8 ms·

My dad bought me one of these bulky 12 speed razors, 5 years ago. I've used 1 cartridge from it about 6 months ago. I hadn't shaved my face since before they ca

My dad bought me one of these bulky 12 speed razors, 5 years ago. I've used 1 cartridge from it about 6 months ago. I hadn't shaved my face since before they came out. I use a clipper to keep it trimmed. Why use any disposable product whatsoever. His point on single use plastics is spot on. I know a lot of people that love to lecture me about my moralistic views, the types of people who believe in overpopulation and are sad about the plastic in the ocean, not a single one of them pays any mind to the packaging of anything they buy. I do, and I'm not even one of those people. My "footprint" is probably less than 10% of most peoples, and I don't even care the way they do. People consume too much disposable crap. People act like they have to buy what's on offer. People are convinced they're helpless in the face of corporations. Start refusing to buy things and stop making excuses and until then you should feel ashamed to lecture anyone about anything.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> until then you should feel ashamed to lecture anyone about anything I'd take it a step further and say -- just do what you feel is best, what matches your morals, etc, and skip the lecture in any case. 99% of what is wrong with social media has to do with people lecturing the world as if their own personal opinion deserves special consideration. Focus on doing, not talking about it.
hattmall 4y ago
Reminds me of George W Bush vs Al Gore in that Bush had a modest ranch house with all the eco friendly features and Gore, the environmentalalist had some 20,000+ foot megamansion.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Yea... it was unfortunate that so many people focused on that instead of the general problem and now we are barreling toward a very bad outcome. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what wealthy people do - they're going to be just fine regardless of what the rest of us do, except that if we kick and scream about their big houses and refuse to do anything we just wind up inheriting the problem and they're still right where they started. I somewhat feel this way about abortion - like I can afford to move my family or fly a family member somewhere to get one. Can you? Might want to think about that. The other issue is that focusing on something like this megamansion (as grotesque as it is anyway - seriously a lot of these rich people are just tasteless losers) leads down to a never ending condition where you just never do enough to satisfy people who have no interest in changing their habits anyway. If Gore sold his megamansion they'd say "hey you are still flying", if he stopped flying they'd say "hey you're still driving a car", if he stopped driving a car they say "hey you're not growing your own vegetables", if he started growing his own vegetables they'd say "hey the tools you use come from a carbon emitting supply chain" and if he stopped using tools and made his own they'd just keep on and on and on forever until we get global warming anyway and so many people are screwed. There's no genuine interest in solving the problem, they just want to distract you.
  - gernb 4y ago
    people need to set examples. "Do as I say not as I do" it's not about distraction, it's about showing you're sincere. If you're like "save the planet" out of one side and on the other planning your 5th airflight you don't "actually" care. it's like asking poor countries to bare all the burden of climate change and rich countries doing little. "I've got mine and sorry you don't but too bad, you're not allowed to have it" is not going to convince anyone except to follow your actions, not your words
    - ericmay 4y ago
      I don’t disagree. But at the end of the day it’s our problem. So it doesn’t matter what they do.
    - ajmurmann 4y ago
      I think the difference comes down to a question of leadership style and effectiveness vs correct policy making. For example I used to be 100% vegetarian for ~5 years due to ethical concerns. The reason I stopped is that I am pretty sure that no single animal's life got spared because of me not eating meat. However, I'd immediately have voted "yes" to ban all meat eating. If I had run for office on that platform nobody would have elected me because they perceived me as insincere. Not understanding that might be bad leadership rather than actual insincerity.
  - PaulKeeble 4y ago
    Greta Thunberg the way she travels to the conferences is admirable, she genuinely lives what she is talking about and it is a stark contrast to every single politician that turns up to a climate change conference with a giant team in a plane and lives extravagant lives. Its not about the complete abolition of everything its about the hypocrisy of being one of the biggest polluters in a country let alone the world while suggesting others on substantially less consumption drastically change their lives when they are least financially able to do so.
