- the more money we spend on <thing> the more <thing>’s manufacturer has to lobby for its continued existence
- the more we standardize that product as “normal” we make regulating it less politically viable (see blowback re: plastic straws)
This whole expectation of disposability is the problem in the first place.
> paper bags cause more harm than plastic
Citation needed. As I understand it, they can be more harmful if unsustainable methods of production are used. Unbleached paper from sustainable forestry should be less harmful. It may not be cheaper. Cheapest should not be the only aim. c.f. regulation.
It's funny how luxurious a simple ice-filled straw-included one-time-use styrofoam cup of Coke from the McDonald's drive-thru is, really, and how much we take it for granted.
How Authoritarian of you, what other area's of life should the governments of the world control for everyone denying them their human right of choice?
It is sad to me that as civilization "advances" more and more people want to go back to a time where people were subjects of their government, instead of free people. I know it has only been a few hundred years of human civilization where people have had any kind of freedom, why are we so willing to give all of that up?
The types of invasive regulations that will require increasing food costs, as well as lowering shelf life for every day people will cause massive problems for not only the poor but the middle class as well.
What is next mandatory vegan artisanal organic diet to save the climate? Each meal having to be hand picked by a local farmer that day.
It's not just an arbitrary decision, promoted by some power structure. Our phylogeny is conclusively based around groups coordinating for optimal reward.
ie Cooperation has worked out better than being individuals.
"Free People" is a meaningless categorization without social context. Even anarchists have labels and limits, even if they are individually arbitrary. Deciding how to behave individually is not a decision in a vacuum when living in the same regional bounds as others. In modern times, the region is global, as the impacts of an individual utilizing technology can have recognizable impact.
if you live in a real democracy, is it really authoritarian that a majority decide that we want to live in a cleaner world?
the earth isn’t some computer program where you have infinite ram and can just alloc as much as you want, at some point you start pushing other process out of memory, and you wonder why stuff starts crashing and freezing...
(i’ll stop with the computer analogy now ^^)
I don't, nor do I want to. I live in a Constitutional Representative Republic. where the majority is not allowed by the constitution to invoke their mob rule on others
The Founders of my nation did not trust democracy any more than they trusted monarch's and I agree with them
I desire individualism, and individual rights not democracy and mob rule
>>the earth isn’t some computer program where you have infinite ram and can just alloc as much as you want, at some point you start pushing other process out of memory, and you wonder why stuff starts crashing and freezing...
I 100% agree with this, I disagree that a Authoritarian Centrally managed government is the best or ideal way to allocate though resources
I am not going to get into a computer analogy, but I tend to following Geo-Libertarian philosophy as a structure for human organization
Instead, that privilege is reserved to a minority privileged by geographic distribution, which is much better.*
* If you are in the privileged minority; not so much otherwise.
This argument bothers me a great deal. It takes a simple solution (regulation) and turns it into a complicated distributed solution (convincing the majority of consumers to make the right decision) prone to disinformation campaigns, green washing, confusion, and simple lack of attention.
We have governments for reasons. This is one of those reasons. They need to do their job and stop using our behaviour as an excuse for inaction.