It Is No Longer Possible to Escape What We Have Done to Ourselves
It Is No Longer Possible to Escape What We Have Done to Ourselves
Canada’s wildfires show that extreme weather conditions around the world are interconnected and insidiously accelerating.
You're viewing a single thread.
That's an odd way to spell "what the insatiable greed of like seven corporations has done to us."
New York times being new York times
Don't you put that evil on me Ricky Bobby
Those 7 corporations. Would those be companies whose products we keep buying?
They have trained you all your life to blame the victims.
Who is consuming their products? I'm doing my damn best not too while striving for structural change, and I'd bet the other user is too. What about you? People taking your stance are usually the ones trying to make excuses to keep consuming mindlessly.
That's a pretty absurd generalization. I live off grid and get my power from solar, food from my garden and foraging. I compost all of my waste, consume as consciously as I can possibly achieve as an average individual, and I refuse to accept that this is some regular person's fault.
Rugged individualism and shame will not change the world positively, some fucking accountability on the part of the few people causing the damage (corporations etc) might. It is willful ignorance to say that it is just everyone's fault.
Almost everyone is just trying their best, save for a small number of incredibly rich people+the entities they run ruining everything.
Idk here's a quote from The Good Place
"I want to tell you about a guy from my dance crew in Jacksonville called Big Noodle.
I used to yell at Big Noodle 'cause he always showed up late to rehearsal. Then one day, the swamp under my house flooded. I needed a place to crash, so I slept at Big Noodle's house. Turns out that he had to juggle three jobs to take care of four grandparents who all lived in the same bed just like in "Willy Wonka."
I never yelled at Big Noodle for being late after that 'cause I knew how hard it was for him to be there. And he definitely didn't have time to research what tomatoes to buy. Even if he wanted to, possession of a non-fried vegetable is a felony in Jacksonville. The point is, you can't judge humans 'cause you don't know what we go through"
That’s a pretty absurd generalization. I live off grid and get my power from solar, food from my garden and foraging. I compost all of my waste, consume as consciously as I can possibly achieve as an average individual, and I refuse to accept that this is some regular person’s fault.
Then why do you do all that? You are contradicting yourself. Clearly you believe the average person has an impact, which is what I and others are saying. That doesn't mean it's all the average person's fault, or that there aren't powerful people leveraging that power to try to keep this system up. But "the system" isn't something magical or a law of the universe; "the system" is people and their choices.
Almost everyone is just trying their best, save for a small number of incredibly rich people+the entities they run ruining everything.
Come on, you know that's not true. Just go outside and talk to the average person, or even go on a more popular and less closed off social network.
I'm not saying life is easy right now, but most people could do a lot more than they do. Most people eat more red meat than is even healthy for them, never mind the environment, and never mind other meats or animal products in general. Most people will buy bottled water (and other beverages) even when they have access to clean tap water (and I'm not saying everybody does have access to it). Most people will make excuses to use a car, no matter how good the public transport is, or even if they could use a bicycle. Most people will still choose to use plastic bags for groceries instead of reusable ones, at least until a store stops supplying plastic bags.
To expand a bit more on this and not have to do much typing, I'll just a leave a couple of comments from else where on this thread; the first one is mine and the second is from another user:
Though experiment:
Tomorrow is election day in your country. The stout environmentalists win control of the government and proceed to make the following changes:
-
Carbon tax, which increases the price of gas, which itself results in an increase in shipping anything. It also directly raises the price of anything that produces carbon in its manufacture process, such as anything made of plastic.
-
An end to meat subsidies - maybe even a tax on it - and an increase to subsidizing other types of farming.
-
A ban on single use plastics.
-
And anything else you think might be necessary.
Now the questions: How long until they get kicked out? How long until the protests and riots? How long until a new government undoes it all?
I’m assuming you’re not naive and you don’t live in a bubble. You should know the majority of people will not be fans of any of that; and with the way it usually goes and the pendulum swings, the government that follows it will be a far right one.
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
You seem have an incredibly narrow view of what is "right" and are willing to dole out judgement based on your beliefs. I do truly believe that everyone is doing their best with the tools that they are given, and I cannot discount their efforts. It is not my place to talk shit idk.
I live the way I do because I am uniquely able to, most people are not. I cannot fault others for not being able to live this lifestyle because it takes MONEY and TIME that most people do not have. I don't think your solutions are necessarily the solutions we need, I personally live in a state where taxes on the individual are the answer to every problem and it only makes it even harder for people to survive? Not great.
