2meirl4meirl

i am very much in favor of cradle to cradle

We have seen over and over that we can have a sustainable, industrialized world. The poorest people in the world have washing machines and refrigerators. I highly encourage anyone who thinks in terms of basic conveniences to travel to poor places and see what their quality of life is compared to the US or Europe, it's often eye-opening and makes you rethink what we're focusing on.

The problem isn't that we need to give up conveniences, it's that the people who produce our conveniences are treating their relationship with us like drug dealers or pimps. They produce inferior products designed to break and in return they continually raise prices, and create marketing campaigns that mislead and influence people, they find ways to exploit workers at a GRAND scale, all while funneling MASSIVE amounts of our wealth upwards and outside of our communities, and even that would be almost be solvable if they didn't then compile all their wealth and resources to influence politics to deregulate their own industries.

The "Oh you want socialism? Are you ready for bread lines??" responses to a public outcry for more fair systems or safety nets are tired relics from Ronald Reagan's era.

Actual post-capitalism society would be nearly unimaginable in today's world, people who think we're going to topple capital in our lifetimes are delusional. BUT we can go a lot further towards mitigating the damage it's doing.

We can create amendments to our constitutions that set in stone fair practices in business, lending and truth in media among other desperate needs for overhaul. We can set corporate tax rates where they were in the 50's when we had a boom in American wealth, we can break up monopolies in smart ways that don't kill jobs but instead shift ownership and thus revenue towards localities that need it. We can incentivize worker-cooperatives and provide subsidies for companies that stick to fair practices and are putting actual wealth back into communities.

We could create a semi-post-capitalist first-world if we all really wanted to, but the forces of capital have already dumbed our population down into a herd of consuming livestock that shriek bloody murder whenever someone threatens regulations on business. We need generations of concerted effort to undo the damage that Reagan and his fellows have left us.

are you willing to give up your washing machine now that you know there are not enough resources for a washing machine for every human and you wanting a fair world?

This is a strawman, or... something similar. No one who wants a more just world is proposing that we get there by reducing the quality of life for large segments of the world's population.

A more reasonable allegory would be "are you willing to make it so that no one can own a yacht, so that everyone can own a washing machine?"

Because we absolutely do have the resources to get everyone a washing machine, they're just not evenly distributed.

As this'll track with reality too, because the people who would say "no" are the people who own yachts and, yeah...those people are the reason we don't have a more just world.

I'd like to think that I would give up my laundry machine, but probably not without some major rebalancing of life and work expectations.

If I was told that I could work 20hrs/week, but I had to give up my washing machine, I'd probably take that trade.

Going back to the questions, those were just some examples, depending on how far along in the discussion we are. Perhaps the right question to discuss next is something along the lines of: "What would it take for people to start having these discussions, and what can we do to achieve them?"

The answer to those questions is yes and you can go fuck yourself for assuming otherwise. Projection much?

Here is the major flaws in your argument and those studies. You frame the argument to imply that people would have to "live without a one" yet fail to understand that no one ever said you had to go without. You have just as much access to a washing machine as anyone else. So the very premise of your argument is made in bad faith.

Secondly, there are alternatives to cars. Ever heard of a bus? Trains? Walkable urban design that existed for all of human history before the advent of car-centric culture?

Fridges, why would you need a fridge if you could walk down to the local grocer and just grab what you need because your city has been redesigned with walkability in mind to ensure your necessities are never more than a 15 minute bike ride away?

What you're trying to say is a load of bullshit that makes a lot of ill informed assumptions about people alongside a complete misunderstanding of different structures of ownership and how they would function.

Our current, hyper-individualist culture is an incredibly new phenomenon and only exists as a result of the system we live under. Do you also think it is in a bear's nature to ride a unicycle just because you've only ever seen them perform in a circus?

What? People ditching crap like Amazon? Yes it’s altready happening because people release that it’s just crap anyway and the local alternatives are better. In my area they even deliver faster ….

And what case were they attempting to make there?

Their comment is a variation of this comic.

Message understood captain. We blame others for not doing the very things we're not doing but that our opposition is doing. This will make our opposition think we're with them.

Brilliant! No one will see us not coming!

----- alternative response ----

You have the best history book everyone is saying it. People come up all the time and say, that guys has all the best history books. And it's true. Other history books, fake news! Written by loses. Yours, all the greatest moments! Everyone's talking about it. Nobody's seen anything like it before it!