• Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The vast majority of this doesn’t constitute a significant portion of the economy or fossil fuel emissions.

    I’m not sure how you arrived at that.

    Industry is responsible for more than 20% of all emissions. But there’s more to that 20% if you throw in what it takes to create any widget sold.

    Products don’t simply appear on store shelves; there’s no such thing as a free lunch. It involves a complex process: raw resources are mined and extracted, transformed into usable materials, and then shipped to factories across the planet. These materials undergo processing and are transported to other locations, where they are built into widgets and once again shipped to store shelves. These items are often owned for as little time as possible and then discarded, contributing to the ever-growing pile of waste generated by consumer purchases.

    Each of these steps requires energy, and in many cases, this energy is produced in countries with lax regulations on energy production. Another issue is known as “supply chain sprawl,” where logistics and supply chains are spread out due to globalization. This can result in parts being loaded onto large shipping vessels, which are responsible for emitting more than three percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and then shipped back and forth across the ocean. There are astonishing stories of parts that are shipped across the ocean, attached to a board with just four screws, only to be shipped back to their place of origin before being shipped across the ocean once again for sale. Each of these steps requires electricity and power generation, whether it’s for moving ships, manufacturing machinery, transportation, or maintaining the lights. All of these factors add up, some obvious and some less so.

    You can choose to ignore it, but you can’t deny that it all comes at a cost. One of the most significant reductions we could make in the fight against climate change is by reducing our consumerist habits, as they have been ingrained into our culture by advertisers like Edward Bernays and other psychologists from the Mad Men era, who figured out how to influence the masses and promote consumerism." Think of the dent we could make immediately by just not buying shit and if we have to, buying shit that lasts a lifetime or as long as possible.

    under their own motivation

    You have never been under your own motivation. Motivation is a hodge podge of multiple contributing factors where many are out of your control. Which is why there is big money in convincing you that you are in control. Its the information age now. They know you better than you know yourself.

    A recent book called Buyology, collected findings from numerous studies in neuromarketing, concluding that: subliminal advertising works (and bypasses conscious rational thought or conscious objections), emotional reactions to products can be implanted into the subconscious mind, and increased brain activity during an advert may be linked to an increased desire to buy products.

    • bioemerl@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When you start out with such a massively misleading statement like:

      Industry is responsible for more than 20% of all emissions

      When industry is literally stuff like cars, industrial equipment, oil production, basically all chemical production, and so on and so forth.

      Cheap disposable plastic mall trinkets are not a major industrial sector. The vast majority of industrial spend is stuff that actually improves people’s lives.

      If you’re going to start criticizing “products” then again you’re talking about stuff that for the most part people just want. And stuff for the most part that people would want regardless of advertisements.

      This:

      You have never been under your own motivation

      Is what I’m talking about when I say it’s conspiracy thinking.

      Maybe.

      Just maybe.

      People are able to think for themselves.

      It’s extra hilarious that you link a study on subliminal messaging, which is one of the fields in psychology that have been embroiled in reproducibility issues and fraud.

      • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        When industry is literally stuff like cars, industrial equipment, oil production, basically all chemical production, and so on and so forth.

        All things required for manufacturing goods. Its in the link.

        Cheap disposable plastic mall trinkets are not a major industrial sector.

        That’s a narrow constraint you put on this, it isn’t mine.

        The vast majority of industrial spend is stuff that actually improves people’s lives.

        Improve lives how? That’s a broad statement. My life can be improved by getting a new car every week. Doesn’t mean it didn’t cost a large amount or energy to produce and dispose of.

        Maybe. Just maybe. People are able to think for themselves.

        If that were true, how does a lawyer convince someone to divulge information in a deposition of a person that did not want to divulge information. You make a choice, but your choices are influenced by more than ourselves.

        I provided one link for support. That does not mean its the only thing. Its used to show there is evidence and you are suppose to read between the lines that there is a whole field with much more. Its a stepping stone, not a destination. But you said this:

        It’s extra hilarious that you link a study on subliminal messaging, which is one of the fields in psychology that have been embroiled in reproducibility issues and fraud.

        "I believe this only underscores my point. I don’t think you are a psychologist. But this is something we all have heard online lots in these arguments. We all have been influenced by this refuting sentence and often repeat it. I’ve done it in the past. It’s something that affects our choices because at some point it has left a memorable impact on us. If you search for ‘reproducibility,’ you’ll find headline after headline on the topic. Oftentimes, it’s used in internet arguments by people like us to dismiss things. It’s a learned behavior in our culture war discourse. It has been ingrained as a way to reject an argument and to disregard the ‘other side.’ You didn’t engage with the study itself. You didn’t demonstrate that the article I shared was incorrect. Instead, you simply rejected it by citing ‘reproducibility problems.’ That’s a learned behavior. You didn’t independently pore over academic studies to come to this conclusion; rather, you were influenced by someone else to use this argument in these instances.

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

          "I believe this only underscores my point

          I was caught peddling bunk folk psychology to peddle my conspiracy theory about we are all getting manipulated to serve the evil overlords and that only makes my point stronger

          You didn’t engage with the study itself.

          I don’t engage with flat earth bullshit or other conspiracy theories either. I engage with things that are worth engaging with. An Amazon pundit piece peddling crap about your free will being taken away subliminal messages goes into the instant trash with the other garbage.