4 ms·

It's a miraculous thing corporations have done convincing us that we're the ones polluting the environment.

polalavik 1y ago
I grapple with this all the time. my wife is very eco-conscious and will scrub out a deeply moldy glass jar just to recycle it (whether the recycling system works is a separate issue here). On one hand there is some truth to the fact that if we all just work together to do the right thing the world is a much better place to live in. Sometimes i don't want to do this (scrub gross shit out) because i'm lazy, other times it feels futile. or maybe its just that the latter is a good excuse to be lazy. I'd argue that even thinking about the idea of recycling and eco-conscious behavior is something only the already wealthy (with respect to the rest of the world) can do. There are plenty of developing nations where consumption and pollution run rampant and unchecked and unregulated which do tons more damage than me throwing 1 glass jar into a semi well managed landfill. I mean theres just so many facets to this - does recycle work, does collective action work, or are corporations the real devils here doing much more bad than the collective at large? i feel that the only way to change anything is through government level policy (which also feels futile), but individual actions do little without policy+propoganda to disseminate the right message and change collective behavior.
- hedgehog 1y ago
  If you have a dishwasher that will get the jar plenty clean to be recycled and not smell up your house while it's waiting to be taken out.
- ZeroGravitas 1y ago
  Developing nations generally leapfrog by adopting the latest generation of developed world tech. Imagine people saying they didn't want to adopt mobile phones because developing nations didn't have traditional telephones yet. This applies to both green tech and to green regulations. They'll look to the EU and China for that as the US is going this one alone again. China recycles 30% of its plastic compared with 12% in the US. Presumably they look at it as an engineering problem to solve and not a fake culture war to protect the oil industry. Slightly older data here but the trend and the major outlier of the US visible here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-plastic-waste-recycled https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-plastic-waste-recyc...
- timeon 1y ago
  > I'd argue that even thinking about the idea of recycling and eco-conscious behavior is something only the already wealthy (with respect to the rest of the world) can do. On the other hand, growing poor behind Iron Curtain, thinking about not recycling glass jars was crazy. The thing is wealthy societies just buy things. We were not only washing those jars but re-filling as well with what we have produced. And I think same goes when one is 'eco-conscious'. Recycle sure, but buy less.
parineum 1y ago
Corporations don't do things that people don't want to pay for. The entire purpose of their existence is to provide products to customers that want them. The miraculous thing is people eschewing responsibility by putting blaming the person selling products to the people that want them. If ot weren't for all those drug dealers, we wouldn't have any addicts.
- milch 1y ago
  Every person I know that works "back of the house" says the amount of plastic that you don't even see as a consumer is at least 10x of the final consumer packaging
- odie5533 1y ago
  Your explanation assumes that 1) people have full knowledge of everything corporations do and 2) corporations aren't hiding what they do. Corporations actively use addiction and psychological manipulation. They're not just passively filling consumer wants. Your drug dealer analogy actually proves the opposite: we hold dealers responsible precisely because we recognize supply drives addiction. That's exactly why we have laws against dealing rather than just treating addiction as purely a demand-side problem. By your analogy, drug dealing should be legal because it gives the people what they want.
  - parineum 1y ago
    > Corporations actively use addiction and psychological manipulation. They're not just passively filling consumer wants. Are you suggesting people have a plastic bag addiction? What exactly are the plastic bag manufacturers doing that is unethical? Let's use real examples instead of vague accusations. I'm not going to start with your assumptions that corporations are all evil and are definitely doing bad stuff so you're going to need to cite examples about this specific case. > By your analogy, drug dealing should be legal because it gives the people what they want. How much of the harm of drugs comes from the illegality of the market? What of the drugs that are legal, why aren't they so harmful? There's a great case study about the effects of black markets when the US banned alcohol, caused a massive surge in organized crime, then reversed the ban and solved the problem they created. Drugs cause harm. So do cars, so do plastic bags, so do knives, so do guns, etc. Harm to users/consumers sometimes a good reason, sometimes not, to make things illegal.
fractallyte 1y ago
I've been down this road before, and been brutally downvoted, but I'll say it again: - corporations are responsible for creating products which can be recycled; - the consumer is responsible for proper disposal of their waste, and also for electing officials who have actual policies on reducing or eliminating pollution; - local government is responsible for setting up recycling centers, and for enforcing correct behavior in consumers. The consumer is at the bottom of all this, directly responsible for polluting the environment. Oft-stated opinions like yours are lazy and ignorant.
- weq 1y ago
  dudes never heard of industrial waste :D ^^^ ?
  - fractallyte 1y ago
    That's a whole other argument about which I have even stronger opinions - namely about the dismal failure of government, and the flaws in our democratic systems that allow corporations to infiltrate governments and manipulate policies.
- qwerty_clicks 1y ago
  It’s not a radical thought to hold corporations accountable after they have limited our choices and controlled markets. So many things most Americans buy are manufactured needs so built into the culture that we think we need it. Proctor and gamble have written books about strategy that synthesize a market.
- lentil_soup 1y ago
  ok, but I find this simplification to be what is lazy. Obviously the world isn't as clear cut as only those 3 groups as if they're not intertwined. And what does "directly responsible for polluting the environment" even mean? If I pay someone to take my trash out and throw it in the ocean am I all of a sudden excempt because I'm not the one "directly" polluting? Pollution comes from a complex system so it has to be solved as such. Blaming individual participants (specially the ones with less money and power) is reducing the responsability of the rest which is the perfect excuse to do nothing
codingdave 1y ago
We do pollute. They are worse, but we still do it. And sometimes change needs to start from where you are at, not waiting for someone else to go first. Relevant fallacy: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

