> but they can choose what part of the industry they support.
Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't, sometimes it's up to what they care and focus about.
> If many care, they can make an impact.
Sure, theoretically. Expecting any results seems like a fool's game though. Who would bother when the state is right there and perfectly capable of making rational decisions better than any individual consumer could?
> And that's the crux. Many, or most people don't give a shit. Not about climate change, not about plastic in the ocean. Not about animals living in factories without seeing the sun ever. They care about their immediate surroundings, their taxes and the money in their pocket. They don't want further problems, someone else should take care of that (unless it increases taxes).
Yea, it's almost like this is a "tragedy of the commons" issue known to be extremely difficult to impact by individual decision making. And who can blame the individual? Who could shoulder that responsibility and emerge sane? The only entity involved one might expect to make a difference is the state with their ability to override the inherent irrationality of the masses.
Christ, what are people being taught in school these days?
"Who could shoulder that responsibility and emerge sane? The only entity involved one might expect to make a difference is the state with their ability to override the inherent irrationality of the masses. Christ, what are people being taught in school these days?"
Don't worry, they still teach everyone, that states are the only solution. They don't really teach, how that works, though. If a state is composed of lots of small parts with "inherent irrationality of the masses". Yet somehow when it is a state, it is suddenly sane?
Very convincing. Except that most states are rather busy with war now. The main thing they do to combat climate change, is talking and making resolutions how the world should look like in 2050. And in the superpower number 1, people will soon have the sane decision to vote for one, or another old senile person to fix their problems. I am sorry, but the data does not seem to support your hypothesis.
My thesis rather is, that the way the states are teaching everyone in general is flawed in the first place. And this is why most people have no understanding about fundamental things. But now they have the excuse, oh, I cannot do anything, but the state can. Very comfortable.
Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't, sometimes it's up to what they care and focus about.
> If many care, they can make an impact.
Sure, theoretically. Expecting any results seems like a fool's game though. Who would bother when the state is right there and perfectly capable of making rational decisions better than any individual consumer could?
> And that's the crux. Many, or most people don't give a shit. Not about climate change, not about plastic in the ocean. Not about animals living in factories without seeing the sun ever. They care about their immediate surroundings, their taxes and the money in their pocket. They don't want further problems, someone else should take care of that (unless it increases taxes).
Yea, it's almost like this is a "tragedy of the commons" issue known to be extremely difficult to impact by individual decision making. And who can blame the individual? Who could shoulder that responsibility and emerge sane? The only entity involved one might expect to make a difference is the state with their ability to override the inherent irrationality of the masses.
Christ, what are people being taught in school these days?