this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38977 readers
2157 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The cover photo is a jet plane but remember, US$140,000/year is the threshold they're quoting in the article so the reality is more like a decent car or two and a house in a nicer area will drop you into that range.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

1% of the world's population is 80,000,000 people.

There is too much variance in a population that large to make any reasonable statements or suggest adjustments.

We already know that people living on pennies per day aren't the problem.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But shouldn't it be easier to adjust the lifestyle of 80 million people rather than 8 billion?

And there are a few easy ones almost everyone in the 1% can chip in: reduce meat consumption, don't fly, buy local and don't buy single use items

[–] nicetomeetyouIMVEGAN@lemmings.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The problem here is that this research works from a Capitalist understanding of responsibility. That is to say that Besos is responsible for the emissions of Amazon, musk for space x, etc. Which means absolutely nothing. It's a bullshit number.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How else would you account for it? Am I responsible for 0.001% of Amazon's CO2 emissions because I order sometimes from them?

[–] nicetomeetyouIMVEGAN@lemmings.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I don't really have knowledge nor control over how green Amazon's delivery is. If you shift responsibility to a party that cannot make well-informed decisions, you kind of end up with the mess we currently have, no?

The whole idea of money not having a memory is a huge scheme of capitalists to get out of any kind of responsibility.

[–] nicetomeetyouIMVEGAN@lemmings.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You are the person to set in motion the apparatus necessary to accomplish the task that you wanted to be accomplished.

Yes you live in this late stage capitalist hellscape with the rest of us, but that doesn't absolve you from being critical and making the best decisions in it.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The point is that the decision can't be good because no company discloses the environmental impact of a single product. So even if I had choices, I can only choose based on price. My only hope is that efficient logistics are also cheaper and better for the environment.

[–] nicetomeetyouIMVEGAN@lemmings.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes as an overarching critique that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. My problem is that this doesn't absolve us from our responsibility. If choice A leaves trails of chemicals behind but costs less than B that leaves purity behind. I can definitely critique people who choose to get A.

Mainly because the other option is to choose to not consume. For example veganism doesn't apply to what you're saying. It's a conscious decision based on ethical values. The same thing can be true for people who don't use cars.

And even if there is a choice between lesser evils, it's still a choice of consequence.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I already don't use a car and I eat vegetarian. I've got the "individual choices" covered. The problem is that at some point you're standing in the store googling every single product and their producer to find some kind of issue with it so you can't buy it. That's not a sustainable way to live.

[–] nicetomeetyouIMVEGAN@lemmings.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Okay but this also doesn't absolve you from your responsibility. At some point you're going to make a decision about where your personal boundaries in weighing your options are. And if you're not driving and eating (a lot) less animal products you're further ahead of the curve than others. But deciding when you find things unsustainable, it is still another decision.

Most people don't feel or don't see a positive difference from their choice. So they let go of their responsibilities because of it. If there is no positive impact it doesn't matter what they do, is their thinking.

While when you look in the supermarket now compared to ten years ago... Meat substitutes, vegan products, plant milks are abundant. So, things are changing, the choices people make are influential. It just isn't immediate. But even within capitalism the market is responding to changes, from the personal choices of people like you and me. It's slow and tedious, but things change.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago

You know why it's slow though, right? Specifically the meat industry is highly subsidized and they can undersell any vegan substitute to destroy their margin in the still small and slowly growing market. Even though meat production should clearly be more expensive than some vegan substitute.

Look: Consumer can either buy a product or they don't. I can't make producers stop using plastic for packaging. I can only not buy their products until some producer may think of a plastic free packaging. Change always comes from the top, not from the bottom.

What you're asking for is that consumer somehow know the details of how the products are produced. For example whether the chocolate they buy is from child slaves or not. Sure, you can read about it, but is it clearly declared in the store whether that specific chocolate is child slave free or not? The only action they can take is not buy the chocolate. Or they ask. The store clerk doesn't know better either. The producer doesn't have to disclose this, responds with a canned response that doesn't say yes or no.

Chocolate is one thing. That's not a necessity for every day life. But cars in the US. Smart phones almost everywhere. If you don't have them, you cannot participate in life. And we need to eat too.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Amazon has the best logistics infrastructure of any company in the world. It is literally the most efficient system of moving goods ever known to mankind.

You are responsible for the carbon footprint of things you purchase, yes. This is why things like carbon taxes with dividends are such good ideas.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You are responsible for the carbon footprint of things you purchase

no, you're not.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Well, you're not, but your parents are.

Whoever actually buys the thing is.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

wrong. the pollution from production is the fault of the producers. they can choose to do otherwise.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Gotta love commie logic lol

Have fun on Thanksgiving break.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I work at a corporation. We don't do environmentally the right thing because leadership doesn't care and operation needs to be cheap. Whenever I suggest something it falls on deaf ears.

It's very obvious who can decide to change something in a company.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Weird. I work at a corporation and our entire model is built on sustainability

Not sure how this is relevant to any of this discussion tho

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago

The point is that neither employees nor consumer can be responsible for the decisions of capitalists. And they aren't held responsible by anybody, not even by normal people like you. Come on.. connecting points here with you.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think the answer is yes.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Poor Besos cannot decide what and how he delivers. He just needs to deliver to anybody who posts an order on the website someone put up on the internet. Kinda like Santa?

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He can decide, and his middle managers can decide, and you can also decide by choosing to shop from somewhere else.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How do I know which shop is the best? I don't. Neoliberal fantasies only work with an informed consumer, just like democracies only work with educated voters.

That's why you can't make consumers responsible for the emissions the suppliers emit.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The information is out there if you wanna find it. The truth is most people don't care, though. That's on us.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago

Misinformation is also out there unfortunately. Can't believe for instance people are still debating whether plant-based diets are better for the climate or not.

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is why I don’t believe people when they say “we don’t have an overpopulation problem, we have a distribution problem”

Because if everyone in the world had my lifestyle, we would be emitting an insane amount of carbon. And I don’t want my standard of living to go down, and in fact I want everyone to live as nicely as I do. So clearly we need fewer people.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The overpopulation isn't happening in the 1%.

It makes jack shit of a difference to the environment if there is one billion or two billion starving people. They're not the ones burning carbon or eating steak.

[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

But we want to stop those people from starving. And if we ideally lived in a world where no one is starving, emissions would go up astronomically.