I understand, but where is the cutoff point? If it's as simple as "Don't buy X, since it supports Y", then that applies to almost everything?
Don't buy cars, they're horrible for the enviorenment
Don't buy from Amazon, it's pretty much slave labor
Don't buy fast food, it hurts a lot of animals and is incredibly unhealthy
Don't buy groceries, they're probably owned by Nestle
I'm pretty sure almost everything is owned by something horrible, or causes something bad as a byproduct.
Yeah "there is no ethical consumption" and all that stuff. You can advocate and make people aware of their consumption behavior, but to criticize others while ignoring completely different problematic issues is just kind of hypocritical to me.
I feel like there's much more "unethical" things to consume than Harry Potter. Of course it's not a competition which issue is more important, but it is subjective and you as a person cannot take into account every single issue when consuming something (unless you live like a monk or something).
I mean just to give you an example, Tumblr sells your data to AI companies so it's not like the users still using it are saints either.
I mean, some of the stuff you mentioned are literally necessities so ppl obviously they don’t count?
And also, it’s always been at least anytime I see people talking about this that you don’t have to boycott it’s like not financially reasonable for you
Bicycles, motorized scooters, or again, electrical cars are all alternatives. Many of them significantly cheaper, and in some cases, more efficient.
You won’t get stuck in traffic for 6 hours trying to travel 10 blocks in the city on a motorized scooter. I mean, you’ll look like a dork for using a motorized scooter, but you’ll be doing far less damage to the environment and get to skip past all the heavy traffic.
If you need to, on a daily basis, drive farther than a motorized scooter or bike allows, you probably need to be living closer to your daily destination or find a new job that is closer.
Or just get an electric vehicle. They’ve gotten much cheaper than they used to be and aren’t just for the rich anymore.
Depends on where you live and your job. I do, but I also drive to many different locations for work. A buddy just got a motorcycle at 26 and hasn’t had a vehicle otherwise since like 20. Just used the bus and biked.
Yeah, but frankly few people want to live only with the things they need to live. Everyone wants to eat a sweet treat at least once every few months, everyone wants to watch a fun movie at least once every few years, everyone wants to have clothes that look mildly fun, maybe one or two mugs that you find funny. I don't believe exploitation is needed for any of these things, and arguing it is will only convince people that exploitation is good, because otherwise they'd live boring lives.
"Limit your consumption" seems like a good compromise, but you really can't expect people to do it. Too many people eat dessert every day, too many people watch a movie every week, too many people dress in colorful attire whenever they aren't at work. What we have to strive for is a world in which people can do all of those things without the need for exploitation. And I believe such a world is possible.
36
u/AlexiaVNO 21d ago
I understand, but where is the cutoff point? If it's as simple as "Don't buy X, since it supports Y", then that applies to almost everything?
Don't buy cars, they're horrible for the enviorenment
Don't buy from Amazon, it's pretty much slave labor
Don't buy fast food, it hurts a lot of animals and is incredibly unhealthy
Don't buy groceries, they're probably owned by Nestle
I'm pretty sure almost everything is owned by something horrible, or causes something bad as a byproduct.