The article is much better than the headline, and details how companies are trying to make the devices less of an ecological problem. But the framing in the headline just made me think of this.

  • @chetradley
    link
    489 months ago

    My gravestone will read “Finally went carbon neutral!”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      15
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Unless you had kids then your decisions can still be having that impact. But it’s a silly way to look at things when corporations do most of it and they’re not going to just get old and die.

      • @chetradley
        link
        79 months ago

        Not when people keep giving them money. You can make the decision to boycott a company or industry that you disagree with.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          99 months ago

          I get where you’re going but you can’t always just boycott a company. For instance I despise Walmart but if it’s the only place you have to buy food you don’t exactly have options. Some of the most hated corporations are the most stable because people don’t just free market capitalism their way out of ecological disaster.

          • @chetradley
            link
            59 months ago

            Of course there are people who don’t have the means to make these choices, but for those who do (including many here on Lemmy), it’s important to recognize the impact that your decisions make. Far too often I see the corporate contribution used as an excuse to continue supporting these corporations by people who do have the ability to boycott them. It’s an appeal to futility at best, and actively funding the problem at worst.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              29 months ago

              I doubt many people on Lemmy are the ones defending corporations from being impacted by social justice beyond boycotting. The rhetoric you use is just really similar to that of corporations where they encourage individual responsibility instead of taking meaningful action.

              • @chetradley
                link
                29 months ago

                I’m certainly not defending corporations against social justice, and I don’t see why it has to be one or the other. Why can’t we support progressive legislation, tax reform, unions, social pressure and local economies while also refusing to financially support the companies and industries we oppose?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  It doesn’t have to be one or the other, I’m simply worried by the way corporations invade public discourse to keep people from holding them accountable through group action. There can easily be group boycotts that do the same thing and I’m all for that, I just don’t care for the personal responsibility argument.

                  • @chetradley
                    link
                    29 months ago

                    At no point was I against group action. I was responding to your assertion that individual responsibility was a silly way to look at it, when it’s an important piece of the overall solution - the responsibility to hold companies financially accountable. I’m not saying recycle your needlessly purchased plastic junk or unplug your phone charger. I’m saying don’t give money to companies and industries that are destroying the earth and causing massive amounts of human and animal suffering. Now that that’s cleared up, I think we may actually be in agreement?

      • Transporter Room 3
        link
        fedilink
        59 months ago

        Well, I have a few ideas on how to kill a company, but there’s a lot of collateral damage involved.

        It’s to rich people though so nothing of value lost.