1066
Choices (slrpnk.net)
submitted 21 hours ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to c/memes@lemmy.world
top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 points 12 minutes ago

We technically do. The day we don't need to buy their crap is the day we are free from our chains.

Don't let your dreams be dreams and just do it

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 6 hours ago

People having 6 children that pollute their whole lives on a overpopulated earth.

"How could insert external factor to avoid personal responsibility do this to me?"

The most polluting thing a human could do is having children.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 hours ago

Even the homeless are polluting above sustainable levels. More humans just makes it happen faster. Until we make a sustainable lifestyle possible, you're directing your anger exactly where big oil wants you to.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

You are making my point.

People pollute.

That sustainable level that you talk about is primitivism or utopia. I don't want either.

Only solution is LESS people.

Why people have such a hard time understanding that we cannot grow infinitely (in numbers) in a world of limited resources?

I know, that the core of this is the dogma. The left removed the overpopulation problem of their dogma decades ago to gain support on certain communities and now we are paying with lots of people actively supporting the destruction of our planet and our quality of life just to squeeze a few more votes

But I don't buy dogmas. I think by myself. And I see that with that many people there's not any economical system that could work to provide a good life to every human on earth, it's impossible, there are not enough resources.

Edit: big oil wants people to feel guilty for wanting to live good. That is what people who supports uncontrolled overbreeding are, consciously or not, defending. I support that people should be able to live good, and consume without feeling guilt. Again, only way to do that is if we had less people around.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 hours ago

Forgetting where on social media you heard about antinatalism is not avoiding dogma, or smarter.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

My only social media is lemmy and Mastodon.

Overpopulation was a big issue on the left agenda in the late 90 early 00's.

It just shifted away in favour of glorification of poverty.

I suppose it's easier to tell people that showering with cold water is the best instead of putting up the work so everyone can have hot water.

[-] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 16 points 4 hours ago

For the average person, yes, but that's nothing compared to what a single stroke of a CEO's pen can do.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Companies supply products to people.

If there were not 8 billion people buying shit and going places the stroke of that CEO won't do as much damage.

Also if 8 billion people want a car to go on vacation to the beach... it doesn't matter if the pen of the car manufacturing company belong to a CEO or a People's Delegate, world is going to shit regardless.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 hour ago

Companies decide themselves what products to supply, how they are created, what materials are used, how they are packaged, how much they are transported, ...

And all of those decisions only take money into consideration.

That is not on the consumer.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 54 minutes ago* (last edited 52 minutes ago)

If you want a car, a car has to be made. If you want to drive, energy needs to me used.

There's a limited amount of damage reduction that can be done with a change in the economical system.

And I'm for ending capitalism. But it would be naive to thing that without capitalism everything will be fixed. Some things will be better, but most bad things will remain a problem.

No matter what economic system you try to make. There's no place in the world for 8 billion cars. And I use car a an example, but every item or service we use needs some resources. Even if we are top efficient about how we made them... It's still not enough with 8 billion people wanting the same.

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 2 points 2 hours ago

It's kind of like asking whether the vital piece of a table is the tabletop or the legs, when you don't have a functional table without either one. We don't have a functional market system without supply and demand.

In a weird way, blaming the corporations is philosophically aligned with supply-side dogma, where the corporations ("job creators") have an intrinsic motivation to produce. As if they just churn stuff out all day long, because that's what they do when the government doesn't get in their way, and it's the duty of people to consume so the output doesn't all just pile up in some great heap outside the factory.

There's a reason some call that "voodoo economics." Whatever their influence today, all corporations producing things evolved in a symbiotic relationship with consumer demand. We could guillotine all of the CEOs, and revoke every corporate charter, but it'd do jack for the environment, unless unless we also all change our lifestyle.

Blaming the corporations makes as much sense as them blaming us. It's time to move past who's to blame, and instead start fixing things.

[-] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 hours ago

The most polluting thing to do is to allow capitalism to exist, yet I don't see you on the streets.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

You haven't been looking then.

I've spent quite a lot of time of my live trying to end capitalism.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 86 points 18 hours ago

If only we had recycled harder

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 55 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Honestly I'm starting to hate this narrative

For one, by far the most polluting companies are state owned coal companies in China and India. Then other state owned fossil fuel companies and then private fossil fuel companies.

So all those companies are just power generation. So it's not like they can just stop, people need the electricity.

And it's not like nothing is being done either. Like by far the biggest polluter is China's coal industry, making up 25% of global emissions, but China is also THE global leader on clean energy investment. They are currently building more nuclear power plants than the entire rest of the world has, they are making the biggest most powerfull wind turbines in the world, etc.

And if people would stop consuming cheap, disposable shite from China, then they wouldn't use so much electricity, so would burn less coal and also you wouldn't make a bunch of shit that's just going to end up in a landfill.

[-] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 hours ago

Power companies in Georgia, US are building more coal power plants. Consumers in Georgia, US don't have a lot of choice in how the electricity they can buy is produced.

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 minutes ago

What kind of politicians are people voting for at the state level in GA? Separately, they're also blowing ass loads of money on nuclear.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

Why are the people not on the hook for electricity usage but they are for cheap crap? The corporations reselling the cheap crap are far more culpable. The problem is still capitalism.

[-] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 10 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I agree so very much.
People around me fly on holidays by plane like two, three times a year, still eat meat, shower twice a day and buy shit they don't need from Amazon, because they can. This needs to stop! Will it save us? Of course not, but who else is going to stop the global suicide machine? Trump? The fossil destroyers? Do you want to protest another 70 years or go blow up a pipeline?
We are billions, we have the power of "No, thanks, I don't want that" every fucking day but the endless consumption of stuff is too tempting. Instead, we sit at home, comfortably warm, well fed and lonely, in front of our seethrough plexiglas RGB LED computers and point fingers at corporations that are exactly as greedy, selfish and irresponsible as every single one of us.
NO THANKS! This could be the easiest global movement, no violence, no riots, still corporations would be powerless. But you'd need to change, and you don't want that.

Edit: If you downvote, please tell me where I'm wrong and what's your counter-proposal in this actual situation right now.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Where you are wrong is that the majority of humans don't have access to those luxuries of choice since around 50% of the world is still below the extreme poverty level. Where else you're wrong is people like me that have solar panels, and electric transportation and access to mass transit that I use regularly. We also don't have much of a choice, because we don't make the markets those companies do.

Those companies are the only ones that have a choice because they control so much market share that no one else has enough power to make a change.

I already eliminated my carbon footprint, and it hasn't done shit, because Starbucks has their own private jet that the CEO is using 3 times a week to fly between San Francisco and Seattle, because fuck the plebes.

The only solution I see at this point is mass protest and starting to assassinate CEOs, shareholders, and boards of directors, in self defense.

[-] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

9% of the global population is in extreme poverty not 50%

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 3 points 4 hours ago

I hate the narrative too. Just people avoiding responsibility and complaining instead of doing what they can and should.

Obviously our individual actions matter.

[-] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Obviously they should and do, but pretending the average human creates anything compared to oil and gas companies, coal plants, big tech, etc is boot-lickingly ludicrous

[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 40 points 17 hours ago

It's a multifaceted issue, but don't kid yourself

http://amp.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.

China weighs in at 14.5% for coal. Another 1-point-some-odd for their Petro Chem. The issue is that there are a lot of companies that make up the remainder.

Demand definitely plays a role in all of this, but I don't think pushing green initiatives is a bad thing from the consumers and one of the only ways we can encourage these companies to do their part

[-] TheColonel@reddthat.com 10 points 15 hours ago

It’s possible there’s a very specific tinge of racism and/or jingoism present in the comment previous to yours.

Multinational companies are to blame, not just India and China.

[-] grandel@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 hours ago

So all those companies are just lower generation. So it's not like they can just stop, people need the electricity.

I don't know about you guys but Id rather have a habitable planet with breathable air than electricity.

It sickens me how convenience is valued over everything else.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

People in hospitals will die without that electricity. You can be all sickened and uppity on your electronic device if you want, but the only realistic solution is replacing infrastructure.

[-] grandel@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

People are already dying from the effects of climate change so I dont understand the point you are trying to make

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

You are asking people to let Gam Gam die so some random person they'll never meet will live. "Just stop" is never. going. to. happen. Even the pockets of humanity left after the bulk of climate change will continue high energy use per capita.

The only realistic solution is greener energy.

[-] grandel@lemmy.ml 1 points 17 minutes ago

Gam Gam's life shouldn't be worth more than "some random person"

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 38 points 18 hours ago

This always gets me. They are producing stuff that we the people buy. They aren't out there just for the fun of things. Inb4 Lemmy's famous misreadings, yes it is an issue, yes we need regulation (which we will have to start again from scratch, hopefully in 4 years), yes we need renewables. But this simplistic "it's just 100 companies" is misleading AF.

[-] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 4 points 4 hours ago

The average person spends most of their time at work where they don't control how environmentally friendly they are.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Have you somehow missed just how car-centric just about everything is? I mean, most public space out there is taken by roads and public transport is generally insufficient.

Granted, there are much better countries in this than others.

Ditto on other things imposed on people such as planed obsolence: Can you still buy a fridge that will last you a lifetime? Does your 15 year old original iPhone still work well? How many of the electronics out there are not repairable?

Then there's all the pressure to make people consume, using techniques from Psychology (you can go read all about how the nephew of Freud introduced into Marketing techniques from Psychology back in the 50s). Absolutelly, people should be stronger and wiser than that, but most are not and just claiming that "it's people's fault" when others take adavantage of natural human weaknesses is just victim blaming.

Absolutelly, Consumerism is a big part of the problem and it's a lot down to individuals to do less of it, but lets not deceive ourselves that the environment we're all in not only promotes it massivelly and relentlessly, but plenty of decisions which were taken for us by others mean individuals often don't even have a choice not to buy new junk or ride a personal-polution-device, and in Capitalism those decisions were taken mainly by large Companies directly or by the politicians they bought.