The world is complicated and very hard, obviously the system is not "magic," but I don't accept that consumer gas, meat, and bottled water is entirely the problem here when most of the Pacific Ocean garbage patch is commercial fishing nets (just one example). We need corporate accountability before anything else.
Igss I'm just here commenting to let you know that I don't think it's these Lemmy users' faults that shit is shitty, and that I am not a "mindless consumer" or whatever.
This will be my last comment because I don't want to keep bothering you, especially because I know I write too much, but feel to reply and I will read it.
most of the Pacific Ocean garbage patch is commercial fishing nets (just one example)
But who eats the fish? It's not the companies. The companies are just enablers. I'm now not sure if you read it, so I refer you back to the last part of my comment (last 2 paragraphs).
I personally live in a state where taxes on the individual are the answer to every problem and it only makes it even harder for people to survive? Not great.
It seems you don't realize it, but you're agreeing with what I'm saying. Studies/polls have shown the majority of people would be in favour of a carbon tax. But as you said, high prices/taxes don't really help and can make life terrible for the average person. Yet, that would be the result of a carbon tax. But people don't think about that; people just think about how the world is going to shit, and someone should do something and when they hear "carbon tax" they think "great!", because they think it's a way to keep their lifestyle and comforts and don't realize it would necessitate a life change anyway. The question is whether you do the change now by reducing your consumption, or wait until you're forced to do it due to regulation and prices hikes you can't afford.
I do truly believe that everyone is doing their best with the tools that they are given, and I cannot discount their efforts. It is not my place to talk shit idk.
I really don't want to be rude or mean, but I have no other way to put this: if you really think that, you really are naive and living in a bubble. Which I guess isn't surprising if you do live off grid and have enough room to grow your own food and you can compost all your waste, while also being on the Fediverse and especially from beehaw (very leftist leaning and environmentally aware places); but take it from someone living in a very large city and who frequents very diverse online places: that's not true.
Just from the most environmentally "aware" people I personally know: a lot don't bother recycling, or didn't until very recently; they don't think twice about single use plastics; most of them have meat as the stable of their diet, especially red meat; one of them insists on drinking bottled water despite have clean tap water, and a lot of the others buy quite a bit of plastic soda bottles. Oh, and something about my neighbours: some of them throw plastic take out packages out of their windows and into the street.
And also, finally, if what you say is true, then environmental parties would currently be in government in most places; after all a vote is tool everyone has and it costs nothing. But that's not the case. In my country, the two most environmentally aware parties are currently the 2 smallest parties in the parliament; the second biggest one is a far right party; the third party are somewhere between liberals and right wing libertarians who have said there is no climate emergency; the leading party is a liberal party who talks about the environment, but doesn't actually do shit about it. And that's with a 60 to 70% voter turnout.
Do you really expect me to believe that "everyone is doing their best with the tools that they are given"?
I'm from Portugal btw, you can see here how many tons of CO2 per capita we were responsible for emitting (from production and consumption in 2018 and 2016 respectively). We're not even top 50 in either list; USA is 17th and 7th, for reference.
-
I'm sorry, I can't stop using electricity or gas to go to work because I need to eat and pay rent to live. Because that's the world those rich people made for everyone else.
Whether you do or not, other major corporations do, and while the money changes hands between a few dozen rich assholes, the planet burns and they laugh while you blame me.
You mean the products they designed to be as cheap as possible with no care on their impact on the environment, and then brainwashed the population through marketing to make us think we actually needed them?
You don't even need to brainwash. Just make sure their wage stays at a level where their survival depends on buying the cheapest of cheap, necessity will do the rest.
Sure. And what’s is the answer? Put in a cycle lane and people apparently go apeshit
Yeah, if people really wanted, they could make their own phones and all they own by hand. These damn socialists!
"We can't make our own phones, so there's literally nothing we can do!"
Do you have a plant based diet, or try to reduce meat consumption to the best of your abilities?
Do you walk or take public transport when you could walk?
Do you avoid buying things you do not need?
If you answered "yes" to all that, then congratulations! You are part of a different 1%, and you are also just arguing for the sake of arguing.
If you answered "no", then you're part of the problem. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but you are one cog that keeps the system going. The system isn't magical, other wordly, or some fundamental law of the universe. The system is people and their choices.
