• LucidNightmare@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Big companies only do what they do when the governments that they paid with bribes or “lobby” money look the other way while they fuck the planet up left and right like it’s a race to the end”

      Fixed it for you. Stop excusing the rich, and trying to place the blame on the consumers, friend. It’s disgusting.

      • dangblingus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The blame is on everyone. But if consumers… you know… stopped consuming so much garbage food, electronics, packaging for their shitty food and shitty electronics, cars, gasoline, etc, maybe the large companies wouldn’t produce so much of it.

        • LucidNightmare@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Such a bad argument again.

          My friend. The corporations have spent BILLIONS of dollars making sure all my options are as thin as possible.

          Tell me, friend. Where can I get the GOOD and HEALTHY food, the GOOD electronics? WHERE can I get these things WITHOUT spending the arm and leg that I DO NOT HAVE to spend? Enlighten me as to why you choose to blame the consumers whose options are LIMITED by the corporations….?

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or switch to a seafood-based diet, which has a much smaller CO2 footprint than land-based agriculture.

        • such_fifty_bucks@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          “just eat seafood”. Brought to you by the comment thread on the article about the fact that the oceans are half way to literally fucking boiling.

          • KnitWit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, I can’t give you gold obviously, so here’s my first comment ever. That comment was fucking gold!

          • I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            To quote The Goodies. “Why are you dumping oil and potatoes into the ocean?” “Well when the ocean is full of fish, potatoes and oil, I’ll throw in a match. Flash! Fry! Frizzle… Fish and Chips! Loads and Loads of Fish and Chips.”

            (This is from memory, will be somewhat paraphrased. Also see https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0591041/)

        • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We already massively overfish, is that really your solution? It’ll mean more intense factory farming of seafood, creating huge amounts of water based pollution.

          • FlowVoid@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not all types of fish are overfished, some (like haddock) are sustainable. Just as some crops are farmed responsibly, and others (like California almonds) are not.

            • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I see you noticed that mackerel had it’s “sustainable” status removed. Sad times. ^^’

              I didn’t think Haddock had gotten back on the sustainable side either, most things can be done sustainably up to a certain volume. If the entire population turns its eye on it then demand far outstrips supply and goodbye sustainability.

                • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ah, Americans are redefining words again.

                  Normal English:

                  animals from the sea that can be eaten, especially fish or sea creatures with shells

                  US English:

                  fish or shellfish eaten as food

                  I’m gonna go with the definition that makes sense and say that no, we don’t have any local seafood, simply because we don’t have any sea.

                  • FlowVoid@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    There are more native English speakers in my country than yours. So I’ll continue to use the definition that they understand, which is also the definition used by Encyclopedia Britannica.

                    But if I ever visit your landlocked English-speaking country (assuming such a place exists), then I’ll try to keep in mind that local customs differ when eating at your restaurants.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re being downvoted, but why? Human greed also extends to consumers. We don’t have to buy a thing because it was paraded around in front of us. I hate the “consumers have no agency, they have to buy stuff!” mentality. It’s morally bankrupt and just results in more finger pointing and zero action. Stop buying crap.