5 ms·

> Apple’s controversy is nothing but a mirror that has reflected what we have become, and it’s time to change. Of course it's a bit of a hyperbole, but I can't

> Apple’s controversy is nothing but a mirror that has reflected what we have become, and it’s time to change. Of course it's a bit of a hyperbole, but I can't say I disagree.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Well, I was thinking of the scale of destruction. Between 2010 and 2020 for instance, we have destroyed 4.7 million hectares of wild forest per year [1]. Seems like destroying a few instruments is nothing compared to what modern technology is capable of. What about the highest level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past 800,000 years due to our consumerist lifestyles? Do you still think it's hyperbole? Tell me if you think it's hyperbole in 50 years when the next measurements of arctic ice are taken. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
- phero_cnstrcts 2y ago
  Not „we“. „They“ have. Normal people are not the ones extorting the planet but greedy corporations.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    Yes, that is true. But because we benefit from that destruction, even though we don't want to use the planet that way, we inherit the responsibility of fighting for it. Just like we have the responsibility of protecting our children against people who would hurt them, even if we aren't the ones doing the damage.
    - gambiting 2y ago
      Well......I've really changed my mind about this whole thing over the years. I used to also think that it's really "them" not "us", but as I grow older I'm not sure. Admittedly I live in a rich western country where consumerism is king, but all the people I know are in the cycle of "new car every 2-3 years, new phone every year, new TV every few years, flying at least 6-8 times a year, meat 3x times a day for every meal, everything you buy is packaged in plastic etc etc etc etc". Like, these corporations don't produce all of this stuff just for the sake of it - there are consumers like "us" buying it at the other end. Us again meaning people in countries and in demographics where you can afford it, I don't blame someone in a poor country burning tyres for heat - their environmental damage over a full year is probably less than mine over a month.
      - pipo234 2y ago
        While I'm reluctant to admit ever being influenced by a commercial, I looks like ads are playing a role in all this consumerism. And while personally I don't own a car, don't fly, work on a 5 year old desktop computer, old phone, eat meat or fish less than twice a week... I often wonder: How come I earn 2-3 times modal wages writing C++ software to stream video over internet? Sure lots of people watch Netflix or Youtube for leisure, but how come society value my labour so much higher than someone working in construction, education, retail, food? Why don't I pay more taxes? Should software be eating the world?
        petre 2y ago
        > How come I earn 2-3 times modal wages writing C++ software to stream video over internet? Because the people you work for make shitloads of money delivering content and their employees expect to be paid accordingly? Because Twitter who delivers short messages on the Internet sold for 44b, while Westinghouse who makes nuclear reactors sold for $7.9b? Seems like there's more demand for a propaganda vehicle than for a power plant.
        pipo234 2y ago
        Thank you for pointing this out. It's a good start, but I was looking for a deeper answer. So please help me understand why the people I work for are making shitloads of money? Why is Twitter worth $ 44b? Asking why here is mostly meant rhetorically. What I'm really after is figuring out if there's a way to restructure society such that monetary rewards are directed towards what's valuable to society. IMO, streaming video and social networks aren't that.
  - culopatin 2y ago
    Who buys the products?

> Apple’s controversy is nothing but a mirror that has reflected what we have become, and it’s time to change. Of course it's a bit of a hyperbole, but I can't say I disagree.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

Well, I was thinking of the scale of destruction. Between 2010 and 2020 for instance, we have destroyed 4.7 million hectares of wild forest per year [1]. Seems like destroying a few instruments is nothing compared to what modern technology is capable of. What about the highest level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past 800,000 years due to our consumerist lifestyles? Do you still think it's hyperbole? Tell me if you think it's hyperbole in 50 years when the next measurements of arctic ice are taken. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation

phero_cnstrcts 2y ago
Not „we“. „They“ have. Normal people are not the ones extorting the planet but greedy corporations.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Yes, that is true. But because we benefit from that destruction, even though we don't want to use the planet that way, we inherit the responsibility of fighting for it. Just like we have the responsibility of protecting our children against people who would hurt them, even if we aren't the ones doing the damage.
  - gambiting 2y ago
    Well......I've really changed my mind about this whole thing over the years. I used to also think that it's really "them" not "us", but as I grow older I'm not sure. Admittedly I live in a rich western country where consumerism is king, but all the people I know are in the cycle of "new car every 2-3 years, new phone every year, new TV every few years, flying at least 6-8 times a year, meat 3x times a day for every meal, everything you buy is packaged in plastic etc etc etc etc". Like, these corporations don't produce all of this stuff just for the sake of it - there are consumers like "us" buying it at the other end. Us again meaning people in countries and in demographics where you can afford it, I don't blame someone in a poor country burning tyres for heat - their environmental damage over a full year is probably less than mine over a month.
    - pipo234 2y ago
      While I'm reluctant to admit ever being influenced by a commercial, I looks like ads are playing a role in all this consumerism. And while personally I don't own a car, don't fly, work on a 5 year old desktop computer, old phone, eat meat or fish less than twice a week... I often wonder: How come I earn 2-3 times modal wages writing C++ software to stream video over internet? Sure lots of people watch Netflix or Youtube for leisure, but how come society value my labour so much higher than someone working in construction, education, retail, food? Why don't I pay more taxes? Should software be eating the world?
      - petre 2y ago
        > How come I earn 2-3 times modal wages writing C++ software to stream video over internet? Because the people you work for make shitloads of money delivering content and their employees expect to be paid accordingly? Because Twitter who delivers short messages on the Internet sold for 44b, while Westinghouse who makes nuclear reactors sold for $7.9b? Seems like there's more demand for a propaganda vehicle than for a power plant.
        pipo234 2y ago
        Thank you for pointing this out. It's a good start, but I was looking for a deeper answer. So please help me understand why the people I work for are making shitloads of money? Why is Twitter worth $ 44b? Asking why here is mostly meant rhetorically. What I'm really after is figuring out if there's a way to restructure society such that monetary rewards are directed towards what's valuable to society. IMO, streaming video and social networks aren't that.
- culopatin 2y ago
  Who buys the products?