Rejecting the blame on individuals is exactly what these industrial complexes have been doing for decades.
Governments need to get their shit together and force the industrials to handle the whole lifecycle of their goddamn garbage.
It’s the same argument as fossil fuels or carbon footprint, etc. We’re all to blame, and we all need to act on our level, but it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the damage big companies do.
The same companies that buy news networks and politicians to skew public opinion in their favour.
In order to consume, something has to be produced, and production will always cost more than time and resources than consumption. Even if you make a simple chair, you have to shave off a lot of wood in order to get to a finished product and the rests are normally wasted. It’s the same with your orange you buy from the supermarket, that phone you have on you, the transport you use, and whatever else. A ton of stuff has to go into it before it becomes something you can use.
Our consumption drives companies to produce. Without consumption there is no reason to produce. Could companies produce in a less polluting manner? Absolutely! Would the cost for our products go up? You bet they would! We might then consume less, but the more probable outcome is that another company will come along that doesn’t give two shits about anything except money, will sell a cheaper product and we will buy that one instead.
It’s a cycle and both sides drive it. Demanding companies to produce less is cyclic demand for consumers to consume less.
What about the facts that Exxon, Total or Shell knew about climate change 50 years ago and lied about it ever since ? Or the fact that the tobacco industry knew about the effects of cigarettes and lied about it ? Or the sugar industry knowing about obesity and addiction issues and lied about it ? Or that the plastic industry forged the lies about recycling and the issues plastics would cause globally, and lied about it ?
These corporations lied, bribed politicians, and lobbied worldwide against accountability and regulation.
And they marketed how good their shit was for people to consume and abuse. We had ads about how good asbestos filter cigarettes were better for you for fuck’s sake.
I’m sorry but these facts completely invalidate your point.
Yes we should be smarter about the way we consume, but we’re being brainwashed by the same people profiteering from selling us garbage that thrashes the planet and our health.
And that can only come from sensible and strong regulations and accountability towards corporations.
I’m sorry but these facts completely invalidate your point.
Points out one case where people were misled to extrapolate and invalidate every single purchase or act of consumption ever. Everywhere we turn, we are being lied to. There is not a single company on the planet - nay, universe, that has ever nor ever will provide (or try to provide) a product that pollutes less that others. We thus have no choice, and in fact never had, nor ever will have a chance of purchasing such a product, much less multiple thereof. Illusion of choice is everywhere. Resistance is futile.
And that can only come from sensible and strong regulations and accountability towards corporations.
But buddy, nothing we do matters! Didn’t you know the rich control everything. Voting is useless! It is an illusion of choice because they are just puppets and representatives of their wealthy masters.
Why would you have hope, you poor imbecile. Go be a wage cuck, follow your programming, buy the next iPhone, and pick a random politician because it is just a play.
Yeah keep believing that we will magically collectively wake up one day and we’ll all decide to stop using whatever new crap they shove down our throats. We’ll probably hold hands and sing under a rainbow as well.
In the meantime, I’ll keep working on getting people to understand orders of magnitudes and responsibility when it comes to pollution, to get them to vote in favour of policies that help prevent abuse from corpos, and encourage them to take individual actions as well.
Our consumption drives companies to produce. Without consumption there is no reason to produce. Could companies produce in a less polluting manner? Absolutely!
This belief in the free market only works if you infantise the process. The 5 companies who make the plastic aren’t selling it directly to the consumer. They are selling it to other manufacturers, who are then utilizing it to make or package their own products.
So in this situation, the secondary manufacturer would have to decide to utilize less plastics. Since it’s more than likely a publicly shared company, they have a legal obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders.
Now there may be a small market for people who are willing to pay much more for less plastic. However, as you said if they did it for every product it would drive cost up, and make people consume less. Less consumption is not a motivator for capitalism. It would probably be something that shareholders could actually use the board of directors for.
You are relying on the “free market” to regulate itself while also ignoring the basic profit motive inherent in free market capitalism.
the more probable outcome is that another company will come along that doesn’t give two shits about anything except money, will sell a cheaper product and we will buy that one instead.
Lol, how is another company going to magically make a product without plastic cheaper than a billion dollar multi conglomerate that has established production and supply lines?
The reason corporations don’t give up plastic is because it’s basically a miracle material for logistics and production. It’s light weight, durable, chemically inert, and a hell of a lot cheaper than anything else on the market.
It’s a cycle and both sides drive it. Demanding companies to produce less is cyclic demand for consumers to consume less.
Again, an over simplification. That model is about 100 years out of date, and with the advent of marketing and outsourced production in the 20th century we often get scenarios where production drives consumption.
