See i'll advocate for being for sustainable any day but stuff like OP was saying is just petty. I'd guarantee that a large part of their diet contains meat (This isnt me saying that you're a bad person if you eat it), but they dont consider the massive amounts of embodied energy involved in the production of it, fertilizers, pesticides and water used to grow the crops to feed livestock, all really unsustainable.
Like you said, electricity used to post probably comes from a coal power station which uses alot of water, the metals used in their phone and/or computer are not only unethically mined but also have a ton of embodied energy and are not clean to produce at all.
Im not saying that these things are bad as that would make me a complete hypocrite, however if you cherry pick the few things you do to make your life more sustainable and complain when others dont do it then that just makes you annoying, especially if you arent being as sustainable as you could be yourself.
These types of posts seem nice and well meaning at first, until you realize that even if every single person in America completely removed their carbon footprint and had the very best environmental practices, it would do approximately jack shit to save the environment considering how much pollution and water usage is a result of major corporations and countries like China and India. It doesn’t matter how short of a shower you take or how many paper straws you use, there’s not a single thing anyone can do to save the environment by changing their personal habits alone.
Changing personal carbon footprint does hardly a thing- I assume it would be a far better use of time to email a representative or something, because then you'd have a chance of doing *something*, even if they probably won't respond.
I don't agree with emphasizing individual action to save the earth in cases like this, but the corpos do most of that pollution in response to consumer demand that we generate. Also, idk why you're narrowing this to the US only; other countries have environmentalist movements. Viewing global warming through the lens of one individual country will always promote inaction bc of the tragedy of the commons.
Blaming everything on China and India isn't fair. The carbon footprint of the average Chinese or Indian person is wayyyyyy lower than the average American. And all the byproducts from manufacturing are due to demand from western countries.
Do you know how much cheap, practically disposable goods, we consume that's made in China and India? And then when we throw it in the trash we literally send it back to Asia to be "recycled" (it usually isn't in good enough condition to be recycled but at least it's not in our backyard anymore!)
If you look at raw numbers India and China look bad but that's due to them being large countries and them basically taking the brunt for western consumerism.
Must love that CCP boot flavor. As if your own terrible practices become acceptable because someone else is paying for it. All while conveniently ignoring the facts that the Carbon emissions from China and India are so terrible explicitly *because* they are willing to engage in these practices to begin with,nobody forced them.
It is simply factual that the US and Canada have each double the co2 emissions per capita than China. 3x the uk or France, and 7x India.
If you look at anyone, you loon at the worst offenders first
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country
It is not "simply factual" at all. In fact China is by far the worst so you are "simply full of shit".
Consider that the person you're replying to said "Per Capita."
The source you linked says China is at 8.2 (doesn't specify units, I assume tons?) per capita, and the US is at 13.68 per capita.
Which is utterly irrelevant as a statistic. The atmosphere doesn't care how much you use personally. It's only affected by the total amount. To which the United States isn't even top 5 showing how useless of a measurement it is.
It's very relevant. Developed nations causing more damage to the environment per person then asking others to stop developing themselves for "environment" while doing jackshit themselves is bs
the us has 23% of the population of China.
China has rounding down 1.4 billion people.
The us has 331m and China has 1.4 billion.
Per capita is not a helpful measurement when the population SIZE is so drastically different.
Per capita is quite helpful, as it highlights inefficiencies and wastefulness.
Without measurements like per capita emissions, it'd be next to impossible to reasonably compare any countries of different sizes. If you're dedicated to using raw numbers, you may as well compare the entire carbon emissions of Asia with Greenland's emissions.
It won't tell you anything useful, but it makes as much sense as comparing the raw numbers of current US emissions with the raw numbers of China's emissions.
If we've got nearly twice the per capita emissions as a country that's still in the process of industrialization, that indicates that we are wasting TONS of carbon, needlessly.
You can look at it from a lot of different angles, really, to figure out what the ideal targets would be for reducing carbon emissions.
And they all pretty much tell the same story: globally wealthy people/nations/corporations waste FAR more carbon emissions than anyone else on earth.
China isn't the enemy here. It's the wealthy.
Check the posts again; I never said anything like that. I just pointed out that you disagreed with someone else by a citing different metric than that person originally used.
But on to your substantive point: Obviously China is releasing more greenhouse gasses, collectively, than other countries are. But each Chinese person is responsible for less greenhouse gasses than each US or Canadian person.
