Asklemmy

43806 readers

873 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

155

Is there anything that only the rich can currently afford but that everyone will have in the future? (lemmy.one)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

161 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When the very first cars were built, only the rich could afford it, but now a large part of the population (in developed countries) has one or more.

What do you think will be such an evolution in the future?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JimmyMcGill 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Due to the environmental impacts they would have a strong incentive to not do that.

Not because they care that much about the climate, but if they can make a significant percentage of continents like Africa and Asia reduce their food production emissions they they themselves would need to reduce theirs less

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

if they can make a significant percentage of continents like Africa and Asia reduce their food production emissions they they themselves would need to reduce theirs less

I'm confused by this. Care to elaborate?

[–] JimmyMcGill 2 points 1 year ago

Sure.

Western countries are under pressure by their own population to fight climate change. For that they need to implemente measures that reduce their impact, which most governments would rather not do as it usually comes with some “negative consequences”. Now, if they can make the problem smaller by having other countries change their way of living instead, it’s a win for them, because problem gets smaller, pressure decreases (or more realistically increases less) and they can focus on making lines go up and getting their votes.

So I don’t think that they will have a big incentive in keeping it private. Of course private companies will, but that’s a different story.

Hopefully that made sense. It’s late here xD