"production driven consumption is a situation where a company mass-produces a new, innovative product at a low cost, actively marketing it heavily to create a significant demand even among people who may not have initially needed the product, effectively pushing them to consume it due to its readily available and affordable nature; this is often seen in the tech industry with the release of new smartphones or gadgets, where manufacturers create a sense of “need” through marketing and readily available supply, leading consumers to purchase even if they don’t have a pressing need for an upgrade. "
OK, you are faultless. We are all powerless. We are simply wage slaves for the rich. We are cogs in a machine with no will of our own, controlled by the powerful. Every decision we make is in fact an expression of fake self expression. You are thus absolved of any duty to attempt anything to ameliorate the situation, because it’s all useless. We just have to hope that someday, our overlords will see the damage they have caused and give us our right to think.
I think I started this by saying that assigning blame isn’t going to help anyone. If all consumers are to “blame”, then how does that even help? People have been made aware plastic isn’t good for the environment for decades. You really think your personal harassment campaign is going to be what does the trick?
We are cogs in a machine with no will of our own, controlled by the powerful. Every decision we make is in fact an expression of fake self expression.
Or… We could just do the same thing we’ve done with any harmful substance in our history and pressure the government to regulate it?
We just have to hope that someday, our overlords will see the damage they have caused and give us our right to think.
Lol, just because I don’t believe in the regulatory power of the free market doesn’t mean I think everyone is helpless, or divorced from responsibility.
It’s hilarious that in your mind our only options are hope the free market solves the problem, or just sitting back and doing nothing.
Also…you might wanna dial back the performative writing, i think you might be guilding the lilly a bit. Feels like I’m trying to have a conversation with a teenage Ron Paul who just finished Atlas Shrugged for the first time.
I’m not rejecting the blame. I’m saying we’re part of the problem. You can’t seriously think that you are faultless.
I don’t think finding fault is really helpful in actually solving the issue. The problem is really just too large to assume the general public really has a lot of control over it.
As a whole, it’s pretty clear that humans aren’t exactly the best guardians of their own self interest. On top of that corporations have a lot more control over our own politicians than we do as consumers.
Lastly, just because you can afford to avoid most plastics, doesn’t mean that the majority of the population can afford to do the same. For the most part the cheaper the groceries or other consumables, the more you’ll usually see plastic in the packaging.
I don’t think finding fault is really helpful in actually solving the issue
I think it’s critical actually. If most people think that their actions have no impact whatsoever and that no change on their part is required in order to affect a change in the system, then of course nothing will change. People have to realise that they are a part of the problem.
The problem is really just too large to assume the general public really has a lot of control over it.
Again, I disagree. The general public actually has a lot of power that it does not, and often times will not wield. People don’t show up to elections, vote egoistically or in a tribal manner, do not change their habits, do not try to reason about the things they hear/read/see, and just generally cruise along as long as they can tolerate their circumstances.
Lastly, just because you can afford to avoid most plastics, doesn’t mean that the majority of the population can afford to do the same.
I can’t avoid most plastics, but I try. I buy local produce where possible, I collect and try to reuse plastics (or pretty much anything actually), and will ask for non-plastic options (or choose them if they are visible). It’s not much, but it’s something. The Good Place should be mandatory viewing, IMO. Every action we take can have a negative impact on somebody else, and in most cases it will. We can only try to make conscious choices to reduce that impact. We can’t just say “omg, it’s impossible” and not try, which is what most people do when they say shit like “ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible” or “corporations are to blame” or “I don’t vote because I have no power”.
think it’s critical actually. If most people think that their actions have no impact whatsoever and that no change on their part is required in order to affect a change in the system, then of course nothing will change. People have to realise that they are a part of the problem.
Yeah, and plenty of people have spent their lives attempting to do that with no effect. If we look at the history of regulating dangerous or harmful substances from the market, public boycotts are not effective.
Again, I disagree. The general public actually has a lot of power that it does not, and often times will not wield. People don’t show up to elections, vote egoistically or in a tribal manner, do not change their habits, do not try to reason about the things they hear/read/see, and just generally cruise along as long as they can tolerate their circumstances.
The two statements in this argument seem pretty antithetical.
I can’t avoid most plastics, but I try. I buy local produce where possible, I collect and try to reuse plastics (or pretty much anything actually), and will ask for non-plastic options (or choose them if they are visible). It’s not much, but it’s something.
Ahh, so the answer to your first question “who is going out and buying plastic?” is you.
Not trying to belittle your beliefs, but this kinda solidifies my argument that the consumer has very little choice in how corporations choose to mitigate cost.
The idea of boycott and personal responsibility are a byproduct of idealized liberalism. Not as in “woke” liberal, but as in belief in the free market deciding how society regulates itself. In reality corporations lobby together to take away choice from consumers, and that’s always been how capitalism works.
We can’t just say “omg, it’s impossible” and not try, which is what most people do when they say shit like “ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible” or “corporations are to blame” or “I don’t vote because I have no power”.
