this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
115 points (97.5% liked)

BrainWorms

1272 readers
4 users here now

Hey, welcome to BrainWorms.

This is a place where I post interesting things that I find and cant categorize into one of the main subs I follow. Enjoy a front seat as i descend into madness

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
115
The world's corporations produce so much climate change pollution, it could eat up about 44% of their profits if they had to pay damages for it (phys.org)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I hate those kind of arguments... Those corporations produce stuff that people want, and usually can't even be made without emissions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

There are four ways forward:

  1. Corporations choose willingly to reduce emissions (and probably die in the process as their prices are no longer competitive)
  2. ALL corporations band together to reduce emissions
  3. ALL consumers band together to purchase only from corporations that have low or no emissions
  4. Government forces consumers and corporations to reduce emissions.

So in the real world, there is only one way forward.

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

And I hate these arguments. Corporations still choose to produce those things. They could choose not to. Why should they be allowed to do anything just because "people want" something?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

That's just how the world works... If enough people want it, somebody will eventually start creating that product.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"Stuff people want" isn't really an excuse.

A morbidly obese 800lb land whale, incapable of moving because they've fused with their bed, wants food.

A heroin addict, track marks on their dick, wants heroin.

A suicidal individual wants to unalive themself.

Do you give them the food that will contribute to their death?

Do you give them the heroin that will either kill them or contribute to their death?

Do you hand them a gun?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This is a very dangerous argument because it infringes the democratic base itself.

It's not necessary wrong, but be careful because with the very same logic you could argue the people don't really know what they want, they aren't able to govern themselves, we, enlightened creatures, should decide the way forward.

Again, it's not necessary false, but it leads to authoritarian and paternalistic consequences