3 ms·

>Why do we buy so much single-use packaging, so many things that are unrepairable, too costly to repair, hard to disassemble, or that have externalities that we

by veave 3y ago

>Why do we buy so much single-use packaging, so many things that are unrepairable, too costly to repair, hard to disassemble, or that have externalities that were not solved before the product went to market? Because it's easier, cheaper and better? >Require anyone who sells a new physical product have to accept returns of that physical product at the end of its lifetime. That will translate into even more expensive products for consumers. Thanks but no thanks.

c22 3y ago
It's cheapest for consumers not to pay for trash pickup at all but instead to just dump their refuse in the nearest gully.
Sharlin 3y ago
> Because it's easier, cheaper and better? Cheaper to whom? Better to whom? > That will translate into even more expensive products for consumers. You know what's even more expensive for consumers in the long run? But of course you don't think in the long run. Or anybody else than yourself. Or anything at all, really. I'm sorry that people like you exist. So blinded by cheap bling. One generation of wealthy Western people filling their homes with crap because it's "cheap" and "easy", blissfully unaware or unwilling to think about the very real external costs borne by other people somewhere else. Or somewhen else for that matter – so incredibly selfish that you're entirely willing to make the world worse for your children and their children, just in order to enjoy limitless consumerism for a few decades. Feeling good about that?
- veave 3y ago
  >Cheaper to whom? Better to whom? The consumer at least. Probably the producer as well but I don't know as I'm not one. Regarding your other paragraphs, you seem very bitter. Try therapy.
  - CameronNemo 3y ago
    Therapy is a band aid on the deep laceration that is the anthropocene extinction event. I don't need to feel good about ecological catastrophe. I am happy to cultivate my hatred for those complicit commercial transactions.
  - Sharlin 3y ago
    Those were rhetorical questions and it would be good for you to reflect upon them for a bit. Look up "negative externality" while you're at it, as this incredibly basic concept in economy seems to be entirely unfamiliar to you (as it is to many others, including those who like to play economists on the internet). Many things are "cheap for the consumer" while incredibly costly to the society and the ecosystem as a whole, and our entire society has been structured to shield the "consumer" (and most of the "producers") from having to think of the consequences of their actions. The entire Western lifestyle is based on living on borrowed money. And we keep borrowing more and more, and the interest is compounding, and still people think it's somehow a sustainable way to live. You're confusing bitterness with anger. I've been to therapy, and I've learned a few things. Including the fact that any competent therapist would say that it is okay to feel anger. That anger is an entirely justified emotion to feel about the sorry state of affairs that humanity has gotten itself and the planet into. That anger is an entirely justified emotion to feel on behalf of those who were given no choice on what kind of world to inherit. But to be merely angry at the incredibly egoistic, self-obsessed people who revel in making things worse? No, that doesn't seem to fit. Try "disgusted" instead. --- To paraphrase [1], "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of SUVs and 70" tellies for Western consumers." [1] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
    - hgsgm 3y ago
      Money isn't real. Borrowing money doesn't hurt anything.
    - bdhess 3y ago
      If your therapist is telling you that you’re entirely justified in being angry at humans being humans, seems like you should find a better therapist.
  - ddq 3y ago
    You should learn about anthropogenic climate change.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  Harsh but ultimately true. Cheap consumer goods are subsidised with a loan from the environment - one day we'll need to start paying that off, so we better start reducing the deficit.
- p0pcult 3y ago
  [dead]
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
If it's really cheaper, then manufacturers should have no problem taking responsibility for the waste. Except that no, it's not really cheaper, manufacturers are just able to externalize the cost.
pabs3 3y ago
> Because it's easier, cheaper and better? I refuse to accept that recycling a glass container is any easier, cheaper or better than just washing and reusing it. Probably similar for other products.

by veave 3y ago

c22 3y ago

It's cheapest for consumers not to pay for trash pickup at all but instead to just dump their refuse in the nearest gully.

Sharlin 3y ago

> Because it's easier, cheaper and better? Cheaper to whom? Better to whom? > That will translate into even more expensive products for consumers. You know what's even more expensive for consumers in the long run? But of course you don't think in the long run. Or anybody else than yourself. Or anything at all, really. I'm sorry that people like you exist. So blinded by cheap bling. One generation of wealthy Western people filling their homes with crap because it's "cheap" and "easy", blissfully unaware or unwilling to think about the very real external costs borne by other people somewhere else. Or somewhen else for that matter – so incredibly selfish that you're entirely willing to make the world worse for your children and their children, just in order to enjoy limitless consumerism for a few decades. Feeling good about that?

veave 3y ago
>Cheaper to whom? Better to whom? The consumer at least. Probably the producer as well but I don't know as I'm not one. Regarding your other paragraphs, you seem very bitter. Try therapy.
- CameronNemo 3y ago
  Therapy is a band aid on the deep laceration that is the anthropocene extinction event. I don't need to feel good about ecological catastrophe. I am happy to cultivate my hatred for those complicit commercial transactions.
- Sharlin 3y ago
  Those were rhetorical questions and it would be good for you to reflect upon them for a bit. Look up "negative externality" while you're at it, as this incredibly basic concept in economy seems to be entirely unfamiliar to you (as it is to many others, including those who like to play economists on the internet). Many things are "cheap for the consumer" while incredibly costly to the society and the ecosystem as a whole, and our entire society has been structured to shield the "consumer" (and most of the "producers") from having to think of the consequences of their actions. The entire Western lifestyle is based on living on borrowed money. And we keep borrowing more and more, and the interest is compounding, and still people think it's somehow a sustainable way to live. You're confusing bitterness with anger. I've been to therapy, and I've learned a few things. Including the fact that any competent therapist would say that it is okay to feel anger. That anger is an entirely justified emotion to feel about the sorry state of affairs that humanity has gotten itself and the planet into. That anger is an entirely justified emotion to feel on behalf of those who were given no choice on what kind of world to inherit. But to be merely angry at the incredibly egoistic, self-obsessed people who revel in making things worse? No, that doesn't seem to fit. Try "disgusted" instead. --- To paraphrase [1], "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of SUVs and 70" tellies for Western consumers." [1] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    Money isn't real. Borrowing money doesn't hurt anything.
  - bdhess 3y ago
    If your therapist is telling you that you’re entirely justified in being angry at humans being humans, seems like you should find a better therapist.
- ddq 3y ago
  You should learn about anthropogenic climate change.
seabass-labrax 3y ago
Harsh but ultimately true. Cheap consumer goods are subsidised with a loan from the environment - one day we'll need to start paying that off, so we better start reducing the deficit.
p0pcult 3y ago
[dead]

TheCoelacanth 3y ago

If it's really cheaper, then manufacturers should have no problem taking responsibility for the waste. Except that no, it's not really cheaper, manufacturers are just able to externalize the cost.

pabs3 3y ago

> Because it's easier, cheaper and better? I refuse to accept that recycling a glass container is any easier, cheaper or better than just washing and reusing it. Probably similar for other products.