    - jokethrowaway 4y ago
      Not sure if it's sarcasm? Greta's travels are famous for looking eco friendly while not being so: https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Greta-Thunbergs-Not-So-Little-Carbon-Footprint.html https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Greta-Th...
- Bud 4y ago
  The bad-faith narratives about Al Gore's personal life were hilariously wrong and offensive and irrelevant 25-30 years ago. I guess some people still haven't caught on. Al Gore was right about, well, basically everything he said on major policy issues. BTW, that supposed "megamansion"? It's a 5-bedroom home, really quite modest by the standards of today's billionaires. It's basically what you'd assume a former Senator and Vice President might have. Efforts to paint this as somehow offensive are obviously in bad faith.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that everything he said on major policy issues was correct... seems like that'd a lot of room to be wrong there, but he was sure as hell right that global warming was real and needed to be addressed. The attacks on him for his house were just to distract from his message. He also paid extra cash to his utility company to get blocks of "green power" produced using renewable sources to help offset the extra power his home consumed each year.
    - Bud 4y ago
      He was right about the Internet, too, very very early, and gets zero credit for it.
avgcorrection 4y ago
A lot of corporate propaganda has gone into this line that the consumers are the most to blame for “disposable crap”.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  They are. You don't have to buy any of it.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    It’s not a multi-billion industry on account of it not working. This individualistic refrain doesn’t make sense in the context of a critique of the overall system. Maybe as advice on how to be a self-flagelating low-eco-impact consumer or how to better master your personal finances. But ultimately it’s just an excuse for corporations to do the usual thing because the buck stops with the consumer (and corporations can just claim that they are just fulfilling a need that someone else would fill in their stead; they only sell the proverbial guns, they don’t pull the trigger).
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      But it's true. If people don't buy it they won't make it. We have all the power, not them.
      - oblio 4y ago
        They fight back. Laws, propaganda, tradition, abusing human weaknesses like addictions. Our power is diffuse and slow. They're Javelin anti tank weapons pinpoint targeting our weakest points. The fight is not fair and they're winning.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Part of the point of this article is that more economical and environmentally friendly alternatives have been made harder for consumers to find. There's nothing wrong with shaving or drinking tea, yet when we go down to the shops to get the things we need, all our choices are limited to plastic disposable razors and pre-filled plastic tea bags. We don't always have the choice to vote with our wallets because the alternatives aren't equally accessible.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Start refusing to buy things and stop making excuses and until then you should feel ashamed to lecture anyone about anything. This does not make sense to me. The single biggest consumption item is living in a detached single family house with yard space (due to knock on effects of everything you consume having to travel further, including the people in your house). I know this, and I can advocate for change such that it people are incentivized to live more densely and consume less space (drastically higher fossil fuel taxes). But that does not mean I should give up my enjoyment of resources. If everyone else is going to consume, then so am I. But if the collective decides to sacrifice, then I am signaling I am willing to also. There is no reason for someone to not live it up if the collective is not going to also sacrifice.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Like all environmental discussions, they always degrade into whatever moral failure someone cares about. Throwing out 500 lbs of unnecessary plastic packaging has nothing to do with single family houses.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I think environmental damage scales directly with consumption of energy, whether it be to move mass or manufacture plastic. The sheer amount of consumption due to living far away from each other, with all the human mass, water, fuel, trash, machines, food, and everything else that has to move because of the distance people are from each other dwarfs everything else. There is no “sustainable” world and a lifestyle that allows 8 billion people to have their own cars, fly to island vacations, and live in suburbia, with current energy transformation technology. Doing all the other things is a rounding error. At the end of the day, the physics is simple. Moving mass a certain distance takes a certain amount of energy. Our current method of harnessing that energy results in a lot of byproducts, and we have yet to find alternatives with sufficiently better properties. Either we find that breakthrough technology, or reduce the mass and/or distance it is being moved.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > There is no reason for someone to not live it up if the collective is not going to also sacrifice. If everyone thought as you do saying "Until everyone agrees to sacrifice, I won't either" then no one would ever sacrifice. Leading by example on the other hand is a proven way to help inspire change and can help avoid adding to harms caused by people who choose to live selfishly as long as they can point to anyone else also being selfish. Housing is a subject full of complications and increased population density causes problems for the environment as well. Personally, I don't care of you live in a McMansion or a shanty town. I don't care of you buy the plastic razor with 47 blades or whatever they are up to now or switch to double bladed razors, but don't blame your selfishness on "the collective". You have no power over what they do, and they have no power over what you do. You alone are responsible for deciding for yourself what you're willing to give up in order to help the environment.
colechristensen 4y ago
I eat the carbon equivalent of about a half pound of plastic a day, the result of which either ends up in the atmosphere or in the ground. Whatever packaging I do use (and I don’t go out of my way to avoid it) is a rounding error compared to what goes through me for basic life. Most of the resources used are in the supply chain anyway. The most environmentally friendly thing I’ve done in my life is delay replacing my totaled car.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  Carbon from animals? That carbon was already part of the carbon cycle (name?), unlike carbon from petroleum sources. Am I misunderstanding you?
  - wruza 4y ago
    Is that cycle natural? More people means more for-food animals, more petroleum on growing and logistics, doesn’t it. Everything depends on everything, there is no clear end of chain. Humans don’t naturally starve at scale anymore except in few fucked up regions.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      More people means more of that carbon locked up in biomass, in the form of humans as well as animal and plant food.
Bud 4y ago
I started using Braun electric razors about 34 years ago. This turns out to have been a good choice. They are lasting around 16 years each, on average. I recently had to get a new one; only the 3rd one I have had to buy in all that time. No packaging used up for all kinds of shaving soap or cream or other products, no packaging or plastic or metal used up to buy thousands of blades, etc.
- bbojan 4y ago
  I've been using an electric razor for years, too, and I agree that they are much cheaper and more environmentally friendly. The only reason I've had to replace them so far is that it becomes impossible to buy replacement blades and foil. So I have to buy a model that is only superficially different, instead of just replacing the expendables.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    They do this on purpose, create non-interchangable disposable parts and EOL the system by ending manufacture of those parts. You can do what the article says and just buy a double bladed razor, more environmentally friendly because you don't get stuck in this trap, the disposable part is just steel, it's easily manufactured and not proprietary. Or, you can buy the disposable parts for your electric shaver with the shaver, keeping in mind the actual, working lifespan of the device. Or, you can use a straight razor and a strop, no disposable parts necessary.
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  But you still need to replace the bits that do the cutting.
  - Bud 4y ago
    You do, but I have consistently found that you actually hardly ever have to do that, if you keep them clean. Certainly way, way less than the manufacturer insists that you have to. In any case, whether you agree with me or not about this detail, it's vastly less use of throwaway plastics, less use of metal, less energy use from manufacturing and delivering all that stuff, and of course, way cheaper.
vlunkr 4y ago
Are you sure you're not one of those people?

rootusrootus 4y ago

> until then you should feel ashamed to lecture anyone about anything I'd take it a step further and say -- just do what you feel is best, what matches your morals, etc, and skip the lecture in any case. 99% of what is wrong with social media has to do with people lecturing the world as if their own personal opinion deserves special consideration. Focus on doing, not talking about it.

hattmall 4y ago

Reminds me of George W Bush vs Al Gore in that Bush had a modest ranch house with all the eco friendly features and Gore, the environmentalalist had some 20,000+ foot megamansion.

ericmay 4y ago
Yea... it was unfortunate that so many people focused on that instead of the general problem and now we are barreling toward a very bad outcome. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what wealthy people do - they're going to be just fine regardless of what the rest of us do, except that if we kick and scream about their big houses and refuse to do anything we just wind up inheriting the problem and they're still right where they started. I somewhat feel this way about abortion - like I can afford to move my family or fly a family member somewhere to get one. Can you? Might want to think about that. The other issue is that focusing on something like this megamansion (as grotesque as it is anyway - seriously a lot of these rich people are just tasteless losers) leads down to a never ending condition where you just never do enough to satisfy people who have no interest in changing their habits anyway. If Gore sold his megamansion they'd say "hey you are still flying", if he stopped flying they'd say "hey you're still driving a car", if he stopped driving a car they say "hey you're not growing your own vegetables", if he started growing his own vegetables they'd say "hey the tools you use come from a carbon emitting supply chain" and if he stopped using tools and made his own they'd just keep on and on and on forever until we get global warming anyway and so many people are screwed. There's no genuine interest in solving the problem, they just want to distract you.
- gernb 4y ago
  people need to set examples. "Do as I say not as I do" it's not about distraction, it's about showing you're sincere. If you're like "save the planet" out of one side and on the other planning your 5th airflight you don't "actually" care. it's like asking poor countries to bare all the burden of climate change and rich countries doing little. "I've got mine and sorry you don't but too bad, you're not allowed to have it" is not going to convince anyone except to follow your actions, not your words
  - ericmay 4y ago
    I don’t disagree. But at the end of the day it’s our problem. So it doesn’t matter what they do.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    I think the difference comes down to a question of leadership style and effectiveness vs correct policy making. For example I used to be 100% vegetarian for ~5 years due to ethical concerns. The reason I stopped is that I am pretty sure that no single animal's life got spared because of me not eating meat. However, I'd immediately have voted "yes" to ban all meat eating. If I had run for office on that platform nobody would have elected me because they perceived me as insincere. Not understanding that might be bad leadership rather than actual insincerity.
- PaulKeeble 4y ago
  Greta Thunberg the way she travels to the conferences is admirable, she genuinely lives what she is talking about and it is a stark contrast to every single politician that turns up to a climate change conference with a giant team in a plane and lives extravagant lives. Its not about the complete abolition of everything its about the hypocrisy of being one of the biggest polluters in a country let alone the world while suggesting others on substantially less consumption drastically change their lives when they are least financially able to do so.
  - jokethrowaway 4y ago
    Not sure if it's sarcasm? Greta's travels are famous for looking eco friendly while not being so: https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Greta-Thunbergs-Not-So-Little-Carbon-Footprint.html https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Greta-Th...
Bud 4y ago
The bad-faith narratives about Al Gore's personal life were hilariously wrong and offensive and irrelevant 25-30 years ago. I guess some people still haven't caught on. Al Gore was right about, well, basically everything he said on major policy issues. BTW, that supposed "megamansion"? It's a 5-bedroom home, really quite modest by the standards of today's billionaires. It's basically what you'd assume a former Senator and Vice President might have. Efforts to paint this as somehow offensive are obviously in bad faith.
- autoexec 4y ago
  I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that everything he said on major policy issues was correct... seems like that'd a lot of room to be wrong there, but he was sure as hell right that global warming was real and needed to be addressed. The attacks on him for his house were just to distract from his message. He also paid extra cash to his utility company to get blocks of "green power" produced using renewable sources to help offset the extra power his home consumed each year.
  - Bud 4y ago
    He was right about the Internet, too, very very early, and gets zero credit for it.

avgcorrection 4y ago

A lot of corporate propaganda has gone into this line that the consumers are the most to blame for “disposable crap”.

betwixthewires 4y ago
They are. You don't have to buy any of it.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  It’s not a multi-billion industry on account of it not working. This individualistic refrain doesn’t make sense in the context of a critique of the overall system. Maybe as advice on how to be a self-flagelating low-eco-impact consumer or how to better master your personal finances. But ultimately it’s just an excuse for corporations to do the usual thing because the buck stops with the consumer (and corporations can just claim that they are just fulfilling a need that someone else would fill in their stead; they only sell the proverbial guns, they don’t pull the trigger).
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    But it's true. If people don't buy it they won't make it. We have all the power, not them.
    - oblio 4y ago
      They fight back. Laws, propaganda, tradition, abusing human weaknesses like addictions. Our power is diffuse and slow. They're Javelin anti tank weapons pinpoint targeting our weakest points. The fight is not fair and they're winning.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Part of the point of this article is that more economical and environmentally friendly alternatives have been made harder for consumers to find. There's nothing wrong with shaving or drinking tea, yet when we go down to the shops to get the things we need, all our choices are limited to plastic disposable razors and pre-filled plastic tea bags. We don't always have the choice to vote with our wallets because the alternatives aren't equally accessible.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> Start refusing to buy things and stop making excuses and until then you should feel ashamed to lecture anyone about anything. This does not make sense to me. The single biggest consumption item is living in a detached single family house with yard space (due to knock on effects of everything you consume having to travel further, including the people in your house). I know this, and I can advocate for change such that it people are incentivized to live more densely and consume less space (drastically higher fossil fuel taxes). But that does not mean I should give up my enjoyment of resources. If everyone else is going to consume, then so am I. But if the collective decides to sacrifice, then I am signaling I am willing to also. There is no reason for someone to not live it up if the collective is not going to also sacrifice.

Spooky23 4y ago
Like all environmental discussions, they always degrade into whatever moral failure someone cares about. Throwing out 500 lbs of unnecessary plastic packaging has nothing to do with single family houses.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I think environmental damage scales directly with consumption of energy, whether it be to move mass or manufacture plastic. The sheer amount of consumption due to living far away from each other, with all the human mass, water, fuel, trash, machines, food, and everything else that has to move because of the distance people are from each other dwarfs everything else. There is no “sustainable” world and a lifestyle that allows 8 billion people to have their own cars, fly to island vacations, and live in suburbia, with current energy transformation technology. Doing all the other things is a rounding error. At the end of the day, the physics is simple. Moving mass a certain distance takes a certain amount of energy. Our current method of harnessing that energy results in a lot of byproducts, and we have yet to find alternatives with sufficiently better properties. Either we find that breakthrough technology, or reduce the mass and/or distance it is being moved.
autoexec 4y ago
> There is no reason for someone to not live it up if the collective is not going to also sacrifice. If everyone thought as you do saying "Until everyone agrees to sacrifice, I won't either" then no one would ever sacrifice. Leading by example on the other hand is a proven way to help inspire change and can help avoid adding to harms caused by people who choose to live selfishly as long as they can point to anyone else also being selfish. Housing is a subject full of complications and increased population density causes problems for the environment as well. Personally, I don't care of you live in a McMansion or a shanty town. I don't care of you buy the plastic razor with 47 blades or whatever they are up to now or switch to double bladed razors, but don't blame your selfishness on "the collective". You have no power over what they do, and they have no power over what you do. You alone are responsible for deciding for yourself what you're willing to give up in order to help the environment.

colechristensen 4y ago

I eat the carbon equivalent of about a half pound of plastic a day, the result of which either ends up in the atmosphere or in the ground. Whatever packaging I do use (and I don’t go out of my way to avoid it) is a rounding error compared to what goes through me for basic life. Most of the resources used are in the supply chain anyway. The most environmentally friendly thing I’ve done in my life is delay replacing my totaled car.

avgcorrection 4y ago
Carbon from animals? That carbon was already part of the carbon cycle (name?), unlike carbon from petroleum sources. Am I misunderstanding you?
- wruza 4y ago
  Is that cycle natural? More people means more for-food animals, more petroleum on growing and logistics, doesn’t it. Everything depends on everything, there is no clear end of chain. Humans don’t naturally starve at scale anymore except in few fucked up regions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    More people means more of that carbon locked up in biomass, in the form of humans as well as animal and plant food.

Bud 4y ago

I started using Braun electric razors about 34 years ago. This turns out to have been a good choice. They are lasting around 16 years each, on average. I recently had to get a new one; only the 3rd one I have had to buy in all that time. No packaging used up for all kinds of shaving soap or cream or other products, no packaging or plastic or metal used up to buy thousands of blades, etc.

bbojan 4y ago
I've been using an electric razor for years, too, and I agree that they are much cheaper and more environmentally friendly. The only reason I've had to replace them so far is that it becomes impossible to buy replacement blades and foil. So I have to buy a model that is only superficially different, instead of just replacing the expendables.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  They do this on purpose, create non-interchangable disposable parts and EOL the system by ending manufacture of those parts. You can do what the article says and just buy a double bladed razor, more environmentally friendly because you don't get stuck in this trap, the disposable part is just steel, it's easily manufactured and not proprietary. Or, you can buy the disposable parts for your electric shaver with the shaver, keeping in mind the actual, working lifespan of the device. Or, you can use a straight razor and a strop, no disposable parts necessary.
LorenPechtel 4y ago
But you still need to replace the bits that do the cutting.
- Bud 4y ago
  You do, but I have consistently found that you actually hardly ever have to do that, if you keep them clean. Certainly way, way less than the manufacturer insists that you have to. In any case, whether you agree with me or not about this detail, it's vastly less use of throwaway plastics, less use of metal, less energy use from manufacturing and delivering all that stuff, and of course, way cheaper.

vlunkr 4y ago

Are you sure you're not one of those people?