I think you’re conflating a lot of different problems, so let’s stick to the one at hand. “ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible”.
It really depends on your perspective, most people who claim this are saying that because capitalism relies on exploiting workers labour for profit. Now even disregarding people’s ideas of how to organize labour, capitalism and it’s tendency to monopolize makes choice nearly impossible.
Most of the items available at the store are owned by a handful of conglomerates pretending to compete against each other. Even if we got more of the population to switch to the same practices you do, it wouldn’t really wouldn’t motivate different companies to migrate away from plastic all together.
They would just have an “environmental” brand where they significantly mark up the products and an economic brand that was a lot cheaper. Some people may be willing to pay more for a symbolic act that makes them feel superior, but that is not really how the vast majority of people behave when they are shopping.
As history has shown time after time, government intervention is the only way to regulate capital.
Rejecting the blame on individuals is exactly what these industrial complexes have been doing for decades. Governments need to get their shit together and force the industrials to handle the whole lifecycle of their goddamn garbage.
I’m not rejecting the blame. I’m saying we’re part of the problem. You can’t seriously think that you are faultless.
Again, who votes for the governments?
It’s the same argument as fossil fuels or carbon footprint, etc. We’re all to blame, and we all need to act on our level, but it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the damage big companies do.
The same companies that buy news networks and politicians to skew public opinion in their favour.
In order to consume, something has to be produced, and production will always cost more than time and resources than consumption. Even if you make a simple chair, you have to shave off a lot of wood in order to get to a finished product and the rests are normally wasted. It’s the same with your orange you buy from the supermarket, that phone you have on you, the transport you use, and whatever else. A ton of stuff has to go into it before it becomes something you can use.
Our consumption drives companies to produce. Without consumption there is no reason to produce. Could companies produce in a less polluting manner? Absolutely! Would the cost for our products go up? You bet they would! We might then consume less, but the more probable outcome is that another company will come along that doesn’t give two shits about anything except money, will sell a cheaper product and we will buy that one instead.
It’s a cycle and both sides drive it. Demanding companies to produce less is cyclic demand for consumers to consume less.
What about the facts that Exxon, Total or Shell knew about climate change 50 years ago and lied about it ever since ? Or the fact that the tobacco industry knew about the effects of cigarettes and lied about it ? Or the sugar industry knowing about obesity and addiction issues and lied about it ? Or that the plastic industry forged the lies about recycling and the issues plastics would cause globally, and lied about it ?
These corporations lied, bribed politicians, and lobbied worldwide against accountability and regulation.
And they marketed how good their shit was for people to consume and abuse. We had ads about how good asbestos filter cigarettes were better for you for fuck’s sake.
I’m sorry but these facts completely invalidate your point.
Yes we should be smarter about the way we consume, but we’re being brainwashed by the same people profiteering from selling us garbage that thrashes the planet and our health.
And that can only come from sensible and strong regulations and accountability towards corporations.
Points out one case where people were misled to extrapolate and invalidate every single purchase or act of consumption ever. Everywhere we turn, we are being lied to. There is not a single company on the planet - nay, universe, that has ever nor ever will provide (or try to provide) a product that pollutes less that others. We thus have no choice, and in fact never had, nor ever will have a chance of purchasing such a product, much less multiple thereof. Illusion of choice is everywhere. Resistance is futile.
But buddy, nothing we do matters! Didn’t you know the rich control everything. Voting is useless! It is an illusion of choice because they are just puppets and representatives of their wealthy masters.
Why would you have hope, you poor imbecile. Go be a wage cuck, follow your programming, buy the next iPhone, and pick a random politician because it is just a play.
Yeah keep believing that we will magically collectively wake up one day and we’ll all decide to stop using whatever new crap they shove down our throats. We’ll probably hold hands and sing under a rainbow as well.
In the meantime, I’ll keep working on getting people to understand orders of magnitudes and responsibility when it comes to pollution, to get them to vote in favour of policies that help prevent abuse from corpos, and encourage them to take individual actions as well.
This belief in the free market only works if you infantise the process. The 5 companies who make the plastic aren’t selling it directly to the consumer. They are selling it to other manufacturers, who are then utilizing it to make or package their own products.
So in this situation, the secondary manufacturer would have to decide to utilize less plastics. Since it’s more than likely a publicly shared company, they have a legal obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders.
Now there may be a small market for people who are willing to pay much more for less plastic. However, as you said if they did it for every product it would drive cost up, and make people consume less. Less consumption is not a motivator for capitalism. It would probably be something that shareholders could actually use the board of directors for.
You are relying on the “free market” to regulate itself while also ignoring the basic profit motive inherent in free market capitalism.
Lol, how is another company going to magically make a product without plastic cheaper than a billion dollar multi conglomerate that has established production and supply lines?