Yes, those people are part of the problem. But reality is that those people don't need to lead the change. There are too many literal individuals involved. Tackling the problem from the head down with regulations is much more efficient.
Blaming individuals for climate change is incredibly naive. Doesn't help anyone. No vegan will save the world. And no omnivore will destroy it.
said 8 billion people in unison
Only a handful of those 8 billions actually impact the climate on an immense scale though.
what would happen if everyone turned around and said 'you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i'm never going to be without my refillable bottle' how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said 'fuck it, I'm not producing plastic bottles anymore they're bad for the planet' but 8 billion people said 'oh ok, well we're still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles' the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
Yes. There's the possibility that people will actually change by acting in unison. But the probability for society to act in unison isn't really high. Just look at the world now. Some people can't even agree on weapons not being something you need to carry around 24/7. And you want them to agree on something that'd actually affect their daily life?
i could say the same thing about regulation, you really think if we can't even restrict guns you'll magic up the political will to ban something that would actually affect their daily life and earns so many companies so much money? coke pulls in 25b a year, they can afford all the lobbyists.
We need as many people as possible to have already moved away from them before we have the slightest chance at legislation.
The difference is that it doesn't need everyone to agree on one thing to make changes. "Boycott coke" requires a substantial mass to boycott one specific company. Demanding change from politics is much more broad and targets whole industries instead of specific things. Like bans on single use plastic, or pushes for EVs.
Apart from that, you most often have to create alternatives before people can abandon bad products. Could everyone stop using cars? Sure. Will it happen? No. But if we start to expand railway through politics, will more people abandon their car then cause they get around by train much more efficiently? Way more likely than without it.
I recommend Kurzgesagts video on the topic whether we can stop climate change. It goes exactly into this.
Yeah to those 3.
However, I wasn't intending to argue with someone with such a simplistic view of how the system works, anyway. If you think it's all up to the customer and the corps nor the system have no blame in comparison, it's just a lost cause, so sort yourself out.
If you think it’s all up to the customer and the corps nor the system have no blame in comparison
When did I or anyone else say companies and the government do not have any blame? Can you link me the comment and quote the relevant bit?
Those 7 corporations. Would those be companies whose products we keep buying?
The very first comment I replied to :). Shifting blame from the corps onto the customers. Once again, feel free to sort yourself out.
It's not shifting blame, it's pointing out they do not exist in isolation. You can put blame on the companies and still recognize that most people make no effort to avoid them, even when they have a choice.
I'll add on what someone said further above:
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
Permanently Deleted
Billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars of propaganda are just a coincidence.
And a century of research into more powerful and crushing propaganda. Just a coincidence.
Permanently Deleted
I did make the changes personally. Everything must be perfect now in the whole world! You’re welcome!
How ridiculous. We need to be honest about power.
Permanently Deleted
It would be easy to sacrifice those rich assholes in a slaughterhouse
And then others will rise to take their place. If the demand is there, someone will try to meet it. All long as the vast majority of people are not willing to make changes in their own life, then everything else is pointless, and it will all fail.
EDIT: Stealing another comment to add to this:
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
All long as the vast majority of people are not willing to make changes in their own life, then everything else is pointless, and it will all fail.
The "vast majority" can't make big changes in their life because they cannot afford to. The vast majority live either in poverty or paycheck to paycheck. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you are going to buy the cheapest stuff because that's all you can buy. And the cheapest stuff is usually that which is produced by the worst companies. "Voting with your wallet" is fine and dandy, but it doesn't work at all if there are not equal opportunities both for new businesses to flourish as healthy competition (without being squashed or bough by the already stablished corps) and for the customer to choose.
If we want to introduce actual change, it's faster and more effective to regulate in some manner the behaviours of those companies and the system that enables them, but of course, that is no easy task either.
Permanently Deleted
I'm copy pasting something because it's easier than writing it all again:
Though experiment:
Tomorrow is election day in your country. The stout environmentalists win control of the government and proceed to make the following changes:
-
Carbon tax, which increases the price of gas, which itself results in an increase in shipping anything. It also directly raises the price of anything that produces carbon in its manufacture process, such as anything made of plastic.
-
An end to meat subsidies - maybe even a tax on it - and an increase to subsidizing other types of farming.
-
A ban on single use plastics.
-
And anything else you think might be necessary.
