The article is much better than the headline, and details how companies are trying to make the devices less of an ecological problem. But the framing in the headline just made me think of this.
The article is much better than the headline, and details how companies are trying to make the devices less of an ecological problem. But the framing in the headline just made me think of this.
Unless you had kids then your decisions can still be having that impact. But it’s a silly way to look at things when corporations do most of it and they’re not going to just get old and die.
Not when people keep giving them money. You can make the decision to boycott a company or industry that you disagree with.
I get where you’re going but you can’t always just boycott a company. For instance I despise Walmart but if it’s the only place you have to buy food you don’t exactly have options. Some of the most hated corporations are the most stable because people don’t just free market capitalism their way out of ecological disaster.
Of course there are people who don’t have the means to make these choices, but for those who do (including many here on Lemmy), it’s important to recognize the impact that your decisions make. Far too often I see the corporate contribution used as an excuse to continue supporting these corporations by people who do have the ability to boycott them. It’s an appeal to futility at best, and actively funding the problem at worst.
I doubt many people on Lemmy are the ones defending corporations from being impacted by social justice beyond boycotting. The rhetoric you use is just really similar to that of corporations where they encourage individual responsibility instead of taking meaningful action.
I’m certainly not defending corporations against social justice, and I don’t see why it has to be one or the other. Why can’t we support progressive legislation, tax reform, unions, social pressure and local economies while also refusing to financially support the companies and industries we oppose?
It doesn’t have to be one or the other, I’m simply worried by the way corporations invade public discourse to keep people from holding them accountable through group action. There can easily be group boycotts that do the same thing and I’m all for that, I just don’t care for the personal responsibility argument.
At no point was I against group action. I was responding to your assertion that individual responsibility was a silly way to look at it, when it’s an important piece of the overall solution - the responsibility to hold companies financially accountable. I’m not saying recycle your needlessly purchased plastic junk or unplug your phone charger. I’m saying don’t give money to companies and industries that are destroying the earth and causing massive amounts of human and animal suffering. Now that that’s cleared up, I think we may actually be in agreement?
Sorry, I’m not saying you were. I was trying to share a concern not an implication.
Well, I have a few ideas on how to kill a company, but there’s a lot of collateral damage involved.
It’s to rich people though so nothing of value lost.