• gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not really. Organization of any kind is not my strong point to begin with. But stuff like unions is a good start, would be nice if the cooperation within countries was stronger ( like it seems to be in Sweden ) and I think more international cooperation is needed, since corporations act global nowadays.

      • oyo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        They’re not organic, and pumped full of plastics and preservatives

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      They actually have studies that show they’d make even more, which makes sense when you realize that the economy is designed to make them richer. They’ve had these studies since the mid '70s. Cruelty and head counts are the point, at this point. They know they’d be better off as well, and are just seeing how many of us they can murder before we do something about it.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      If things progress as they are, with accelerating warming, in 20 years the economies start to break down and money can’t buy you things anymore. Making money is over by then.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’ve given this a lot of thought since the comic above was first published, actually. I think it really reduces to the Tragedy of the Commons. This is where everyone involved sees a limited resource and “gets theirs” since there will always be someone else to do the same if you don’t. That explains petroleum writ large, but I think it also explains general wealth hoarding and exploiting market forces for gain. If you don’t, the next guy will.

        So if the global economy really is headed for a collapse in 20 years, you can bet these animals will spend 19.5 years making cash that other people can’t. The remaining few months will be spent buying their way out of the hole they dug, assuming they can get the timing right.

        • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          But the tragedy of the commons is possible due to other circumstances. One of that is a different model of ownership that is used now. If land is owned, you can use it was you want. That’s your right. Something that’s not owned, like the sea of air, is can be exploited. In the past, there was shared ownership over lands, and if you tried to exploit it you got slapped. Or you only owned something for a time and then came a reshuffle according to their needs. What we have now is en exercise in how far you can take individual ownership until it breaks.

          And in the past, there was more a steady state model. Population only grows slowly. Now with fast growing population. Back then you also had money as a hard currency. You wanted more, you had to dig more out of the ground. Now we have a monetary system that gets its value by promising even more value tomorrow. It forces growth on everybody and everything basically as a religion.

          Combine the two and things go horribly wrong.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s what’s probably held us back the most.

      I see three situations among the affluent that created a substantial delay in any “Green” products becoming a thing faster:

      In the first case, someone making money hand over fist. They will let someone else take on the risk of research and development, and getting it off the ground. I’m happy with my stock in BP.

      The second case, disgruntled owners of shares in companies forced to “be more green” in some way shape or form, like factories that need some post processing of their waste products, or that need to pay for their waste to be processed or disposed of. “The only thing this ‘save the planet’ nonsense has done, is cost me profits” (or whatever).

      The last is driven by the numbers. There’s no way to take the plan to go green and turn it into sales/profits. If someone were to propose any “Green” solution with a business plan that results in them making money, they’re on board, but climate activists aren’t necessarily good with business plans.

      I mean, look at what happened with EVs, and solar. As much as I’m personally not a fan of musk, he was willing to take the risk to create Tesla. As soon as he started shipping hundreds of thousands of units at $90k+ each, within a few years, other companies had, at least, HEVs available. Solar panel research is starting to push out some pretty efficient panels, those panels are appearing on big retailers stores to offset costs. Solar companies are buying eachother out, it’s a crazy market. The demand, not just from eco-conscious consumers, but from businesses, has exploded. The reason is that the return on investment of solar is very very clearly laid out. Spend some money putting them in, and you’ll pay less in the long run on electricity. Any retailer with any future vision and roof space would be stupid not to put them in.

      If you think about what’s important to these capitalists, and adjust to how risk averse they are, this is all very clear as to why this has been moving so slowly. Fact is, if you can demonstrate that the tech works and show the difference, on paper, for operating costs, you’ll easily have more orders than you can handle for whatever green product you can think of.

      The main issue right now is getting physics to work with you, in your favor, to get the thing to work. There are some serious engineering and physics challenges when it comes to most green technologies that usually makes them “not economically viable” aka, they cost more than alternatives. Once we figure out how to make them cost less, you’ll be amazed how fast things change.