[vouaobrasil]

Yes, that is true. But because we benefit from that destruction, even though we don't want to use the planet that way, we inherit the responsibility of fighting for it. Just like we have the responsibility of protecting our children against people who would hurt them, even if we aren't the ones doing the damage.

[gambiting]

Well......I've really changed my mind about this whole thing over the years. I used to also think that it's really "them" not "us", but as I grow older I'm not sure. Admittedly I live in a rich western country where consumerism is king, but all the people I know are in the cycle of "new car every 2-3 years, new phone every year, new TV every few years, flying at least 6-8 times a year, meat 3x times a day for every meal, everything you buy is packaged in plastic etc etc etc etc".

Like, these corporations don't produce all of this stuff just for the sake of it - there are consumers like "us" buying it at the other end. Us again meaning people in countries and in demographics where you can afford it, I don't blame someone in a poor country burning tyres for heat - their environmental damage over a full year is probably less than mine over a month.

[pipo234]

While I'm reluctant to admit ever being influenced by a commercial, I looks like ads are playing a role in all this consumerism.

And while personally I don't own a car, don't fly, work on a 5 year old desktop computer, old phone, eat meat or fish less than twice a week... I often wonder:

How come I earn 2-3 times modal wages writing C++ software to stream video over internet? Sure lots of people watch Netflix or Youtube for leisure, but how come society value my labour so much higher than someone working in construction, education, retail, food? Why don't I pay more taxes? Should software be eating the world?

[petre]

> How come I earn 2-3 times modal wages writing C++ software to stream video over internet?

Because the people you work for make shitloads of money delivering content and their employees expect to be paid accordingly? Because Twitter who delivers short messages on the Internet sold for 44b, while Westinghouse who makes nuclear reactors sold for $7.9b? Seems like there's more demand for a propaganda vehicle than for a power plant.

[pipo234]

Thank you for pointing this out. It's a good start, but I was looking for a deeper answer.

So please help me understand why the people I work for are making shitloads of money? Why is Twitter worth $ 44b?

Asking why here is mostly meant rhetorically. What I'm really after is figuring out if there's a way to restructure society such that monetary rewards are directed towards what's valuable to society. IMO, streaming video and social networks aren't that.