nicetomeetyouIMVEGAN

Look I share the same frustrations. And true change can only come from political actions. Laws, oversight, fines, taxation, enforcement... Leaving change to the market isn't a solution to anything. We can't consume our way out of this problem.

But that's also not the point of our conversation, I'm trying to make clear that as a consumer you still bare responsibility over what you consume.

The problem is when people throw their hands up and just 'get what they need' mindlessly. That's also a choice.

When we can make choices that are clearly better and more ethical, we should. So it is on us to do the best we can, within the system we find ourselves in. We should strive for systemic (political) change outside of consumption, as well. One doesn't get nullified by the other.

Okay but this also doesn't absolve you from your responsibility. At some point you're going to make a decision about where your personal boundaries in weighing your options are. And if you're not driving and eating (a lot) less animal products you're further ahead of the curve than others. But deciding when you find things unsustainable, it is still another decision.

Most people don't feel or don't see a positive difference from their choice. So they let go of their responsibilities because of it. If there is no positive impact it doesn't matter what they do, is their thinking.

While when you look in the supermarket now compared to ten years ago... Meat substitutes, vegan products, plant milks are abundant. So, things are changing, the choices people make are influential. It just isn't immediate. But even within capitalism the market is responding to changes, from the personal choices of people like you and me. It's slow and tedious, but things change.

Yes as an overarching critique that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. My problem is that this doesn't absolve us from our responsibility. If choice A leaves trails of chemicals behind but costs less than B that leaves purity behind. I can definitely critique people who choose to get A.

Mainly because the other option is to choose to not consume. For example veganism doesn't apply to what you're saying. It's a conscious decision based on ethical values. The same thing can be true for people who don't use cars.

And even if there is a choice between lesser evils, it's still a choice of consequence.

That's a mischaracterization of what it means to argue from ideology. They only have to accept the idea that ownership of the means of production means ownership of the pollution from the means of production.

Which is a. Very common and b. The only explanation through which this research makes sense without attributing malice.

You are the person to set in motion the apparatus necessary to accomplish the task that you wanted to be accomplished.

Yes you live in this late stage capitalist hellscape with the rest of us, but that doesn't absolve you from being critical and making the best decisions in it.

Okay so you rather think they were doing it on purpose than doing from ideology. I have a bit more regard for people I guess

You think you're not?

The problem here is that this research works from a Capitalist understanding of responsibility. That is to say that Besos is responsible for the emissions of Amazon, musk for space x, etc. Which means absolutely nothing. It's a bullshit number.

"Sell it to who Ben? Fucking aquaman?"

What?

That's just you, with intelligence, trying to explain what he, without intelligence, is doing. You're projecting intelligence on him because he won capitalism, and Capitalism wants you to think it's because of merit. It isn't, he's an idiot. Look at the name of his child.... Do you think this is a person with foresight?