Now the questions: How long until they get kicked out? How long until the protests and riots? How long until a new government undoes it all?
I’m assuming you’re not naive and you don’t live in a bubble. You should know the majority of people will not be fans of any of that; and with the way it usually goes and the pendulum swings, the government that follows it will be a far right one.
Most people can definitely afford to eat less meat and consume less in general, even if they can't afford to buy the most environmentally friendly things. And if they can't even afford that, they won't be able to afford the environmental policies either; you would need much deeper change than you would get by voting for a major political party.
also we need communities already experimenting with living like that or it'll be a mess, for example I've never eaten meat in my life and as a kid people couldn't even begin to grasp that it was possible - i'd constantly get asked 'what do you eat then?!' but I haven't heard that question in years, closest to it is likely to be 'what do you have at Christmas' then when i say nut roast they no long say 'whats that?' they say 'oh i had a great nut roast once...'
As a kid family holidays used to involve stopping at the only cafe that had something without meat on the menu, now even McDonalds has a wide vegan selection (in the uk). If someone had come out in the 80s and ended the meet subsidies then it would fail instantly, if it happened now there would certainly be a large backlash but the majority of people would be able to shift their consumption patterns without many problems - the policy might have a fighting chance. Even the meat-and-two guys that i know regularly have meet free dinners, it's really common to only eat meat once or twice a week.
Of course if i was made dictator for life i'd bring in sweeping changes that ban all the evil practices which make the meat industry possible, but that's not going to happen - what is going to happen is it's going to continue to get easier and cheaper to eat plant based diets, we're going to see endless headlines like 'largest dairy producer announces closure amid increasing popularity of oat milk', it'll shift from the beef industry having a hugely powerful lobby backed by billions of dollars to the beef lobby being Joe Rogan and Liverking yelling at clouds about how they need to consume flesh to feel manly. When someone suggests banning an awful and disgusting practice within the meat industry the general consensus will be 'yeah i can go without that if it's damaging to the environment and cruel to the animals' so policy change will actually be possible.
Just shrugging and saying 'it's not going to happen overnight so i'll just keep eating meat until it does' is absolutely mindless, the bath is never going to fill if the tap isn't turned on - eating without meat helps fund and sustain the systems which makes it possible, it helps make it easier for other people to also eat without meat -- even if it's only dropping meat where it's convenient it's helping take power from the meat industry, by making a conscious choice to avoid meat you're joining an increasing number of people who do the same which represents a sizeable portion of the market - the more that gets catered to the large it grows.
Yes it's true that no one person is going to change things but when we start to move in the right direction it makes it easier for others to move that way also. This is the same with reusable bottles, using public transport, refilling containers at the store instead of single use plastics...
-
We already are making individual sacrifices.
The problem is that the big polluters are not doing so.
Permanently Deleted
Most reasonable viewpoint, but it requires something of people, so of course it's downvoted.
Permanently Deleted
I did make the changes personally.
Then congratulations! You are part of a different kind of 1%, and you perfectly understand what the other user is saying and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
The reality is, most people don't want to make any changes. You can't change the system if the people themselves are not opening to change.
Though experiment:
Tomorrow is election day in your country. The stout environmentalists win control of the government and proceed to make the following changes:
-
Carbon tax, which increases the price of gas, which itself results in an increase in shipping anything. It also directly raises the price of anything that produces carbon in its manufacture process, such as anything made of plastic.
-
An end to meat subsidies - maybe even a tax on it - and an increase to subsidizing other types of farming.
-
A ban on single use plastics.
-
And anything else you think might be necessary.
Now the questions: How long until they get kicked out? How long until the protests and riots? How long until a new government undoes it all?
I'm assuming you're not naive and you don't live in a bubble. You should know the majority of people will not be fans of any of that; and with the way it usually goes and the pendulum swings, the government that follows it will be a far right one.
-
Cue that "badass" bird from Kurzgesagt 'voting with their wallet'.
Neoliberalism put us in this situation, so you know what will save us? More neoliberalism!
Show me how to stop using oil. SHOW ME.
What I, an individual, can do. And don't say: consume less. I need to eat to live. And don't say: vote for politicians. We're doing that and it isn't fast enough. So, what can an individual do to stop this? Go on. We're all waiting.
As an individual? Not much. As a small group of co-conspirators? Nothing that can be advocated for on a public forum, but there are a few options.