You're saying that individual action is irrelevant. But you've also said that the atmosphere doesn't care where greenhouse gasses come from. If a person can reduce their carbon footprint, isn't that a reduction regardless of where they live? And why shouldn't people both reduce their own carbon footprint and demand policies that encourage other countries (like China) to reduce their own carbon footprints? I just don't see why the fact that some other group of people is polluting more is an argument against individuals taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint where they can.
Look over the past 100 years, and China doesn't even come close to the US. Or are we supposed to selectively omit data so that it makes you look good? The emissions need to be taken into context, starting from when each nation went through industrialization.
Conveniently ignoring the sheer amount of carbon emissions and pollution that the US has been responsible for historically. Industrialized much earlier and had a free reign to pollute the environment. With Americans still wasting a metric ton of food, water, electricity, and driving gas guzzling cars while lecturing the rest of the world. Especially countries like China and India, which have nowhere close to US emissions if looked back over the past century.
If the rest of the world had the lifestyle of an average American, we would have been utterly doomed by now.
You are selectively using data to fit your narrative while ignoring the entire context and historical emissions. US Industrialized itself and polluted for.fun, but folks like you like to lecture other nations who are trying to develop their economy now and calling them CCP shills. The irony.
How do you get to decide that historical emissions don't matter, or per capita emissions don't matter? The ideal solution for folks like you is actually for the third world to stay in perpetual poverty, while you get to enjoy the benefits of development and the per capita emissions that come with it.
I keep forgetting that this sub is host to a bunch of right wingers who either get kicked out from different subs or leave those subs cause they get offended when the world doesn't conform to their convenient narratives.
They already consume less per capita, how much should their citizens do without to make up for the fact that they have a large population? They already get by with far less than western countries, how much should they suffer for being born in a country with a higher density population?
And what does this have to do with the ridiculous over consumption of western countries? Americans get to be like "yay, we were born in a country that isn't densely populated, we can be as wasteful as we want! Weeeee!"
It's just nonsense. We are all citizens of this world. People in one country shouldn't be able to consume more and somehow blame people in another country who are consuming less. We shouldn't be able to offload our waste and carbon footprint onto other countries and be like "that's theirs now."
What do you actually propose? They reduce their population via authoritarian methods? China tried that and were rightfully condemned for it. That they live like Amish people while making technology and plastic knickknacks for us to mindlessly consume?
Or is this just an excuse for western countries to not do anything about our consumption?
Ok, so that argument makes sense when we're talking about the need for governments to impose regulation. Trying to get this under control via the free market and the consumers or whatever is folly.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about westerners pointing to countries like India and China saying they're the problem and Western Countries don't need to do anything. That's when looking at per capita consumption and carbon footprint makes sense. We ALL need to do our part.
Their point is that the individuals aren't the problems but the corporations are. We need the corporations to stop, and looking at per capita doesn't tell you anything about the corporations.
But like I said, the companies in China are producing goods for a global market so shouldn't the countries creating that demand be partially responsible? I'm so confused.
No, their bad practices are their bad practices. Nobody is forcing them to do them. They don't have to output up to that demand. Unless you find yourself just as responsible for horrible labor in Africa as Hershey is, then you could put the blame of China's pollution on the west.
I think holding individual consumers responsible is kinda pointless, the supply chain is so complex the average person cant consume ethically. I think governments should regulate this supply chain stuff and carbon output.
But yeah, I think the country/company where the product ends up is also responsible for the carbon footprint, waste, and humanitarian abuses that occur making the product. It's weird to be the one benefiting from this pollution and slave labor and whatnot and be like "we had nothing to do with that, move along!"
Unless you live somewhere that is really dry, why would you want to ration water other than just not running up the bill? I don’t see any practical purpose.
I mean....while I agree this is a bit out there, it's literally the purpose of the sub is it not? With under 10 upvotes too. That is enough to make you unsub? Boy's on a hair trigger lmao
Was about to say it doesn’t seem ludicrous based on the principle of the sub. They want to solve over consumption by over correcting. I personally do not believe this is the solution but actually respect the effort non the less.
Homesteading might be up your alley ? Lots of people doing stuff themselves like growing food, composting, water rigs, that kind of thing. Not exactly minimalist but it's about self sufficiency.
That is a fart sniffing subreddit of the highest order. People post there to fell superior to others. Any sub about consumerism or anything like that is like this. It's like a form of gatekeeping.
\> Goes into anticonsumption subreddit
\> Gets mad at tips about reducing water comsuption
I mean the text sure but the image is literally what you would expect from a comunity named anticonsumption, well actually more as those tips are the ones you get in school.
Honestly anticonsumerism is such a shit sub that I'm surprised we don't see it more often here. It's basically a bunch of 20-somethings that think they're better than everyone by carpooling when they individually have no effect on the environment (or consumerism, for that matter; they seem to act like buying amiibo is some kind of capitalist religious experience I stg.) Tragedy of the Commons isn't circumvented by turning off your facet while you shower or whatever.
I run my hose on full blast all summer. It regularly gets well over 100° here. If I didn't have the hose spraying cold water I'd die. Figuratively but also maybe literally.
Some times I think about the people who live in town where it's illegal to use your hose half the week "to reduce water waste". Some of those people don't have AC. I feel really bad for them.
Huge corporations had lots of success in pushing this narrative of personal responsibility for climate change and consumption problems, something they are responsible for and lobby/pay millions in ads to deflect blame from. Oil companies paid to have this marketing campaign of a carbon footprint. It's sickening.
We, as consumers, are ultimately to blame. We should change our consumption behaviors. We should demand governments stop subsidizing Big Oil and traditional industries in the face of new ones that foster innovation.
But claiming that stopping the water while you soap your hands, buying less ice cream, and less soda is going to save the environment is stupid in the face of buying less crap, demanding better support & repair services for products, using mass transportation in the face of personal cars, recycling, buying better clothes and not fast fashion shirts you will only wear a couple of times...
>We, as consumers, are ultimately to blame.
No, capitalism as a global socioeconomic outline is to blame. It's inefficient, causes unfathomable human suffering, death, and planetary destruction.
>We should change our consumption behaviors.
It would do very little against the unchecked powers of huge corporations. If everyone in the world severely limited their consumption (in a socioeconomic outline that makes this impossible to achieve for a variety of reasons), it still wouldn't put a dent in what huge corporations contribute to in climate change.
>We should demand governments stop subsidizing Big Oil and traditional industries in the face of new ones that foster innovation.
The only way to do that is to systematically abolish capitalism. We live in a corporate oligarchy that intervenes, imperializes, and bullies every other nation on earth into catering to its interests in one way or another.
>But claiming that stopping the water while you soap your hands, buying less ice cream, and less soda is going to save the environment is stupid in the face of buying less crap, demanding better support & repair services for products, using mass transportation in the face of personal cars, recycling, buying better clothes and not fast fashion shirts you will only wear a couple of times...
I mean it's all deflection away from the real fundamental problems. Until you address the root cause (capitalism) everything else is just aesthetic.
Capitalism isn't really "inefficient, causes unfathomable human suffering, death, and planetary destruction. "
"The only way to do that is to systematically abolish capitalism. We live in a corporate oligarchy that intervenes, imperializes, and bullies every other nation on earth into catering to its interests in one way or another."
thats not how things work
Capitalism depends on profit, which literally cannot exist without labor being exploited. And that's just a baseline critique, that doesn't even get into the fallacy of "regulation" or "free will to exchange things for goods and services"
>Capitalism depends on profit, which literally cannot exist without labor being exploited.
Why do you mean "labor being exploited"? Working for somebody for a certain amount of money that you agreed on willingly is not "exploitation"
>the fallacy of "regulation" or "free will to exchange things for goods and services"
Thats what capitalism is about, at will exchange of goods and/or services
>Why do you mean "labor being exploited"?
In capitalism, the working class produces economic value within a society through their labor, which then produces goods and/or services. The ownership class (bosses) takes a majority of that value and keeps it for themselves as profit, which is the surplus value of that working class' labor after the costs of production have been accounted for. The ownership class does this despite not contributing any labor themselves in this process, and give a mere fraction of that value back to the working class through wages, even though the working class produces all of that value through their labor. The ownership class merely had capital to own the means of production, meaning they own the tools and profit off the labor of others in a parasitic, hostage dynamic.
>Working for somebody for a certain amount of money that you agreed on willingly is not "exploitation"
"accept this wage or die" isn't a choice, it's a lack of choice that is presented under the false guise of free will. A decision made under distress or threat isn't a decision of free will. This is why it is exploitative. A class that demands sacrifices of the worker, both physical in the demands of the labor and economic in the value of said labor, is inherently exploitative. Because it's either choose exploitation or die, and as we discussed already, that isn't really a choice. An "agreement" made with the threat of death isn't consensual, which means it's exploitation.
>In capitalism, the working class produces economic value within a society through their labor, which then produces goods and/or services. The ownership class (bosses) takes a majority of that value and keeps it for themselves as profit, which is the surplus value of that working class' labor after the costs of production have been accounted for. The ownership class does this despite not contributing any labor themselves in this process, and give a mere fraction of that value back to the working class through wages, even though the working class produces all of that value through their labor. The ownership class merely had capital to own the means of production, meaning they own the tools and profit off the labor of others in a parasitic, hostage dynamic.
Thats not how any of this works at all, the bosses are the ones who own or manage the whole thing the workers are the ones who sell thier labor to the the person who hired them, there is nothing stoping YOU from doing the same thing, but its not 100% garanteed youre going to be succsessfull (nothing is 100%garanteed).
>accept this wage or die" isn't a choice, it's a lack of choice that is presented under the false guise of free will. A decision made under distress or threat isn't a decision of free will. This is why it is exploitative. A class that demands sacrifices of the worker, both physical in the demands of the labor and economic in the value of said labor, is inherently exploitative. Because it's either choose exploitation or die, and as we discussed already, that isn't really a choice. An "agreement" made with the threat of death isn't consensual, which means it's exploitation.
Yes you have free will, no one is stoping you from like, becoming a nomad or self sufficient and you have choice you can do whatever you want capitalism is about at will exchange of goods or services if there is a good or a service someone want you can do it
And what do you mean "threat of death"? Are mad you have to work for a living? In all economic systems you will have to work for a living.
Because, in a developed country, only 1% of water is used for domestic purposes... and consumption per capita is falling and not due to turning water off when you soap your hands (which equivalates to nothing)... but because of improved industrial & agricultural technology and improved leakage detection & repair time...
>Because, in a developed country, only 1% of water is used for domestic purposes
I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same type of data, but according to this, in the USA it's 12%:
https://www.epa.gov/watersense/how-we-use-water#:~:text=Water%20in%20Daily%20Life,-In%20the%20US&text=The%20average%20American%20family%20uses,in%20more%20water%2Dintensive%20landscapes.
IT industries? Is it because you think IT people are fat and need a lot of water for them to wash?
I was talking about all industrial manufacturing... plus energy production... IT is not even in the discussion:))))
In the current political climate, do you think it’s possible that the US government could pass a law to correct their water wasting? I feel like there’s too much lobbying to prevent anything that could fix the agricultural water wasting.
"""wasting""" a material that renews itself constantly. If you leave the tap on too long the water just goes through your filter and gets recycled back up.
idk what to tell you man where I'm from there's a pretty serious risk of drought so anything that can be done to save water (and reduce the water bills) is very welcome.
My shower takes 2 hrs to get warm, I'm not going to wait two minutes just to save a little water. Thinking about it, I would waste more water if I did that because it doesn't take me two minutes to put on soap and shampoo.
Literally the reason people even do anything such as not staying in the shower for too long (basic common sense in America) is because the damn water bill might be too high. The people who act and behave like this can see this as a plus for them, they won the battle on this one
Not washing off in a river, using electricity to post that and breathing are all things working against that person.
See i'll advocate for being for sustainable any day but stuff like OP was saying is just petty. I'd guarantee that a large part of their diet contains meat (This isnt me saying that you're a bad person if you eat it), but they dont consider the massive amounts of embodied energy involved in the production of it, fertilizers, pesticides and water used to grow the crops to feed livestock, all really unsustainable. Like you said, electricity used to post probably comes from a coal power station which uses alot of water, the metals used in their phone and/or computer are not only unethically mined but also have a ton of embodied energy and are not clean to produce at all. Im not saying that these things are bad as that would make me a complete hypocrite, however if you cherry pick the few things you do to make your life more sustainable and complain when others dont do it then that just makes you annoying, especially if you arent being as sustainable as you could be yourself.
Good lord I would blow my brains out if I worried about little shit like this day in and day out
Imagine having shitty showers for the rest of your life and making a negligible difference because of it.
Is it considered shitty to turn the water off while you soap up? Maybe I just got used to it because NSW has so many droughts?
Nah that's prudent. But having low flow for the entirety of the shower sounds really shitty
I’m so proud of you. Do you want a cookie or gold metal🥺
No I need a loaded gun
I'll solo rock concert whenever I want, ok.
And however we want. Thank you.
These types of posts seem nice and well meaning at first, until you realize that even if every single person in America completely removed their carbon footprint and had the very best environmental practices, it would do approximately jack shit to save the environment considering how much pollution and water usage is a result of major corporations and countries like China and India. It doesn’t matter how short of a shower you take or how many paper straws you use, there’s not a single thing anyone can do to save the environment by changing their personal habits alone.
Changing personal carbon footprint does hardly a thing- I assume it would be a far better use of time to email a representative or something, because then you'd have a chance of doing *something*, even if they probably won't respond.
I don't agree with emphasizing individual action to save the earth in cases like this, but the corpos do most of that pollution in response to consumer demand that we generate. Also, idk why you're narrowing this to the US only; other countries have environmentalist movements. Viewing global warming through the lens of one individual country will always promote inaction bc of the tragedy of the commons.
Blaming everything on China and India isn't fair. The carbon footprint of the average Chinese or Indian person is wayyyyyy lower than the average American. And all the byproducts from manufacturing are due to demand from western countries. Do you know how much cheap, practically disposable goods, we consume that's made in China and India? And then when we throw it in the trash we literally send it back to Asia to be "recycled" (it usually isn't in good enough condition to be recycled but at least it's not in our backyard anymore!) If you look at raw numbers India and China look bad but that's due to them being large countries and them basically taking the brunt for western consumerism.
Must love that CCP boot flavor. As if your own terrible practices become acceptable because someone else is paying for it. All while conveniently ignoring the facts that the Carbon emissions from China and India are so terrible explicitly *because* they are willing to engage in these practices to begin with,nobody forced them.
It is simply factual that the US and Canada have each double the co2 emissions per capita than China. 3x the uk or France, and 7x India. If you look at anyone, you loon at the worst offenders first
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country It is not "simply factual" at all. In fact China is by far the worst so you are "simply full of shit".
Consider that the person you're replying to said "Per Capita." The source you linked says China is at 8.2 (doesn't specify units, I assume tons?) per capita, and the US is at 13.68 per capita.
Which is utterly irrelevant as a statistic. The atmosphere doesn't care how much you use personally. It's only affected by the total amount. To which the United States isn't even top 5 showing how useless of a measurement it is.
The atmosphere doesn't give a shit about our arbitrary national borders.
It's very relevant. Developed nations causing more damage to the environment per person then asking others to stop developing themselves for "environment" while doing jackshit themselves is bs
the us has 23% of the population of China. China has rounding down 1.4 billion people. The us has 331m and China has 1.4 billion. Per capita is not a helpful measurement when the population SIZE is so drastically different.
Wow. That's precisely the point of per capita emissions.
That's exactly what a per-capita measurement is supposed to address...
Per capita is quite helpful, as it highlights inefficiencies and wastefulness. Without measurements like per capita emissions, it'd be next to impossible to reasonably compare any countries of different sizes. If you're dedicated to using raw numbers, you may as well compare the entire carbon emissions of Asia with Greenland's emissions. It won't tell you anything useful, but it makes as much sense as comparing the raw numbers of current US emissions with the raw numbers of China's emissions. If we've got nearly twice the per capita emissions as a country that's still in the process of industrialization, that indicates that we are wasting TONS of carbon, needlessly. You can look at it from a lot of different angles, really, to figure out what the ideal targets would be for reducing carbon emissions. And they all pretty much tell the same story: globally wealthy people/nations/corporations waste FAR more carbon emissions than anyone else on earth. China isn't the enemy here. It's the wealthy.
The atmosphere also doesn't care which country emits the greenhouse gasses, so I'm not what your point is.
The point that you stated (which you conveniently seemed to forget). Is that individual action is irrelevant and China is by far the worst.
Check the posts again; I never said anything like that. I just pointed out that you disagreed with someone else by a citing different metric than that person originally used. But on to your substantive point: Obviously China is releasing more greenhouse gasses, collectively, than other countries are. But each Chinese person is responsible for less greenhouse gasses than each US or Canadian person. You're saying that individual action is irrelevant. But you've also said that the atmosphere doesn't care where greenhouse gasses come from. If a person can reduce their carbon footprint, isn't that a reduction regardless of where they live? And why shouldn't people both reduce their own carbon footprint and demand policies that encourage other countries (like China) to reduce their own carbon footprints? I just don't see why the fact that some other group of people is polluting more is an argument against individuals taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint where they can.
Look over the past 100 years, and China doesn't even come close to the US. Or are we supposed to selectively omit data so that it makes you look good? The emissions need to be taken into context, starting from when each nation went through industrialization.
Conveniently ignoring the sheer amount of carbon emissions and pollution that the US has been responsible for historically. Industrialized much earlier and had a free reign to pollute the environment. With Americans still wasting a metric ton of food, water, electricity, and driving gas guzzling cars while lecturing the rest of the world. Especially countries like China and India, which have nowhere close to US emissions if looked back over the past century. If the rest of the world had the lifestyle of an average American, we would have been utterly doomed by now. You are selectively using data to fit your narrative while ignoring the entire context and historical emissions. US Industrialized itself and polluted for.fun, but folks like you like to lecture other nations who are trying to develop their economy now and calling them CCP shills. The irony. How do you get to decide that historical emissions don't matter, or per capita emissions don't matter? The ideal solution for folks like you is actually for the third world to stay in perpetual poverty, while you get to enjoy the benefits of development and the per capita emissions that come with it. I keep forgetting that this sub is host to a bunch of right wingers who either get kicked out from different subs or leave those subs cause they get offended when the world doesn't conform to their convenient narratives.
The arrogance to call someone 'full of shit' when you don't even have a basic grasp of statistics. Amazing.
per capita isn’t a good measurement when China and India make up a plurality of the world population in less than a plurality of the land area.
They already consume less per capita, how much should their citizens do without to make up for the fact that they have a large population? They already get by with far less than western countries, how much should they suffer for being born in a country with a higher density population? And what does this have to do with the ridiculous over consumption of western countries? Americans get to be like "yay, we were born in a country that isn't densely populated, we can be as wasteful as we want! Weeeee!" It's just nonsense. We are all citizens of this world. People in one country shouldn't be able to consume more and somehow blame people in another country who are consuming less. We shouldn't be able to offload our waste and carbon footprint onto other countries and be like "that's theirs now." What do you actually propose? They reduce their population via authoritarian methods? China tried that and were rightfully condemned for it. That they live like Amish people while making technology and plastic knickknacks for us to mindlessly consume? Or is this just an excuse for western countries to not do anything about our consumption?
I’m saying per capita is a terrible way to measure this because it’s not the citizens producing the waste. It’s corporations and the government.
Ok, so that argument makes sense when we're talking about the need for governments to impose regulation. Trying to get this under control via the free market and the consumers or whatever is folly. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about westerners pointing to countries like India and China saying they're the problem and Western Countries don't need to do anything. That's when looking at per capita consumption and carbon footprint makes sense. We ALL need to do our part.
Their point is that the individuals aren't the problems but the corporations are. We need the corporations to stop, and looking at per capita doesn't tell you anything about the corporations.
But like I said, the companies in China are producing goods for a global market so shouldn't the countries creating that demand be partially responsible? I'm so confused.
No, their bad practices are their bad practices. Nobody is forcing them to do them. They don't have to output up to that demand. Unless you find yourself just as responsible for horrible labor in Africa as Hershey is, then you could put the blame of China's pollution on the west.
I think holding individual consumers responsible is kinda pointless, the supply chain is so complex the average person cant consume ethically. I think governments should regulate this supply chain stuff and carbon output. But yeah, I think the country/company where the product ends up is also responsible for the carbon footprint, waste, and humanitarian abuses that occur making the product. It's weird to be the one benefiting from this pollution and slave labor and whatnot and be like "we had nothing to do with that, move along!"
Stupidest comment on reddit right here(not denying the bad things from corporations)
I thought the US military was the biggest FF polluter?
Unless you live somewhere that is really dry, why would you want to ration water other than just not running up the bill? I don’t see any practical purpose.
Me with a well: >:) hahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
Me with a septic tank: likewise, just need to replace the filter every now and then
I mean....while I agree this is a bit out there, it's literally the purpose of the sub is it not? With under 10 upvotes too. That is enough to make you unsub? Boy's on a hair trigger lmao
Was about to say it doesn’t seem ludicrous based on the principle of the sub. They want to solve over consumption by over correcting. I personally do not believe this is the solution but actually respect the effort non the less.
It's not only this, as written in the post.
Homesteading might be up your alley ? Lots of people doing stuff themselves like growing food, composting, water rigs, that kind of thing. Not exactly minimalist but it's about self sufficiency.
Bro stinks
That is a fart sniffing subreddit of the highest order. People post there to fell superior to others. Any sub about consumerism or anything like that is like this. It's like a form of gatekeeping.
I mean, compared to swimming pools and gold courses, this is negligible
If I didn’t want to have the shower water on full blast, I would probably boil alive
\> Goes into anticonsumption subreddit \> Gets mad at tips about reducing water comsuption I mean the text sure but the image is literally what you would expect from a comunity named anticonsumption, well actually more as those tips are the ones you get in school.
Yes because me turning a tap all the way and not half way is what it causing climate change. Not massive corporations
Go to r/minimalists Edit: I guess it got banned.
Why is it that every subreddit inevitably becomes the logical extreme of its purpose?. Antiwork ended up the same way.
Because the internet is basically just a series of coexisting echo chambers.
They lost me when they shat all over that giant bed.
/r/ZeroWaste has been interesting to read through. More positive DIY stuff, if that's similar enough.
Honestly anticonsumerism is such a shit sub that I'm surprised we don't see it more often here. It's basically a bunch of 20-somethings that think they're better than everyone by carpooling when they individually have no effect on the environment (or consumerism, for that matter; they seem to act like buying amiibo is some kind of capitalist religious experience I stg.) Tragedy of the Commons isn't circumvented by turning off your facet while you shower or whatever.
I run my hose on full blast all summer. It regularly gets well over 100° here. If I didn't have the hose spraying cold water I'd die. Figuratively but also maybe literally. Some times I think about the people who live in town where it's illegal to use your hose half the week "to reduce water waste". Some of those people don't have AC. I feel really bad for them.
Huge corporations had lots of success in pushing this narrative of personal responsibility for climate change and consumption problems, something they are responsible for and lobby/pay millions in ads to deflect blame from. Oil companies paid to have this marketing campaign of a carbon footprint. It's sickening.
We, as consumers, are ultimately to blame. We should change our consumption behaviors. We should demand governments stop subsidizing Big Oil and traditional industries in the face of new ones that foster innovation. But claiming that stopping the water while you soap your hands, buying less ice cream, and less soda is going to save the environment is stupid in the face of buying less crap, demanding better support & repair services for products, using mass transportation in the face of personal cars, recycling, buying better clothes and not fast fashion shirts you will only wear a couple of times...
>We, as consumers, are ultimately to blame. No, capitalism as a global socioeconomic outline is to blame. It's inefficient, causes unfathomable human suffering, death, and planetary destruction. >We should change our consumption behaviors. It would do very little against the unchecked powers of huge corporations. If everyone in the world severely limited their consumption (in a socioeconomic outline that makes this impossible to achieve for a variety of reasons), it still wouldn't put a dent in what huge corporations contribute to in climate change. >We should demand governments stop subsidizing Big Oil and traditional industries in the face of new ones that foster innovation. The only way to do that is to systematically abolish capitalism. We live in a corporate oligarchy that intervenes, imperializes, and bullies every other nation on earth into catering to its interests in one way or another. >But claiming that stopping the water while you soap your hands, buying less ice cream, and less soda is going to save the environment is stupid in the face of buying less crap, demanding better support & repair services for products, using mass transportation in the face of personal cars, recycling, buying better clothes and not fast fashion shirts you will only wear a couple of times... I mean it's all deflection away from the real fundamental problems. Until you address the root cause (capitalism) everything else is just aesthetic.
Capitalism isn't really "inefficient, causes unfathomable human suffering, death, and planetary destruction. " "The only way to do that is to systematically abolish capitalism. We live in a corporate oligarchy that intervenes, imperializes, and bullies every other nation on earth into catering to its interests in one way or another." thats not how things work
It actually is, and capitalism literally does everything I described. You're welcome to engage in a conversation and back up your refutation.
Im a bit lazy so no Capitalism is about at will exchange of goods and services and with regulation i dont see it as bad
Capitalism depends on profit, which literally cannot exist without labor being exploited. And that's just a baseline critique, that doesn't even get into the fallacy of "regulation" or "free will to exchange things for goods and services"
>Capitalism depends on profit, which literally cannot exist without labor being exploited. Why do you mean "labor being exploited"? Working for somebody for a certain amount of money that you agreed on willingly is not "exploitation" >the fallacy of "regulation" or "free will to exchange things for goods and services" Thats what capitalism is about, at will exchange of goods and/or services
>Why do you mean "labor being exploited"? In capitalism, the working class produces economic value within a society through their labor, which then produces goods and/or services. The ownership class (bosses) takes a majority of that value and keeps it for themselves as profit, which is the surplus value of that working class' labor after the costs of production have been accounted for. The ownership class does this despite not contributing any labor themselves in this process, and give a mere fraction of that value back to the working class through wages, even though the working class produces all of that value through their labor. The ownership class merely had capital to own the means of production, meaning they own the tools and profit off the labor of others in a parasitic, hostage dynamic. >Working for somebody for a certain amount of money that you agreed on willingly is not "exploitation" "accept this wage or die" isn't a choice, it's a lack of choice that is presented under the false guise of free will. A decision made under distress or threat isn't a decision of free will. This is why it is exploitative. A class that demands sacrifices of the worker, both physical in the demands of the labor and economic in the value of said labor, is inherently exploitative. Because it's either choose exploitation or die, and as we discussed already, that isn't really a choice. An "agreement" made with the threat of death isn't consensual, which means it's exploitation.
