6 ms·

What you say is interesting, but I don't think the article is flawed. What the article implies is that the correct action is not using, for example, electronic

by plafl 12y ago

What you say is interesting, but I don't think the article is flawed. What the article implies is that the correct action is not using, for example, electronic tickets to avoid printing your boarding pass, but instead lobby to ask for legislation taxing jet engines which pollute above a certain threshold. Or maybe, increase the cost of water to truly reflect the environmental cost. Of course, all of these actions will increase the price for you, the final consumer.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
...all of these actions will increase the price for you, the final consumer. Thereby inducing consumers to pay more and fly less. The effect is the same as if I (and others like me) were to decide never to leave NY. I'm not disputing that fixing the cost of water specifically is a fantastic idea or that externalities should be properly taxed. What I'm disputing is the idea in this essay that the industrial economy is somehow a bunch of evildoers polluting in order to get super rich and then light cigars with 1000 bills, unrelated to the rest of us. The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side. Well, there's also the part of systematically of them using everything, from 24/7 advertising, to the latest psychological/cognitive tricks, to downright purposefully adding addictive substances in foods etc -- all designed to make people "want" goods and services. It's not like people are left alone to decide for themselves what they want to buy -- we constantly live in a baragge of suggestions and nagging, 10 times as much as it was 5-6 decades ago. Wanting something after logical thinking and perhaps admiring it's quality/beauty etc, and wanting something because you're conditioned to constantly is a distinction that's worth making. (And of course, Dunning/Kruger style, everybody thinks that ads and such have no or minimal impact on them).
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Given that my possessions fit in one checked bag and one carryon, and are mostly minimally advertised (I can't recall ever seeing a Lenovo or Raymonds of India ad), I feel fairly confident saying I'm not significantly influenced by advertising. But I'm sure you are right, everyone else lacks free will and the ability to make choices.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >I feel fairly confident saying I'm not significantly influenced by advertising. Either that or outliers in a sample set are not indicative of the general values. I mean on one hand we have huge production and consumption levels and gigantic advertising budgets (and studies in consumer behavior), both rising enormously in the 20th century -- and those are hard facts --, and on the other hand we have the anecdotal evidence of a single person whose possessions fit in his checked bag and carry on... >But I'm sure you are right, everyone else lacks free will and the ability to make choices. Speaking of free will, one could perhaps resist answering every argument with quick snark like the above. As if my argument that advertising has a major impact in consumption levels implies the extreme BS that "everyone lacks free will and the ability to make choices". That free will and the ability to make choices can be compromised is a known scientific fact, with lots of studies and experiments behind it, and it's something put in practice daily, from the design of casinos to websites showing three pricing options to you so you will choose the middle one. That of course doesn't mean that "everyone lacks free will and the ability to make choices" -- that's a BS strawman if I ever saw one.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        I'm a bit confused as to what you are arguing. You cited the existence of advertising as some sort of counter to my claim that corporate pollution is done to enable consumption. Maybe you could explain more carefully what the relevance of advertising is?
        coldtea 12y ago

by plafl 12y ago

yummyfajitas 12y ago

...all of these actions will increase the price for you, the final consumer. Thereby inducing consumers to pay more and fly less. The effect is the same as if I (and others like me) were to decide never to leave NY. I'm not disputing that fixing the cost of water specifically is a fantastic idea or that externalities should be properly taxed. What I'm disputing is the idea in this essay that the industrial economy is somehow a bunch of evildoers polluting in order to get super rich and then light cigars with 1000 bills, unrelated to the rest of us. The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side.

coldtea 12y ago
>The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side. Well, there's also the part of systematically of them using everything, from 24/7 advertising, to the latest psychological/cognitive tricks, to downright purposefully adding addictive substances in foods etc -- all designed to make people "want" goods and services. It's not like people are left alone to decide for themselves what they want to buy -- we constantly live in a baragge of suggestions and nagging, 10 times as much as it was 5-6 decades ago. Wanting something after logical thinking and perhaps admiring it's quality/beauty etc, and wanting something because you're conditioned to constantly is a distinction that's worth making. (And of course, Dunning/Kruger style, everybody thinks that ads and such have no or minimal impact on them).
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Given that my possessions fit in one checked bag and one carryon, and are mostly minimally advertised (I can't recall ever seeing a Lenovo or Raymonds of India ad), I feel fairly confident saying I'm not significantly influenced by advertising. But I'm sure you are right, everyone else lacks free will and the ability to make choices.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >I feel fairly confident saying I'm not significantly influenced by advertising. Either that or outliers in a sample set are not indicative of the general values. I mean on one hand we have huge production and consumption levels and gigantic advertising budgets (and studies in consumer behavior), both rising enormously in the 20th century -- and those are hard facts --, and on the other hand we have the anecdotal evidence of a single person whose possessions fit in his checked bag and carry on... >But I'm sure you are right, everyone else lacks free will and the ability to make choices. Speaking of free will, one could perhaps resist answering every argument with quick snark like the above. As if my argument that advertising has a major impact in consumption levels implies the extreme BS that "everyone lacks free will and the ability to make choices". That free will and the ability to make choices can be compromised is a known scientific fact, with lots of studies and experiments behind it, and it's something put in practice daily, from the design of casinos to websites showing three pricing options to you so you will choose the middle one. That of course doesn't mean that "everyone lacks free will and the ability to make choices" -- that's a BS strawman if I ever saw one.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      I'm a bit confused as to what you are arguing. You cited the existence of advertising as some sort of counter to my claim that corporate pollution is done to enable consumption. Maybe you could explain more carefully what the relevance of advertising is?
      - coldtea 12y ago