• someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    18 days 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.

    • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      18 days 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.

      • IMALlama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        18 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            17 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days 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.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        17 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days 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.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 days ago

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