3 ms·

Yeah, screw poor people. They don't deserve toys anyway.

by dahfizz 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Poor people and avoiding environmental calamities are separate problems with separate solutions.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  If your solution for environmental issues is to make everything dramatically more expensive, they are no longer independent problems. What would the solution here be? Raise prices on everything containing plastic, but then give the bottom x% of the population money to offset the increased cost? That is a net effect of zero, with lots of inefficiency in the middle. Increasing prices only works as a way of changing behavior if people feel the effects of the increased prices. You cannot handwave away "poor people will get a separate solution" when your entire proposal is to make people lose money.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    One problem is the environmental effects of using a certain product, which in this situation are fossil fuels. The only solution to the problems caused by fossil fuels, from emissions to microplastics, is to decrease the use of fossil fuels period. In order to decrease the use of something, you can increase the price. Another problem is the income/wealth/opportunity gap between people around the world. This might be solved by transferring income/wealth/opportunity from those that have it to those that don’t. It does not need to be linked directly to taxes on fossil fuels, like most other government expenditures are not linked to specific taxes. This is not a net zero effect with lots of inefficiency. It’s actually the most efficient way I can think of, certainly more than hoping people sort and clean their recycling properly, ignoring the fact that recycling doesn’t even really work. The whole point is to make people feel the effects of increased prices. It will mean fewer plastic toys, and toys in general since they won’t be so cheap, less flying, smaller homes and lots since transportation for longer distances is more expensive. But that is the goal, to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Which all of our modern quality of life revolves around. And why, politically, there will not be a real solution to damage caused by fossil fuels in any relevant timeframe.
    - throwaway316943 6y ago
      Your solution sounds equivalent to creating a permanent economic depression. Good thing that anyone who implements this will be outcompeted by those who don’t.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        I’m well aware it would create an economic depression, hence my acknowledging that politically, a real solution is not possible to enact. Our economy and expectations of life are based on consuming as much as we can, and so we shall. The optimal move for each individual is to enjoy life as much as they can, regardless of the effects of their consumption. Whether or not it’s a good thing (for descendants) depends on how true predictions like these are: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

Yeah, screw poor people. They don't deserve toys anyway.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Poor people and avoiding environmental calamities are separate problems with separate solutions.

dahfizz 6y ago
If your solution for environmental issues is to make everything dramatically more expensive, they are no longer independent problems. What would the solution here be? Raise prices on everything containing plastic, but then give the bottom x% of the population money to offset the increased cost? That is a net effect of zero, with lots of inefficiency in the middle. Increasing prices only works as a way of changing behavior if people feel the effects of the increased prices. You cannot handwave away "poor people will get a separate solution" when your entire proposal is to make people lose money.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  One problem is the environmental effects of using a certain product, which in this situation are fossil fuels. The only solution to the problems caused by fossil fuels, from emissions to microplastics, is to decrease the use of fossil fuels period. In order to decrease the use of something, you can increase the price. Another problem is the income/wealth/opportunity gap between people around the world. This might be solved by transferring income/wealth/opportunity from those that have it to those that don’t. It does not need to be linked directly to taxes on fossil fuels, like most other government expenditures are not linked to specific taxes. This is not a net zero effect with lots of inefficiency. It’s actually the most efficient way I can think of, certainly more than hoping people sort and clean their recycling properly, ignoring the fact that recycling doesn’t even really work. The whole point is to make people feel the effects of increased prices. It will mean fewer plastic toys, and toys in general since they won’t be so cheap, less flying, smaller homes and lots since transportation for longer distances is more expensive. But that is the goal, to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Which all of our modern quality of life revolves around. And why, politically, there will not be a real solution to damage caused by fossil fuels in any relevant timeframe.
  - throwaway316943 6y ago
    Your solution sounds equivalent to creating a permanent economic depression. Good thing that anyone who implements this will be outcompeted by those who don’t.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I’m well aware it would create an economic depression, hence my acknowledging that politically, a real solution is not possible to enact. Our economy and expectations of life are based on consuming as much as we can, and so we shall. The optimal move for each individual is to enjoy life as much as they can, regardless of the effects of their consumption. Whether or not it’s a good thing (for descendants) depends on how true predictions like these are: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/