The reason corporations don’t give up plastic is because it’s basically a miracle material for logistics and production. It’s light weight, durable, chemically inert, and a hell of a lot cheaper than anything else on the market.
Again, an over simplification. That model is about 100 years out of date, and with the advent of marketing and outsourced production in the 20th century we often get scenarios where production drives consumption.
"production driven consumption is a situation where a company mass-produces a new, innovative product at a low cost, actively marketing it heavily to create a significant demand even among people who may not have initially needed the product, effectively pushing them to consume it due to its readily available and affordable nature; this is often seen in the tech industry with the release of new smartphones or gadgets, where manufacturers create a sense of “need” through marketing and readily available supply, leading consumers to purchase even if they don’t have a pressing need for an upgrade. "
OK, you are faultless. We are all powerless. We are simply wage slaves for the rich. We are cogs in a machine with no will of our own, controlled by the powerful. Every decision we make is in fact an expression of fake self expression. You are thus absolved of any duty to attempt anything to ameliorate the situation, because it’s all useless. We just have to hope that someday, our overlords will see the damage they have caused and give us our right to think.
I think I started this by saying that assigning blame isn’t going to help anyone. If all consumers are to “blame”, then how does that even help? People have been made aware plastic isn’t good for the environment for decades. You really think your personal harassment campaign is going to be what does the trick?
Or… We could just do the same thing we’ve done with any harmful substance in our history and pressure the government to regulate it?
Lol, just because I don’t believe in the regulatory power of the free market doesn’t mean I think everyone is helpless, or divorced from responsibility.
It’s hilarious that in your mind our only options are hope the free market solves the problem, or just sitting back and doing nothing.
Also…you might wanna dial back the performative writing, i think you might be guilding the lilly a bit. Feels like I’m trying to have a conversation with a teenage Ron Paul who just finished Atlas Shrugged for the first time.
I don’t think finding fault is really helpful in actually solving the issue. The problem is really just too large to assume the general public really has a lot of control over it.
As a whole, it’s pretty clear that humans aren’t exactly the best guardians of their own self interest. On top of that corporations have a lot more control over our own politicians than we do as consumers.
Lastly, just because you can afford to avoid most plastics, doesn’t mean that the majority of the population can afford to do the same. For the most part the cheaper the groceries or other consumables, the more you’ll usually see plastic in the packaging.
I think it’s critical actually. If most people think that their actions have no impact whatsoever and that no change on their part is required in order to affect a change in the system, then of course nothing will change. People have to realise that they are a part of the problem.
Again, I disagree. The general public actually has a lot of power that it does not, and often times will not wield. People don’t show up to elections, vote egoistically or in a tribal manner, do not change their habits, do not try to reason about the things they hear/read/see, and just generally cruise along as long as they can tolerate their circumstances.
I can’t avoid most plastics, but I try. I buy local produce where possible, I collect and try to reuse plastics (or pretty much anything actually), and will ask for non-plastic options (or choose them if they are visible). It’s not much, but it’s something. The Good Place should be mandatory viewing, IMO. Every action we take can have a negative impact on somebody else, and in most cases it will. We can only try to make conscious choices to reduce that impact. We can’t just say “omg, it’s impossible” and not try, which is what most people do when they say shit like “ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible” or “corporations are to blame” or “I don’t vote because I have no power”.
Yeah, and plenty of people have spent their lives attempting to do that with no effect. If we look at the history of regulating dangerous or harmful substances from the market, public boycotts are not effective.
The two statements in this argument seem pretty antithetical.
Ahh, so the answer to your first question “who is going out and buying plastic?” is you.
Not trying to belittle your beliefs, but this kinda solidifies my argument that the consumer has very little choice in how corporations choose to mitigate cost.
The idea of boycott and personal responsibility are a byproduct of idealized liberalism. Not as in “woke” liberal, but as in belief in the free market deciding how society regulates itself. In reality corporations lobby together to take away choice from consumers, and that’s always been how capitalism works.
I think you’re conflating a lot of different problems, so let’s stick to the one at hand. “ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible”.
It really depends on your perspective, most people who claim this are saying that because capitalism relies on exploiting workers labour for profit. Now even disregarding people’s ideas of how to organize labour, capitalism and it’s tendency to monopolize makes choice nearly impossible.
Most of the items available at the store are owned by a handful of conglomerates pretending to compete against each other. Even if we got more of the population to switch to the same practices you do, it wouldn’t really wouldn’t motivate different companies to migrate away from plastic all together.
They would just have an “environmental” brand where they significantly mark up the products and an economic brand that was a lot cheaper. Some people may be willing to pay more for a symbolic act that makes them feel superior, but that is not really how the vast majority of people behave when they are shopping.
As history has shown time after time, government intervention is the only way to regulate capital.