I grapple with this all the time. my wife is very eco-conscious and will scrub out a deeply moldy glass jar just to recycle it (whether the recycling system works is a separate issue here). On one hand there is some truth to the fact that if we all just work together to do the right thing the world is a much better place to live in. Sometimes i don't want to do this (scrub gross shit out) because i'm lazy, other times it feels futile. or maybe its just that the latter is a good excuse to be lazy. I'd argue that even thinking about the idea of recycling and eco-conscious behavior is something only the already wealthy (with respect to the rest of the world) can do. There are plenty of developing nations where consumption and pollution run rampant and unchecked and unregulated which do tons more damage than me throwing 1 glass jar into a semi well managed landfill. I mean theres just so many facets to this - does recycle work, does collective action work, or are corporations the real devils here doing much more bad than the collective at large? i feel that the only way to change anything is through government level policy (which also feels futile), but individual actions do little without policy+propoganda to disseminate the right message and change collective behavior.

hedgehog 1y ago
If you have a dishwasher that will get the jar plenty clean to be recycled and not smell up your house while it's waiting to be taken out.
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
Developing nations generally leapfrog by adopting the latest generation of developed world tech. Imagine people saying they didn't want to adopt mobile phones because developing nations didn't have traditional telephones yet. This applies to both green tech and to green regulations. They'll look to the EU and China for that as the US is going this one alone again. China recycles 30% of its plastic compared with 12% in the US. Presumably they look at it as an engineering problem to solve and not a fake culture war to protect the oil industry. Slightly older data here but the trend and the major outlier of the US visible here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-plastic-waste-recycled https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-plastic-waste-recyc...
timeon 1y ago
> I'd argue that even thinking about the idea of recycling and eco-conscious behavior is something only the already wealthy (with respect to the rest of the world) can do. On the other hand, growing poor behind Iron Curtain, thinking about not recycling glass jars was crazy. The thing is wealthy societies just buy things. We were not only washing those jars but re-filling as well with what we have produced. And I think same goes when one is 'eco-conscious'. Recycle sure, but buy less.

parineum 1y ago

Corporations don't do things that people don't want to pay for. The entire purpose of their existence is to provide products to customers that want them. The miraculous thing is people eschewing responsibility by putting blaming the person selling products to the people that want them. If ot weren't for all those drug dealers, we wouldn't have any addicts.

milch 1y ago
Every person I know that works "back of the house" says the amount of plastic that you don't even see as a consumer is at least 10x of the final consumer packaging
odie5533 1y ago
Your explanation assumes that 1) people have full knowledge of everything corporations do and 2) corporations aren't hiding what they do. Corporations actively use addiction and psychological manipulation. They're not just passively filling consumer wants. Your drug dealer analogy actually proves the opposite: we hold dealers responsible precisely because we recognize supply drives addiction. That's exactly why we have laws against dealing rather than just treating addiction as purely a demand-side problem. By your analogy, drug dealing should be legal because it gives the people what they want.
- parineum 1y ago
  > Corporations actively use addiction and psychological manipulation. They're not just passively filling consumer wants. Are you suggesting people have a plastic bag addiction? What exactly are the plastic bag manufacturers doing that is unethical? Let's use real examples instead of vague accusations. I'm not going to start with your assumptions that corporations are all evil and are definitely doing bad stuff so you're going to need to cite examples about this specific case. > By your analogy, drug dealing should be legal because it gives the people what they want. How much of the harm of drugs comes from the illegality of the market? What of the drugs that are legal, why aren't they so harmful? There's a great case study about the effects of black markets when the US banned alcohol, caused a massive surge in organized crime, then reversed the ban and solved the problem they created. Drugs cause harm. So do cars, so do plastic bags, so do knives, so do guns, etc. Harm to users/consumers sometimes a good reason, sometimes not, to make things illegal.

fractallyte 1y ago

I've been down this road before, and been brutally downvoted, but I'll say it again: - corporations are responsible for creating products which can be recycled; - the consumer is responsible for proper disposal of their waste, and also for electing officials who have actual policies on reducing or eliminating pollution; - local government is responsible for setting up recycling centers, and for enforcing correct behavior in consumers. The consumer is at the bottom of all this, directly responsible for polluting the environment. Oft-stated opinions like yours are lazy and ignorant.

weq 1y ago
dudes never heard of industrial waste :D ^^^ ?
- fractallyte 1y ago
  That's a whole other argument about which I have even stronger opinions - namely about the dismal failure of government, and the flaws in our democratic systems that allow corporations to infiltrate governments and manipulate policies.
qwerty_clicks 1y ago
It’s not a radical thought to hold corporations accountable after they have limited our choices and controlled markets. So many things most Americans buy are manufactured needs so built into the culture that we think we need it. Proctor and gamble have written books about strategy that synthesize a market.
lentil_soup 1y ago
ok, but I find this simplification to be what is lazy. Obviously the world isn't as clear cut as only those 3 groups as if they're not intertwined. And what does "directly responsible for polluting the environment" even mean? If I pay someone to take my trash out and throw it in the ocean am I all of a sudden excempt because I'm not the one "directly" polluting? Pollution comes from a complex system so it has to be solved as such. Blaming individual participants (specially the ones with less money and power) is reducing the responsability of the rest which is the perfect excuse to do nothing

codingdave 1y ago

We do pollute. They are worse, but we still do it. And sometimes change needs to start from where you are at, not waiting for someone else to go first. Relevant fallacy: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as