• Gyoza Power
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would be easy to sacrifice those rich assholes in a slaughterhouse

      • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And then others will rise to take their place. If the demand is there, someone will try to meet it. All long as the vast majority of people are not willing to make changes in their own life, then everything else is pointless, and it will all fail.

        EDIT: Stealing another comment to add to this:


        what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?

        But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.

        • Gyoza Power
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          All long as the vast majority of people are not willing to make changes in their own life, then everything else is pointless, and it will all fail.

          The “vast majority” can’t make big changes in their life because they cannot afford to. The vast majority live either in poverty or paycheck to paycheck. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you are going to buy the cheapest stuff because that’s all you can buy. And the cheapest stuff is usually that which is produced by the worst companies. “Voting with your wallet” is fine and dandy, but it doesn’t work at all if there are not equal opportunities both for new businesses to flourish as healthy competition (without being squashed or bough by the already stablished corps) and for the customer to choose.

          If we want to introduce actual change, it’s faster and more effective to regulate in some manner the behaviours of those companies and the system that enables them, but of course, that is no easy task either.

          • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m copy pasting something because it’s easier than writing it all again:


            Though experiment:

            Tomorrow is election day in your country. The stout environmentalists win control of the government and proceed to make the following changes:

            • Carbon tax, which increases the price of gas, which itself results in an increase in shipping anything. It also directly raises the price of anything that produces carbon in its manufacture process, such as anything made of plastic.

            • An end to meat subsidies - maybe even a tax on it - and an increase to subsidizing other types of farming.

            • A ban on single use plastics.

            • And anything else you think might be necessary.

            Now the questions: How long until they get kicked out? How long until the protests and riots? How long until a new government undoes it all?

            I’m assuming you’re not naive and you don’t live in a bubble. You should know the majority of people will not be fans of any of that; and with the way it usually goes and the pendulum swings, the government that follows it will be a far right one.


            Most people can definitely afford to eat less meat and consume less in general, even if they can’t afford to buy the most environmentally friendly things. And if they can’t even afford that, they won’t be able to afford the environmental policies either; you would need much deeper change than you would get by voting for a major political party.

            • RoboGroMo@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              also we need communities already experimenting with living like that or it’ll be a mess, for example I’ve never eaten meat in my life and as a kid people couldn’t even begin to grasp that it was possible - i’d constantly get asked ‘what do you eat then?!’ but I haven’t heard that question in years, closest to it is likely to be ‘what do you have at Christmas’ then when i say nut roast they no long say ‘whats that?’ they say ‘oh i had a great nut roast once…’

              As a kid family holidays used to involve stopping at the only cafe that had something without meat on the menu, now even McDonalds has a wide vegan selection (in the uk). If someone had come out in the 80s and ended the meet subsidies then it would fail instantly, if it happened now there would certainly be a large backlash but the majority of people would be able to shift their consumption patterns without many problems - the policy might have a fighting chance. Even the meat-and-two guys that i know regularly have meet free dinners, it’s really common to only eat meat once or twice a week.

              Of course if i was made dictator for life i’d bring in sweeping changes that ban all the evil practices which make the meat industry possible, but that’s not going to happen - what is going to happen is it’s going to continue to get easier and cheaper to eat plant based diets, we’re going to see endless headlines like ‘largest dairy producer announces closure amid increasing popularity of oat milk’, it’ll shift from the beef industry having a hugely powerful lobby backed by billions of dollars to the beef lobby being Joe Rogan and Liverking yelling at clouds about how they need to consume flesh to feel manly. When someone suggests banning an awful and disgusting practice within the meat industry the general consensus will be ‘yeah i can go without that if it’s damaging to the environment and cruel to the animals’ so policy change will actually be possible.

              Just shrugging and saying ‘it’s not going to happen overnight so i’ll just keep eating meat until it does’ is absolutely mindless, the bath is never going to fill if the tap isn’t turned on - eating without meat helps fund and sustain the systems which makes it possible, it helps make it easier for other people to also eat without meat – even if it’s only dropping meat where it’s convenient it’s helping take power from the meat industry, by making a conscious choice to avoid meat you’re joining an increasing number of people who do the same which represents a sizeable portion of the market - the more that gets catered to the large it grows.

              Yes it’s true that no one person is going to change things but when we start to move in the right direction it makes it easier for others to move that way also. This is the same with reusable bottles, using public transport, refilling containers at the store instead of single use plastics…

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We already are making individual sacrifices.

      The problem is that the big polluters are not doing so.

    • Bipta@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most reasonable viewpoint, but it requires something of people, so of course it’s downvoted.