[-] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 hours ago

As you said, plenty of countries are better in terms of public transportation, but most people still insist on driving cars even in places with good public transportation coverage.

And the biggest counter to the "it's not a personal issue, it's companies who don't give options" is diet: eating meat is far worse for the environment as well as more expensive than a plant based diet; but people hate the idea of eating less meat and they love to mock vegans.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Meat eating is actually a very cultural thing.

In India, for example, there is an area where most people are vegetarian and have been so for centuries.

My point about how people are psychologically pushed to consume also applies here.

Further, excessive meat eating (and the average meat consumption in most Western countries is at those levels) is actually bad for one's health and life expectancy, so even from a pure individual selfishness point of view people aren't doing what's best for themselves, which would indicate there's more to it than merelly individuals being selfish.

That said, I agree that people should eat less meat, it's just the expectation that they're informed enough (at various levels) to do it that I find unrealistic.

It's another of those things which in order to change needs to be pushed as education to all of society, while what we really have is massive economic interests pushing in the very opposite direction.

[-] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 41 points 16 hours ago

Those 100 companies have made it so it's incredibly difficult not to buy from them.

Groceries? There's like 10 companies that own all of the food supply. Good luck figuring out which one's have child labor, and a horrendous environmental impact. They've very purposely masked that image.

Oh wow, everything is recyclable! No, those companies just slapped that logo on all of their products so we can ignorantly wish-cycle their garbage. Most of it ends up in the landfill.

Don't want a car? Our cities are very deliberately designed to require cars. There is a very strong private agenda against good public transportation.

Then there's the pollution. These companies pollute so much more than we know. Whether that's dumping forever chemicals into our water, or taking private jets everywhere. It's not like the label on your T-shirt tells you that.

Finally find a good company? They'll buy it up, lobby against it, or coerce them out of business. Just look how many companies Luxottica has destroyed.

There's layer after layer of obfuscation to hide what these companies are doing. It's not just a matter of picking Product A over Product B. We rarely have much choice, or the information to make better choices.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 30 points 18 hours ago

I'll GLADLY buy the alternative that doesn't do those things. When it exists. One day.

[-] IMALlama@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

I think the idea was "reduce consumption". As a society we buy tons of stuff, way more than 50 or 100 years ago.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

When planned obsolescence isn't the cornerstone of the modern market, we might have the choice to consume less. Currently you cannot buy any product that hasn't been intentionally designed to create as much waste as possible. That is on the companies, since they are legally people.

Corporate death penalty needs to be levied against the largest corporations before they kill us all with their greed. We don't need them. They need us.

[-] IMALlama@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

I agree with you on planned obsolescence, but I think there's more to the story. The quantity of things/conveniences in our lives is greater than at any point in history. We have two younger kids and the quantity of... junk they have is astounding. As parents, we've sought out lower quality/throw away/gimmicky toys for things like goodie bags at birthday parties. Sticky hands, silicone squeeze toys, etc. To some extent, the internet is contributing to this since shipping and handling aren't free and buying a single fidget spinner for $5 doesn't sound like a good deal when you can get a bag of them for $8.

There are also plenty of instances of people replacing perfectly functional items because the newer version became available. People buy them for status or for a perceived increase in convince/quality. This is true for compute/tech, but has been extending into things like smart home (replacing a functional light-bulb, switch, doorbell, thermostat etc for a IoT device). I get that some people are into these things, but it seems disingenuous to say that the only thing driving this is planned obsolescence.

We have to move toward less carbon intensive means of production, but we also need to figure out how to change the endless stream of "better/faster/newer" that people feel compelled to purchase.

[-] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

You seem like you have a consumption problem. Outside of a car, heating, and cooling nobody is forcing anything down your throat.

You choose and desire to buy whatever product you're talking about.

[-] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 15 points 16 hours ago

When I am in a "having the shittiest take possible" competition and my opponent is IsThisAnAI

[-] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

You're unfortunately about to get ratio'ed for the reasonable take.

[-] blindbunny@lemmy.ml 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Except you're wrong. In case your next reach is "It's not the billionaires fault." These companies could be easily be made more efficient if the billionaire class were forced to change but the government is too weak and corrupt to allow that to happen. We have wealth disparity that has surpassed American's last gilded age. The billionaires don't care about climate change because they already won they're richer then us who cares if humanity goes extinct, they beat us.

[-] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 32 points 19 hours ago

Humans self describe as intelligent. That always stuck with me.

[-] oo1@lemmings.world 7 points 18 hours ago

Humans are so naturally stupid that they almost make AI seem intelligent.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

Certainly that goes a long way to explain why so many think LLMs are actually intelligent.

[-] turbowafflz@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

Well clearly it's the fault of everyone noticing the problems because like 100 years ago no one noticed the problems and so clearly they weren't happening because no one noticed and if they were happening someone would have noticed so if people just hadn't noticed they never would have happened and then no one would have noticed them which of course then means they double wouldn't have happened

It's just common sense if you think about it from that perspective

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 19 hours ago

Rugged individualism strikes again.

this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
1066 points (100.0% liked)

memes

10418 readers
2172 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS