporations, and you should. I’m not arguing to not. But at the end of the day, it’s everyone’s problem, and we should all try our best to solve it.
This is right. Of course we should take individual action. I have a set of things I regularly do. That doesn’t change the fact that overall, people will choose the course of least resistance: the wasteful goods and services provided by corporations. At the same time, corporations will generally not self correct. They’ll always choose the course of highest profit. Bottom line: if we are concerned for the future of our home, we must demand changes in corporate behavior through policy and regulation.
So let’s keep buying shit we don’t need? Using the straw example: You don’t need straws. They give a minor increase in convenience, while making the world a worse place. We don’t need them, but we buy them in mass making the world a worse place, then when some try to get rid of them we kick and scream because “it’s the corporation’s fault!”.
Someone’s saying “don’t give money to corporations” and “let’s not interact with the system”, and you’re saying that and calling them lazy, all as an excuse to keep giving money to corporations. Look in the fucking mirror. Literally your entire comment is an excuse to participate in the system you claim need to have problems with. Take some damn responsibility, and stop saying you want things to change while not being whiling to change your way of life. The one who’s lazy, is the one sitting at home making excuses to keep mindlessly consuming and saying other people need to find solutions and stop feeding your addiction - which they should, but that still doesn’t change the fact you have an addiction.
I don’t feel like writing another whole comment about this, so I’ll just copy and paste something I wrote a while ago:
When people say it’s not “we” and it’s just a few people, or just companies, it always seems to me that they are - consciously or subconsciously - just making excuses for not having to actually do anything and hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. They want the problem to be solved, while not having to do anything or change their lifestyle.
There are some very obvious and clear examples of this; here’s two of them:
Studies have shown most people are in favour of carbon taxes. But with carbon taxes, companies would just shift the extra cost onto the consumers by increasing prices. One thing affected by carbon tax, would be the price of gas itself. And when prices (especially gas prices) increase, that usually results in a lot of anger and protests. So why would any democratically elected politician ever implement a carbon tax? If they did, they would be voted out, and the next one to come in would just undo it.
Another obvious example, is meat. We know one of the major protagonists in CO2 emissions is animal farming. Red meat especially is responsible for a huge source of those emissions. And yet most people don’t even wanna think about eating less meat, and they will still crack jokes about vegans and look at them sideways. And as for regulations regarding meat, the example from before still applies.
As you seem to be implying, what really needs to happen is a whole cultural shift. Trying to shift blame onto to a few people and hope they get the guillotine, won’t change anything as long as people keep demanding all the same things because then someone else will come in to fulfil that demand. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that it’s the sum of all our actions that will determine the future, and our actions can influence other people’s actions; therefore, one way or another, we are all responsible.The fact that you’re choosing plastic straws (that consist of 0.003% of plastics in the ocean and are literally a life line for many disabled people) as your hill to die on, while whining that systemic change will never happen (because making it happen would demand too much effort from you) shows me just how not only wilfully ignorant and lazy you really are, but also how ableist, and how you care more about patting yourself on the back than actually doing anything productive.
But sure, keep licking that boot and blaming people who have no control over how things are run, I’m sure that’ll get you far.
It’s just one example, and in this case one out of 3 that I gave. It’s also what the main post is about. But clearly you’re also too lazy to read the whole thing, which is why in the end you are repeating something I’ve already addressed, and your whole comment is ad-hominem with not a single argument presented.
But sure thing, I’ll keep being “lazy” and “licking the boot” by actively making an effort to change my lifestyle, fight against the system and find alternatives, and trying to convince other people to do the same.
here you have it folks the most purposefully oblivious statement made on the fediverse today.
dude thinks corporations, whose purpose is to increase shareholder value, are the same as individuals who mostly strive to provide roofs, food, clothing, education and safety to their families, who do not have the time or ability to decide if they’re going to take their horse and buggy to the fields to gather crops, but rather must drive to walmart for hamburger helper. individuals have choices, and bear responsibility in the places they choose to spend their money, but when every choice is whittled down by the corporations which have been polluting the planet for the last 300 years, and the governments who purposefully prosper from the same, the point that straws being held up as some sort of shiboleth, and that personal responsibility in retail choices is equal in corporate responsibility in wholesale worldwide pollution, is purposefully fucking obtuse.
motherfucker.
Good points, although quite a hard to read format. Companies do often narrow choices down substantially. Especially in terms of food, the amount of ultra processed foods available in the US is astounding, and it is a much easier choice for the family with no money to choose the unsustainable, unhealthy but easy and cheap meal. And for the people who can’t afford the luxury of real choice in where they source their food, they share much much less blame.
But it is a hard task to find someone who is willing to take the first step and reduce their environmental impact when those around them do not, when someone is told their actions have no impact, the choice and the effort and often the cost seem pointless. And maybe it is, maybe we should all give up and succumb to the climate and environmental disaster we are building up to. It will come either way now, we can’t stop it. But to take the stance that individual choices will not make a difference so why bother is selfish. We can all do our part to make the world a better place, you might not think so but it’s true. And it requires hard work and dedication. And it won’t be easy and we will face an environmental catastrophe. But we can still do our part to make this world better.
My original comment was in poor taste perhaps. I don’t mean to say that corporations take no blame, or that companies take less blame. But that we must also take some blame. Us, our parents, our grandparents all played a part in the world and we are all responsible for our own actions. Why not try and change your ways for the better, even if it is futile, at least you will have done your part.
Hot take from someone who doesn’t understand corporate pricing strategies…
(Hint: inflate sustainable practices so that they are priced out of the market)
But yeah, supid eople blaming poor corporations…THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS!
Sustainable practises, especially energy generation are way cheaper than non renewable sources, so why would corporations try to make energy cost more for themselves? And it’s definitely cheaper to wash and reuse glass bottles than it is to fabricate entirely new disposable plastic ones. But the general public preferred not having to return their glass bottles for some change back and would rather have the convenience of the plastic bottle and aluminium can.
Buildings use concrete because it’s cheap and strong, and people want to live in well built, sturdy and most importantly cheap buildings. Obviously, corporations could make their buildings out of more expensive sustainable materials and they don’t because publicly traded companies have a legal duty to make profit and clearly there is not enough of a push from the consumer to make the change to more sustainable buildings worth it.
If you want to change companies you need to show them that with your money, and of course you can always vote for a representative who has environmental interests at heart and they can directly show companies what the consumer wants.
But the truth is, not enough people care enough about the environment to prioritise choosing sustainable companies over consuming endless products.
And you can blame companies for marketing useless or cheap products to the world, which will obviously cause consumers to want it (if the marketing is any good), and this time the main blame is on the government for not putting the environment first and not forcing adverts for unsustainable products to have warnings about their environmental impact. But the government is installed by people (in democracies) and the people clearly don’t care.
Me and you might care, I suspect we both do care deeply. But not everyone cares, and that’s the problem.
Sadly, that’s not the whole story. I don’t share all of his takes on how to move forward (he’s a tankie, I lean towards anarchism), but Second Thought summarized very well what the weak point in your argument about cost is: https://youtu.be/3gSzzuY1Yw0
Sadly, you’re also wrong here. For the USA it has been shown that the opinion of average citizens on proposals of individual policies has no significant impact on the probability of the policies being implemented. It is only the position of lobbyists that have an impact. Lobbyists also include environmentalist groups, of course, but more often than not corporate lobbyists all take similar stances whereas non-corporate groups are very often single-issue groups who only make themselves heard on relatively few occasions, making them less impactful overall. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
I don’t know of a similar study for EU countries. My guess is that the multi-party systems here work in favor of more voices being heard but also against implementation of new actually useful policies because of the need for compromise and coalitions.
Interesting links son of odysseus. Thanks for sharing
People always babble on about voting with your wallet and consoomers driving the market. Despite the vast majority of business not being public facing.
Are we supposed to vet the supply chain of every product we buy?
No of course not, that’s where governments should step in. But most governments are reluctant to do anything that will get them voted out and so will not implement any policy that has even the slightest of chance for increasing the price of a product or service for the consumer. In general, on environmental issues, the larger population says one thing, but then is resistant to any change that it would take to implement solutions. If you add a carbon tax, very effective at getting companies to lower emissions. Then there are some industries where carbon will be emitted no matter what, especially big manufacturers. And that cost is passed down the line until a company decides to tank the increased cost (unlikely) or it gets to the consumer, at which point the end customer gets upset that their new item, be it a house, a car, or a coffee table now costs more, and the first people they blame are the ones in charge. And out they go. So any government who wants to make environmental change, real change, will have to willingly and knowingly sacrifice their own careers (and in most places, that of their party’s as well). And it isn’t something most will do, and that’s the problem. The government will not force the change we desperately need in order to save their own careers.
deleted by creator
As always thw downvote machine is at work. If people would care as much, as they do when downvoting opinions that put up personal responsibility maybe the world would be a better place. But here we are.