this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
48 points (84.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43941 readers
494 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Giving money to Amazon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Google .etc

It's like, you can't have an argument for price gouging, when you're enabling them by spending. If people were smart, they'd stop giving them money 10 - 15 years ago and they'd be right now, trying to reconstruct so they can be more economically friendly than how they are now.

(page 2) 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago

Thinking that "being smart" means shit. We need to realize that the people who run things aren't necessarily smart. Presidents aren't necessarily smart. Professors aren't necessarily smart.

And being smart doesn't mean you're good. Evil smart is a nightmare, because destroying is so much easier than building.

What would we do if we were good? Now that's a question.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The obvious answer is fossil fuels, right? Few people want to cook the climate, they just can't quite fathom something that abstract and slow-moving, so they do it anyway.

Less obviously, feeding all our most sensitive data to random websites and apps. Again, the threat just doesn't look enough like a sabre-tooth tiger.

[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fossil fuels is kinda a prisoner's dilemma issue. Everyone cooperating to save the planet is obviously ideal, but realistically there are always going to be companies/countries that won't. And as long as it's cheaper to not be environmentally friendly, there's always going to be someone taking that option.

For example, lets say country A passes new regulations on manufacturing to be more environmentally friendly. The new regulations take the country's manufacturing from low pollution to very low pollution. However the increase in cost causes many companies to stop manufacturing locally, and instead outsource their manufacturing to country B with low regulation and moderate pollution during manufacturing. The end result is more money leaving the local economy of country A, and increased global pollution.

It's a similar prisoner's dilemma for the individual companies involved. If your competitor is able to make their product for cheaper because their process is less environmentally friendly, then they can undercut you and put you out of business.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Few people want to cook the climate, they just can’t quite fathom something that abstract and slow-moving, so they do it anyway.

I don't think the problem is that people are unaware. Even people who believe they are against cooking the environment have other rationalisations, like "the economy isn't able to shut down all the coal plants yet, it'll collapse". Propaganda is a hell of a drug.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No, it's not that people are unaware, or even don't believe it, it's that they can't reason about it strategically

It's spending now to save later. If that's about military spending or emergency services everyone gets paying taxes for it, but words are as far as most will go to stop nonspecific far future weather. Even when people talk about the situation with climate change, you hear them frame it in moral terms instead of practical terms.

Case in point: Canada has a carbon tax, and a majority want to get rid of it. Denialism is not a prominent part of the campaign, just the fact that it costs something. And not even much, and it's all given back in refunds - doesn't matter, the extra gas cost people will bear is zero.

Buying and carrying guns.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago

Probably leave religion in the past, recognize the oligarchy as the source of most of our woes, legislate for a maximum income, laws to make home ownership by companies illegal, begin providing universal basic income, stop caring about the boarder and just let people in, decriminalize drugs and prostitution, criminalize bribes to politicians, break up the obvious monopolies, nationalize internet access, expand voter access and encourage everyone to vote, release prisoners from prison for non-violent offenses, close private prisons and reform tge whole court system, structure fines for laws broken as a percentage of income making them a deterent even for tge wealthy, ties minimum wage to inflation or tge gdp in some way so it can keep up without further legislation, open a new department that is not police to handle most calls more ethically, cap income within a company so no one can make more than X times more than any other employee of the company, simplify tge tax codes to close most loopholes, empower tge IRS to send citizens a bill instead of paying turbo tax, prevent civil forfeture, remove state ability to fine individuals without an income for not paying fees, expand disability benefits so you can have more than $3k in liquid assets and still get benefits, and so on.

These were all just off the top of my head.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago

Payday loans.

The smart part is realizing the havoc payday loans inflict on one's finances.

load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί