this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
859 points (100.0% liked)

196

16555 readers
1588 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Your argument boils down to suffer more because someone else is doing proportionately more damage to the point where your personal contribution is entirely negligible and we don't know how to fix that.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

still negligible if all the most consumerist countries populations are combined?

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Can't buy what isn't sold. The bulk of society don't have the financial capacity to change their purchasing habits, they're already struggling for survival.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

middle to upper class? I mean sure a handful of individuals have %50 percent of the whole wealth but it is not a handful of individuals who are consuming that amount of meat and using amazon (or the likes) daily to get ten useless junks shipped all the way from china every month. can't sell what is not being bought.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lmao, you think the bulk of human society is middle to upper class? No wonder your perspective is warped. You'd ignore those who can't just because some can.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Where did I say that the bulk of human society is middle to upper class? If you are poor enough that you can't eat meat, use airplanes, or use amazon to get junk shipped across the world you obviously don't contribute to over consumerism. The fact remains however that some hundred million to billion people are wealthy enough to contribute to over consumerism and they do. Without these people's spending habits these companies wouldn't be able to grow so much. Our consumption habits are the sugar that feeds the cancer. Stop feeding the cancer.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Exactly, yet you would sit here and preach to the lesser influence and to those under the boot rather than the producers. Fix your priorities and stop attacking those trying to survive rather than those exploiting even the people you say are "wealthy enough to do better".

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Always did, but you still don't get mine because I wasn't the one with the deficiency in understanding.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, and yet the deficiency remains.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why would I be worried about your obvious lack of capacity? Ain't my problem.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Of course I am, it's easy to entertain idiots.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

self entertainment is a skill

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
[–] ichmagrum@feddit.de 2 points 10 months ago

Most of the stuff most people buy on Amazon and the like is definitely optional.