memes

10428 readers

2453 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civil

No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politics

This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent reposts

Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No bots

No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads

No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

!tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
!linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
!comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website

1118

Choices (slrpnk.net)

submitted 22 hours ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to c/memes@lemmy.world

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 25 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I'll GLADLY buy the alternative that doesn't do those things. When it exists. One day.

[–] IMALlama@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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 2 points 5 hours 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.