[antris]

It's a bit disingenuous to lay blame on companies for hypocrisy, when they have to play by the system set up by politicians.

Capitalism doesn't give you any extra points for being sustainable. If anything, it can interfere or be in direct opposition to making profits. You win at capitalism by making profits. A non-sustainable competitor will eat you, if you start worrying about the environment too much. So greenwashing is the way to go for most companies, in order to avoid boycotts, and people are ready to believe it because these problems are complex and people don't want to think that the stuff they buy are hurting the environment. This is a very foreseeable result, given the incentives.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Demand change from the politicians.

[zmix]

You mean the politicians, that get sponsored by the companies? Those, who get influenced by professional lobbyists?

[antris]

Yes.

The efficacy of different kinds of action is highly dependent on the existing structures, of course. That's not to say that nothing can be done, it's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job and gathering up people to join the cause.

You can vote, run for office, participate in demonstrations, strikes or any kind of direct action. The possibilities are endless. No single method guarantees success for a movement and nobody knows what will happen in advance, but in general the bigger the mass of people participating, the higher the likelihood of success. But sitting on your ass and blaming companies is guaranteed to fail, if meaningful change to the system is what you want.

[syshum]

>>Don't hate the player, hate the game.

No, that is a stupid saying and people need to stop using. Unethical actions are unethical even if the "game" allows for it.

>> Demand change from the politicians.

No again, the solution to this problem is not some authoritarian government response, or even (which is implied by your indirect blame of capitalism for all the problems in the world) socialist economic model

>Capitalism doesn't give you any extra points for being sustainable.

Capitalism does not care about about sustainability or non-sustainable , non-sustainable companies are NOT givin a "competitive advantage" by capitalism.

In reality is current government regulations like provide non-sustainable companies with that advantage in the form of liability shields, and various other government programs written by big business for big business to ensure the status quo

You appeal to government authority is as misplaced as your blame of capitalism for all the problems

[bccdee]

> Unethical actions are unethical even if the "game" allows for it.

Yeah, but nobody cares what you think is unethical. If the game allows unethical moves to be made, they will be made, because people play to win. And you can cry and complain all you want, but people strive to play optimally, and unless you change the rules of the game, people will continue to play in ways that upset you if it suits them to.

> non-sustainable companies are NOT givin a "competitive advantage" by capitalism.

Yes they are. Or rather, companies that care one way or another are at a disadvantage relative to companies who will make the optimal choice independent of whether or not it is sustainable. If we want to encourage sustainability, we have to use legislation to re-align incentives such that sustainability is the optimal choice. Otherwise, corporations will continue to be unsustainable whenever it suits them.

> government programs written by big business for big business to ensure the status quo

xD

Dominant corporations don't need the government to help them stay on top. All they need is for the government to get out of the way. When you have money, you can use it to influence the market to make more money. That's how advertising works. That's how vertical integration and walled gardens like Apple's app store work. That's how mergers and corporate consolidation work. Money is power, and market share is power. The state is the only thing powerful enough to compete with corporations, which is why corporations spend so much money lobbying the government to de-regulate and back down.

[antris]

>Unethical actions are unethical even if the "game" allows for it.

Nobody says what Apple is doing is ethical, at least I sure didn't. The point is, the problem runs deeper than one company. The system has an incentive structure where companies benefit by doing as Apple does. It's like blaming a ball for rolling down a hill. If you don't want the ball to roll, go play on a level field.

>You appeal to government authority

You make this sound like I'm for some kind of dictatorship.

I firmly believe in a government democratically elected by the people. Even if the system is capitalist in nature, it should always be subservient to the will of the people. The governments should be tied to the will and interest of the people. Especially in the US it seems that the government acts for the corporate special interests. In that case, the solution is more democracy, not less.

>non-sustainable companies are NOT givin a "competitive advantage" by capitalism

So why are all the big companies ruining our climate then? What's the explanation? Random chance?

[syshum]

Democracy is 2 wolves and a Lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

I firmly believe in individualism and individual rights, governments are insulted by people to guard individuals rights nothing more. Governments just power and authority comes from that defense of rights, not from majority rule

If 51% agree that the other 49% should be enslaved does not make it ethical or right, but in your worldview that democratic government would be "tied to the will of the people"

No, government like fire is a useful tool but a dangerous leader and should never be left whims of the "majority"

[antris]

>If 51% agree that the other 49% should be enslaved does not make it ethical or right, but in your worldview that democratic government would be "tied to the will of the people"

Of course democracy requires a constitution and a stable society to work. If there is no constitution that protects human rights and a majority thinks enslavement is okay, democracy isn't the right tool anymore. That's a description of a failed society at war against each other. I'm not suggesting that all problems can be solved by vote, just that it's much better to solve problems by vote than by bloodshed or by who has the most money, if you have that option. In a failed society, such option does not exist. That doesn't mean that democracy doesn't work. It clearly does in several countries.

[anoncake]

Anything else is one wolf deciding to eat two lambs. Also, if you enslave almost half the population you definitely don't have a democracy anymore -- unless your slaves are allowed and able to vote and participate in public discourse like anyone else, which likely would not quite be slavery anymore.

[bccdee]

What a perfect analogy — wolves and lambs voting on what to have for dinner. In the absence of democratic governance, the wolves will just eat the lambs because nobody's stopping them.

The wolf here is Apple. I can't make my own phone. Neither can you. And most users are substantially less tech-savvy from us, to the point where all they can really do is configure the settings on the factory-installed OS. The technology we use is overwhelmingly under the control of tech giants; there is no viable phone OS other than iOS (Apple-controlled) and Android + Play store (Google-controlled).

What do we do? Let ourselves get eaten? Or do we, the lambs (who are the overwhelmingly in the majority in our society) exert democratic power to counterbalance the capitalist power which controls the tech in our lives?

> If 51% agree that the other 49% should be enslaved does not make it ethical or right

Right, which is why the constitution exists: to protect certain individual rights from state overreach. But it absolutely does not follow that, since it is desirable that the government be constrained in some ways, it is always better for the government to do less.