Wow you're so edgy
Permanently Deleted
So your solution is: austerity for the poors. Not for the rich. But we can slightly reduce our carbon footprint by not eating meat.
OK. This doesn't stop climate change. This just makes life harder and less pleasurable for the majority of people. This is what the rich push.
Permanently Deleted
The West going to plant based diets would significantly cut emissions.
Nowhere near enough to matter. I mentioned wealth because the vast majority of people are not "rich". And it's the rich who own the corporations that make these decisions that affect the climate and how fuels are used.
I.e. you are proposing austerity for the masses that will NOT stop climate change. You are the problem as you are shilling for big business. My point is there ISN'T anything individuals can do to stop climate change. We have to hold the rich and corporate owners accountable.
There's very little, without systemic change. But blaming the 7 companies is too easy, as well. Imagine, if you will - what happens if the 7 companies tomorrow simply say 'you convinced us - we will completely cease operations tomorrow'. Lots of dead people.
It's easy to blame them because it's true.
At this point, many of them are too stablished to just go away with the power of the wallet.
So, once again. If it's 7 companies to blame - do you think shutting them down tomorrow is the simple solution?
It may not be simple, but I'm sure nature wouldn't mind.
ok play it through a bit, so we shut down those 7 companies - i'm not sure which seven companies people are talking about but i assume it's related to this statistic Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions so let's just shut them all down...
mother nature breaths a sigh of relief as billions of people die because of the collapse of global infrastructure, world governments collapse, desperate conflicts erupt around the world with warlords taking over oil reserves and production facilities... the handful of dictators with working tanks and who only care about wealth and power subjugate the helpless and starving masses promising food and prosperity when victory comes...
Now the planet has been purged of everyone who actually cares about the climate, every available source of food and energy is stripped in a frantic battle for survival - how many people do you know that would let their kids freeze to death and how many people do you know that'd go out and chop down a tree to burn? A couple of months of winter and every tree in every city would be felled.
And there it is. That's the problem with the sort of naive idealists that frequent communities like this, fuck_cars, etc.
Their concerns are valid but their own ideas for how the world should work, how the problems should be solved are just as dangerous as the root of the problem. Maybe even moreso, in some cases.it's not entirely irrational though, if you're convinced you're in a frying pan and doom is imminent then it can feel like your only option is to jump out into the fire - and maybe it will work out better, maybe we'd land on a recently added log and spring to safety... personally i'm more about doing some parcour out the pan and along and the wooden handle or jumping onto the hand holding the spatula and burning through the flesh of the beast that got us into this dire situation.
By that i of course mean developing a powerful open-source movement and an educated community which is able to transition to better ways of living without hurting anyone, it's harder and far more complex but something we absolutely must strive for.
Hey bud, I'm the guy you asked what in my opinion would happen if companies halved their consumption over night. I just wanted you to know that I replied, but due to the fact that the mod of this place disagreed with something I had to say about cruise liners, I got banned and all my comments erased.
Good luck, and try not to disagree with the power tripper here.
Annoying. If you still have a copy - could you DM me?
I do not. The gist of my reply was just that cutting production by half doesn't have to happen over night. Setting a scaling goal of five years, for example, would give ample time for people to adapt and less environmentally strenuous alternatives to arise.
Anyway, I'm not trying to say that change doesn't have to come from the bottom as well. I'm also not super keen on continuing this conversation in the wake of being wholesale banned for talking about corporate interests. It just kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.
Thanks for listening.
Thank for taking part. I appreciate it - and I would have like to have explored this with you. I do appreciate batting ideas about with pople of differing viewpoint. I think we botgh have the same goal in mind
This is a black and white fallacy. The truth is that scaling down operations is much more effective and feasible than anything any one average person could do. Those 7 companies don't have to all shut down to achieve a fraction of the capacity that they produce emissions at.
It's such a bad faith take to say "oh yeah well if they just stopped millions dead". They don't have to stop existing to cut down the damage they're doing.
It absolutely is a fallacy - but then I think the "its just 7 companies" is a fallacy too. It gives the false impression that CO2 emissions can be tackled trivially simply - just sort those companies out, and we are sorted. We aren't. Setting aside for a moment, the criminal lobbying they have been doing, those companies are meeting current demand. Let's say they don't shut down - lets say they halve capacity tomorrow. What happens, in your opinion?