What is it were missing? And how can we fit more pieces together to find out what to do?

  • DankZedong @lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The last point is just chauvinistic crap. Ask those people to get a few random objects in their house to see where it is made. ‘Them over there’ don’t do it because they need to make our products for dirt cheap wages in horrific conditions.

    Also, individual reduction of consumerism is going to do jack shit when the top 100 companies produce 70% of all global emissions. And I say this as a person who DOES reduce as much as possible.

    • tissek@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you. Except that if enough individuals cut their consumption it will make an impact. Less demand so less would be produced and less corporate emissions. But individuals in general aren’t inclined to do that. Exactly because each individual’s contribution is so small. So it has to be done on a large scale.

      But then I’ve given up hope that climate change will be stopped with manageable impact and all efforts to that goal is pretty meaningless. Instead we must work to handle the impact of climate change. Making sure that for example water will still be available where it is needed, that water wars won’t happen. Change of crops for new climate, better drought/flooding resistance for example. And peoples’ habitation and lively hood when sea levels rise. How to handle periodic flooding of river deltas and their increased salination.

      That discussion I feel often is overlooked.

      • relay@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t give the capitalists money for crap you don’t need, it only inflates their profits. Sure, that is fine for you if you are not so poor that you can afford the more ethical option.

        To whatever extent you can make a choice to do something good on a small scale, is that good, probably. However an even greater good would be to seize power from the capitalist forces of planetary destruction to build an ecologically sustainable economy.

        Let Mother earth speak to us in the howl of the hurricanes, the dry heats of the summers and the strange destabilization of the polar vortex. Use what she says as a point to build an ecological economy or she might not let our species survive.

        • neanderthal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, that is fine for you if you are not so poor that you can afford the more ethical option.

          ethical costing more than unethical is simply not always true. A bicycle is cheaper than a small car. A small car is cheaper than a canyonero. I’m in the US, I know bicycles aren’t feasible in most parts due to car dependent design, but nobody is forced to commute to an office in the suburbs in a monster truck.

          Poultry is cheaper than beef. Rice+beans+lentils is cheaper than meat.

          A reasonable house is cheaper than a mcmansion.

          • relay@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not wrong to do any of those things, however systemic change would have a larger impact. I’d rather have stricter laws making it illegal to have factory farms and all beef be grass fed to better use the land to produce food rather than growing crops to feed them. That would be an efficient means of turning grasslands into food without exhausting the water supply. Yes there would be less beef, but this would be a net positive for the world if we did this.

            Its not wrong to try do do these little things yourself.