That’s sort of what some European countries are doing with some African ones regarding “recycling”.
Like it or not, there are a fixed amount of resources on this planet. Letting the standard for quality of life drop or using it as an excuse is not a solution.
There are more than enough resources to go around. We don’t need to give them our scraps.
Our “quality” of life does need to change. We do not need a new phone every few years, we don’t need fast fashion, we don’t need 50 different varieties of plain salt chips on the supermarket shelves.
We can reduce, reuse, and repair much of what we already have and live extremely comfortably while giving more to others who have less.
I heard this becomes more true the more you upvote it. It’s so true you don’t even have to check yourself for confirmation bias.
“There are more than enough resources to go around.”
but also
“We can reduce, reuse, and repair much of what we already have” (there were more than enough resources to go around, but begin reducing, reusing, and repairing, don’t look for a contradiction)
but also
“Our “quality” of life does need to change.” (except for having to reduce, reuse, and repair everything, right)
but also
“We do not need a new phone every few years, we don’t need fast fashion” (it’s not changing the quality of life if you dismiss it’s value as a quality of life improvement)
As everyone knows, in a fixed resource systems, there is an infinite amount of resources to go around, but also reduce, reuse, repair, scrounge, scavenge, no reason, just cause, quality of life totally the same.
Hey, I’ve discovered this funny thing. Whenever I read an argument I don’t like, I just have to change the definition of the terms the argument uses to whatever is more convenient to my argument, and BAM, I’m f-ing right!
“Here, live off of my garbage.”
That’s sort of what some European countries are doing with some African ones regarding “recycling”.
Like it or not, there are a fixed amount of resources on this planet. Letting the standard for quality of life drop or using it as an excuse is not a solution.
There are more than enough resources to go around. We don’t need to give them our scraps.
Our “quality” of life does need to change. We do not need a new phone every few years, we don’t need fast fashion, we don’t need 50 different varieties of plain salt chips on the supermarket shelves.
We can reduce, reuse, and repair much of what we already have and live extremely comfortably while giving more to others who have less.
I heard this becomes more true the more you upvote it. It’s so true you don’t even have to check yourself for confirmation bias.
“There are more than enough resources to go around.”
but also
“We can reduce, reuse, and repair much of what we already have” (there were more than enough resources to go around, but begin reducing, reusing, and repairing, don’t look for a contradiction)
but also
“Our “quality” of life does need to change.” (except for having to reduce, reuse, and repair everything, right)
but also
“We do not need a new phone every few years, we don’t need fast fashion” (it’s not changing the quality of life if you dismiss it’s value as a quality of life improvement)
As everyone knows, in a fixed resource systems, there is an infinite amount of resources to go around, but also reduce, reuse, repair, scrounge, scavenge, no reason, just cause, quality of life totally the same.
Hey, I’ve discovered this funny thing. Whenever I read an argument I don’t like, I just have to change the definition of the terms the argument uses to whatever is more convenient to my argument, and BAM, I’m f-ing right!
Rightio, have fun with your life.