Officials are pleading with people to help reduce demand.

Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It’s not like they’re making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

I mean, if that was the case, sure, let’s have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let’s cut them a break.

TLDR: It’s your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

  • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 days ago

    OP hit the nail on the head. This is once again shifting the blame (and guilt) onto individuals who even collectively have fuck-all impact on the problem in question.

    The worst of it is, some people will believe this shit.

    • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      3 days ago

      What’s even more infuriating is the numbers of people who fail to recognize that all of these companies sell these goods and services to consumers and it is those consumers who can reduce the demand.

      • machiavellian@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        There was/is a demand for slavery. Should we wait for these people to realize that maybe owning slaves is not okay and morally wrong? Or should we just outright ban slavery and not give two fucks how “the market forces” view such action? You tell me.

          • machiavellian@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            3 days ago

            Your argument is, correct me if I’m wrong, that the demand for product X always necessetates its production/supply and that supply will cease when there is no more demand.

            A valid argument based on basic market economic principles.

            I argue that there are times, when the demand for something does not outweigh the cost incurred (by the society) from the production and supply of a product. Meaning there are cases, such as this one, when it is almost impossible to decrease demand and thus influence the production which in turn would decrease the cost incurred by the society. In my view, the State has to protect foremost its citizenry, not ginormous enterprises. If this protection means going against “market forces”, then so be it.

            Both “products” cause harm to society while only a few benefit, so no, it was not a false equivalence.

            But then again, I could be mistaken and feel free to correct me on anything. :))