Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

I agree there's a place for critique of individual consumption patterns, but i think the logical conclusion of what you're setting up is the whole "vote with your [insert whatever currency] dollar" argument. In that line of thinking, it's up to the consumer to choose environmentally conscious option over the environmentally damaging option.

In my opinion that argument isn't very convincing, since our ability to chose how to consume (at least in a lot of areas of the world) is in the end limited by the options available, which are fundamentally prescribed by those top 100 companies (or the opt-out clause where you can just go sit in a corner not consuming anything which is totally fine but wouldn't work on any reasonable scale).

An example that i often think of is with technology. I think we can all agree that everyone needs access to the internet to some extent, however, the options made available (again, by those 100 companies, etc.) to the general public (there may be some extremely expensive / skills intensive alternatives but i'm going to ignore those since they aren't made available on a large scale) are just all bad..like just all of them are terrible for workers, terrible for the environment, etc.

This is true of many industries, most notably literally the entire medical and scientific research fields. Obviously there are some consumption patterns (especially food) where consumers have more actual options and therefore deserve more critique. But fundamentally, I think this artificial "choice" between products is really just non-existent for the vast majority of folks.

I guess the only real choice is between consuming vs. not consuming, and that's totally wrapped up in the culture in which people operate. Around the world, the drive to consume is built into our lives and a social pressure of that scale can't easily be undone by critiquing individuals for their consumption habits. We need to examine the underlying social disease that drive consumption and make consumption viable rather than attacking the symptoms (consumers).

I think another interesting assumption in your post is that the 100 companies exist because of unnecessary lifestyle choices. I would posit rather that companies (unchecked by free-market capitalist fuck-alls) realized that they could monetize fundamental human fears, insecurities, and weakness by socially pressuring people to make unnecessary lifestyle choices.

They're not enabling our behavior, their forcing it on us.

Anyway, contrapoints has a much explanation in her video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJW4-cOZt8A

FYI my guess is that on this site we're pretty much all the cat-girl.

9

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

I believe dollars can encourage people to do something but very bad at making people not do something. So I think the idea that the issue will be solved if people just buy a Prius or whatever is silly.

I don't like the statement above because it diverts the discussion of how most people in developed countries live unsustainable lives in favor of just blaming rich people rather than deeply critiquing society.

6

halfway_prince wrote

hmm, which statement are you referring to? Mine or your original statement? Cuz what you just said...

I don't like the statement above because it diverts the discussion of how most people in developed countries live unsustainable lives in favor of just blaming rich people rather than deeply critiquing society.

...seems in line with what i'm thinking. But my impression of your original post was that you were arguing for more critique of individual consumer culture?

5

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

I was just complaining about how common it is to hand wave criticisms of how people in the developed world live or statements of fact that most people in the developed world live lives that are physically impossible if half or more of the population acted like them by saying but its companies that provide the products. Both demand and supply have to be hurt for issues to be solved. I'm not saying that if people just don't buy products the problem will be solved. Issues such as climate change are so complex that a solution such as get rid of 100 companies won't fix the problem.

4

kin wrote

Hot take: the only possible critique to the individual is the apathy to destroy the life-devouring corporations

6

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Where did I say the companies should be destroyed? I just said don't use the fact that companies directly cause the problem to hand wave away anti civ critique of how individuals lifestyle patterns will cause massive harm corporation or no.

I the corporations get destroyed but the demand is still around someone else will keep doing the harm for consumers. Like destroying the companies and replacing them with socialist or communist methods of destroying the climate won't do anything bc the relatively rich population in developed countries still desires the good that require environmental destruction.

3

kin wrote

Where did I say the companies should be destroyed?

I think you didn't, the hot take is mine. I was kind of giving a tangent answer for the individual responsibilities.

I agree with you, and maybe following what are you saying whenever we think about individuals share in the destruction of life we associate it with our life experience, and even if live in the first world nothing compares to the impact of rich folks have, like you responded to bloodrose.

And my hot take finish in the destruction (when I say destruction I will accept the smashing of spooks too) I don't want to think about succeeding socialist states, not right now though.

5

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

oh also, did you read that vegan related comment I sent u. I was kinda curious to see what your response was. Though if u don't want to respond thats totally cool with me

4

kin wrote

I read your post when you published it, but I want to read it gain and give some thought. I have it saved, maybe will take a couple more days to come back, but I totally will.

4

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

oh ok. Honestly the more I learn about life on the global scale the more I believe many people who live in developed countries are rich folk. Not elon musk rich but like pretty damn rich for most people. For most people like like 15 dollars an hour in money equivalent in purchasing power is like rolling in the dough making shit tons of money. Though I still think 15 is not much and living on that little can be a struggle. But if you make more money than 90% of the population and think you have no ability to use your financial resources to solve problems we really must just wait on the ultra rich to save us. Which I don't believe but I'm also a nihilist in regards to climate so I don't think climate change will be solved.

3

kin wrote

Yeah, I know what you mean, but I particularly try to avoid "shame" or guilty-trip any of the people that are "average" in developed countries, I used to do it in my teens, like blame everything on the developed north and neocolonialism, and this lead to alienation.

But then, hypothetically, if we had anything like a reckoning after a worldwide disaster, a "desert" kind of event - people who were used to these living standards would suffer due to the lack of experience. And in another scenario, if they had to give up on all the privileges and consumerist lifestyle to save the world they surely wouldn't.

Something that keeping popping in my head rn is the graphic comparison of j.bezos wealth. Maybe we are far from the truth, we are dealing a system so complex that is beyond reason. Sometimes the proportion, global, of this discussion seems far away for me..

4

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Oh I don't really like shame either. Im more coming from a tone of people myself included cause have unsustainable lifestyles and we should be open about our actions. Not be ashamed but face the starch reality of it. The first step in solving problems is accepting the issues. If people spend their time justifying their lifestyle and avoiding all accountability for their actions it won't helpful.

I didn't mean to come off as saying that people in developed countries are shitty horrible people. I just don't like when people try to shy away from the brutal truth of things. I think things like guilt and shame are not helpful most times and especially in this scenario.

5

kin wrote

Yeah, I was born in LatinAmerica and now I live in the North. There is a fundamental difference in the social structure, even more if I consider the countryside. But then nowadays I know some communities that don't have clean water supplies or sewage system but have smartphones and are very active on internet. I think that the dystopia will go deep in the "slumfication" of the 1st World. If Elonmusk don't declare martian independence first

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

What do you mean by slumification of the first world?

3

kin wrote

I think there is a better word for this concept, but I never run into it.

But it's the idea that the "desert"ification and the precarious economic conditions (neoliberalism) will contribute to great social degradation in the first world standards and to the creation of a periphery in the Sprawl similar to the third world slums. People who once lived well will know what despair is.

But this will take time, maybe a generation or two. And people will blame migration, and other nonsense.

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Oh makes sense. That's kinda what I was guessing but wasn't quite sure. So it's a decent term. Thx for the explanation.

4

RedSimone wrote

Companies just answer to demand. So as long as people want and buy stuff from them, they make profit.

1