I don’t think finding fault is really helpful in actually solving the issue
I think it’s critical actually. If most people think that their actions have no impact whatsoever and that no change on their part is required in order to affect a change in the system, then of course nothing will change. People have to realise that they are a part of the problem.
The problem is really just too large to assume the general public really has a lot of control over it.
Again, I disagree. The general public actually has a lot of power that it does not, and often times will not wield. People don’t show up to elections, vote egoistically or in a tribal manner, do not change their habits, do not try to reason about the things they hear/read/see, and just generally cruise along as long as they can tolerate their circumstances.
Lastly, just because you can afford to avoid most plastics, doesn’t mean that the majority of the population can afford to do the same.
I can’t avoid most plastics, but I try. I buy local produce where possible, I collect and try to reuse plastics (or pretty much anything actually), and will ask for non-plastic options (or choose them if they are visible). It’s not much, but it’s something. The Good Place should be mandatory viewing, IMO. Every action we take can have a negative impact on somebody else, and in most cases it will. We can only try to make conscious choices to reduce that impact. We can’t just say “omg, it’s impossible” and not try, which is what most people do when they say shit like “ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible” or “corporations are to blame” or “I don’t vote because I have no power”.
think it’s critical actually. If most people think that their actions have no impact whatsoever and that no change on their part is required in order to affect a change in the system, then of course nothing will change. People have to realise that they are a part of the problem.
Yeah, and plenty of people have spent their lives attempting to do that with no effect. If we look at the history of regulating dangerous or harmful substances from the market, public boycotts are not effective.
Again, I disagree. The general public actually has a lot of power that it does not, and often times will not wield. People don’t show up to elections, vote egoistically or in a tribal manner, do not change their habits, do not try to reason about the things they hear/read/see, and just generally cruise along as long as they can tolerate their circumstances.
The two statements in this argument seem pretty antithetical.
I can’t avoid most plastics, but I try. I buy local produce where possible, I collect and try to reuse plastics (or pretty much anything actually), and will ask for non-plastic options (or choose them if they are visible). It’s not much, but it’s something.
Ahh, so the answer to your first question “who is going out and buying plastic?” is you.
Not trying to belittle your beliefs, but this kinda solidifies my argument that the consumer has very little choice in how corporations choose to mitigate cost.
The idea of boycott and personal responsibility are a byproduct of idealized liberalism. Not as in “woke” liberal, but as in belief in the free market deciding how society regulates itself. In reality corporations lobby together to take away choice from consumers, and that’s always been how capitalism works.
We can’t just say “omg, it’s impossible” and not try, which is what most people do when they say shit like “ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible” or “corporations are to blame” or “I don’t vote because I have no power”.
I think you’re conflating a lot of different problems, so let’s stick to the one at hand. “ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible”.
It really depends on your perspective, most people who claim this are saying that because capitalism relies on exploiting workers labour for profit. Now even disregarding people’s ideas of how to organize labour, capitalism and it’s tendency to monopolize makes choice nearly impossible.
Most of the items available at the store are owned by a handful of conglomerates pretending to compete against each other. Even if we got more of the population to switch to the same practices you do, it wouldn’t really wouldn’t motivate different companies to migrate away from plastic all together.
They would just have an “environmental” brand where they significantly mark up the products and an economic brand that was a lot cheaper. Some people may be willing to pay more for a symbolic act that makes them feel superior, but that is not really how the vast majority of people behave when they are shopping.
As history has shown time after time, government intervention is the only way to regulate capital.
I think it’s critical actually. If most people think that their actions have no impact whatsoever and that no change on their part is required in order to affect a change in the system, then of course nothing will change. People have to realise that they are a part of the problem.
Again, I disagree. The general public actually has a lot of power that it does not, and often times will not wield. People don’t show up to elections, vote egoistically or in a tribal manner, do not change their habits, do not try to reason about the things they hear/read/see, and just generally cruise along as long as they can tolerate their circumstances.
I can’t avoid most plastics, but I try. I buy local produce where possible, I collect and try to reuse plastics (or pretty much anything actually), and will ask for non-plastic options (or choose them if they are visible). It’s not much, but it’s something. The Good Place should be mandatory viewing, IMO. Every action we take can have a negative impact on somebody else, and in most cases it will. We can only try to make conscious choices to reduce that impact. We can’t just say “omg, it’s impossible” and not try, which is what most people do when they say shit like “ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible” or “corporations are to blame” or “I don’t vote because I have no power”.
Yeah, and plenty of people have spent their lives attempting to do that with no effect. If we look at the history of regulating dangerous or harmful substances from the market, public boycotts are not effective.
The two statements in this argument seem pretty antithetical.
Ahh, so the answer to your first question “who is going out and buying plastic?” is you.
Not trying to belittle your beliefs, but this kinda solidifies my argument that the consumer has very little choice in how corporations choose to mitigate cost.
The idea of boycott and personal responsibility are a byproduct of idealized liberalism. Not as in “woke” liberal, but as in belief in the free market deciding how society regulates itself. In reality corporations lobby together to take away choice from consumers, and that’s always been how capitalism works.
I think you’re conflating a lot of different problems, so let’s stick to the one at hand. “ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible”.
It really depends on your perspective, most people who claim this are saying that because capitalism relies on exploiting workers labour for profit. Now even disregarding people’s ideas of how to organize labour, capitalism and it’s tendency to monopolize makes choice nearly impossible.
Most of the items available at the store are owned by a handful of conglomerates pretending to compete against each other. Even if we got more of the population to switch to the same practices you do, it wouldn’t really wouldn’t motivate different companies to migrate away from plastic all together.
They would just have an “environmental” brand where they significantly mark up the products and an economic brand that was a lot cheaper. Some people may be willing to pay more for a symbolic act that makes them feel superior, but that is not really how the vast majority of people behave when they are shopping.
As history has shown time after time, government intervention is the only way to regulate capital.