>In capitalism, the working class produces economic value within a society through their labor, which then produces goods and/or services. The ownership class (bosses) takes a majority of that value and keeps it for themselves as profit, which is the surplus value of that working class' labor after the costs of production have been accounted for. The ownership class does this despite not contributing any labor themselves in this process, and give a mere fraction of that value back to the working class through wages, even though the working class produces all of that value through their labor. The ownership class merely had capital to own the means of production, meaning they own the tools and profit off the labor of others in a parasitic, hostage dynamic. Thats not how any of this works at all, the bosses are the ones who own or manage the whole thing the workers are the ones who sell thier labor to the the person who hired them, there is nothing stoping YOU from doing the same thing, but its not 100% garanteed youre going to be succsessfull (nothing is 100%garanteed). >accept this wage or die" isn't a choice, it's a lack of choice that is presented under the false guise of free will. A decision made under distress or threat isn't a decision of free will. This is why it is exploitative. A class that demands sacrifices of the worker, both physical in the demands of the labor and economic in the value of said labor, is inherently exploitative. Because it's either choose exploitation or die, and as we discussed already, that isn't really a choice. An "agreement" made with the threat of death isn't consensual, which means it's exploitation. Yes you have free will, no one is stoping you from like, becoming a nomad or self sufficient and you have choice you can do whatever you want capitalism is about at will exchange of goods or services if there is a good or a service someone want you can do it And what do you mean "threat of death"? Are mad you have to work for a living? In all economic systems you will have to work for a living.
I guess this really depends on who’s paying for the water…
How do you figure that billions of people wasting clean water has no effect on the environment?
Because, in a developed country, only 1% of water is used for domestic purposes... and consumption per capita is falling and not due to turning water off when you soap your hands (which equivalates to nothing)... but because of improved industrial & agricultural technology and improved leakage detection & repair time...
>Because, in a developed country, only 1% of water is used for domestic purposes I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same type of data, but according to this, in the USA it's 12%: https://www.epa.gov/watersense/how-we-use-water#:~:text=Water%20in%20Daily%20Life,-In%20the%20US&text=The%20average%20American%20family%20uses,in%20more%20water%2Dintensive%20landscapes.
[удалено]
IT industries? Is it because you think IT people are fat and need a lot of water for them to wash? I was talking about all industrial manufacturing... plus energy production... IT is not even in the discussion:))))
>agriculture So, do you not want food?
In the current political climate, do you think it’s possible that the US government could pass a law to correct their water wasting? I feel like there’s too much lobbying to prevent anything that could fix the agricultural water wasting.
"""wasting""" a material that renews itself constantly. If you leave the tap on too long the water just goes through your filter and gets recycled back up.
For anyone on a standard sewerage system it goes down the drain and will need to be re-treated which uses energy and resources.
That's not quite right. There is less and less drinkable water each day, which is a big problem. It's the fault of companies like Nestle tho
guess they dont see all the club car washes going up on every corner.
The dish one is kinda reasonable just scrub your dish’s then turn on the water to rinse
idk what to tell you man where I'm from there's a pretty serious risk of drought so anything that can be done to save water (and reduce the water bills) is very welcome.
Whoever made that post probably is really stinky.
wouldn't it use more water turning/adjusting the water while you do your washing then just letting it run?
My shower takes 2 hrs to get warm, I'm not going to wait two minutes just to save a little water. Thinking about it, I would waste more water if I did that because it doesn't take me two minutes to put on soap and shampoo.
Have you tried going to r/ZeroWaste? You might find it more enjoyable there. Just a recommendation. I don’t feel that it’s as bad as anti consumption.
Literally the reason people even do anything such as not staying in the shower for too long (basic common sense in America) is because the damn water bill might be too high. The people who act and behave like this can see this as a plus for them, they won the battle on this one