| fatslob-:O said: "Actively supporting" would be the wrong phrase to describe the behaviour of most corporations out there ... If Sony or any other corporations wanted to be 'proactive' about destroying the environment then they'd do it by breaking the law such as producing/using CFCs which are widely banned substances but as far as I'm concerned anything else that is not a part of a consensus or against it is fair game to ignore because nonaction doesn't necessarily mean that a business is taking a political stance ... |
Er, you don't need to spew CFC's into the atmosphere to damage the environment.
If a company knowingly understands that it is causing substantial levels of pollution in the manufacturing and/or use of their product and doesn't take measures to rectify that, then "Actively supporting" is indeed the correct term we can use here.
Thankfully though, many fabs and factories are rolling out carbon capture devices and installing solar panels, planting trees to reduce their footprint.
| fatslob-:O said: This is pretty much exactly the stance that only fringe doomsayers would have ... Even by most pessimistic predictions, there's still more than 500+ years left before Earth becomes uninhabitable for human life ? (arguably way more than that, closer 100+ million years realistically) |
Don't conflate me with someone on the far left.
But I am also not wrong, industry wouldn't exist if life on this planet ceases to exist or gets severely impacted. - Right now our systems heavily rely on endless growth, that isn't sustainable on a planet which is finite in it's size and resources.
But the evidence is already fairly resounding that some currently inhabited areas of Earth are being negatively impacted by changing climates, resulting in pressures on those communities... And that is happening today, not 500+ years into the future... Or even 100+ million years. (I have already provided evidence for this.)
And you will take note that I never specified any time frames, obviously life isn't going to end tomorrow.
fatslob-:O said:
They still aren't anywhere near close to being the 'mandate' so they'll pretty much still be a fringe group in the forseeable future ... |
If it's an issue that is only supported by such a small insignificant minority and thus only has a small representation in political mandates by various representational democracies, then you really have nothing to complain about, right?
fatslob-:O said:
Sure we can do that but that doesn't nullify my point that acting more politically than necessary is harmful and it gets especially bad if every corporation is doing it ... Having a world based on ideological division is negatively impactful ... |
I think Sony has a good grasp of what "sells". - And if a green message makes them look good, then let them go at it.
Again, free market, capitalism and all that other stuff... If you don't like it, don't buy or support them as a company, vote with your wallet.
Being green is neither ideological or political unless people make it.
It is like maintaining a clean house, you have to live in it, you don't want shit spread out everywhere. - The planet is just a larger house with more people living under it's roof... The default position should be to look after it and maintain it appropriately.
| fatslob-:O said: No but having politics infect everything would lead to a semi-ruinous world like those I listed as examples ... Is that a system you idealize even if it means politically persecuting those who would go against the green group's interests ? |
Nah. On both accounts.
fatslob-:O said:
What happens if it's more than just about being green and that every company starts doing it ? That is my main concern and Sony heading in that direction is a slippery slope ... |
Well. You know that a slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so I don't need to touch on why that line of thinking is inherently wrong.
But if more companies start doing it, then good. - If you don't like it and you feel it's a minority stance being pushed on the majority, then you and those like you need to vote with your wallets.
The consumer has a ton of "power" over a companies direction. - Aka. Loot Boxes when their customer base starts to protest.
fatslob-:O said:
That's the thing, Sony probably doesn't profit from it. They 'gain' in political ways by brainwashing the public in following the ideology they want ... Not good to see every corporation becoming some arm for a political party. News corporations are plenty toxic enough as it is so how would you like it if Microsoft or some other big influential corporation effectively coalition with the republicans on every stance including being anti-LBGTQI or being a climate change 'denier' ... |
Many companies have and can profit from being greener.
Things like building your own energy production for your factories can save you a ton of money, especially as production can be rather energy intensive at times... Rolling out energy efficient LED bulbs and turning off computers in office spaces can reduce utility bills substantially.
Reducing paper usage and opting for electronic methods can not only make your business more efficient in retrieving/adding in data to a database, but you aren't having to invest as much in paper, ink and so on...
https://www.ledonecorp.com/top-ways-led-lights-can-save-your-business-money/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikekappel/2018/07/11/6-reasons-why-going-paperless-benefits-your-business/
https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/5511393/businesses-realise-the-benefits-of-solar-power/
Just because Sony doesn't profit from it today (You don't really have the evidence to back that statement up anyway), they likely have a long term business strategy inplace to work towards such a goal anyway.
I couldn't care if a company or business was Anti-LGBTQI, that is up to them as a business/organization to make and for me to decide whether I will support them or not on a case-by-case basis with my hard earned money, I'm certainly not going to spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about a companies political position on a topic, that's for sure.
fatslob-:O said:
It sure does mean banning as much hydrocarbon extraction as possible which means that factory/plants/industry will stop running for the most part! |
Absolutely false. Carbon Neutral doesn't mean to ban hydrocarbons, it doesn't mean the stopping of CO2 production either.
It means that you are offsetting such outputs via other means... I.E. Planting Tree's or capturing CO2 and storing it underground.
It could also mean installing substantial green energy production to reduce the reliance on coal/oil power plants.
| fatslob-:O said:
I don't think I meant a 'union' as in a "workers union" but I meant 'union' as in a "political union" ... Just about everyone is pro-industrialist and if the greens can't handle their needs been subdued in favour of public welfare then they should 'exit' this 'union' if they want to enact their own policies because an industrialists idea of 'progress' is largely not compatible with the greens idea of what 'progress' is ... |
Political unions here have done some good for the average worker.
The issue is that the Pro-Industrialists and the Greens don't "work together" they work "against each other". - And that means progress stalls.
Both have valid points and perspectives, lets not disregard either side because you disagree with their stance.
| EricHiggin said: I wonder why people don't stop at stop signs? You would think it's common sense. Could it be that they haven't been provided with evidence that they will definitely pay for it one way or another if they don't? Are just the words not enough? Does that mean police should turn a blind eye to red runners? |
Are you seriously arguing against the need for providing evidence for a claim? REALLY?
| EricHiggin said: No evidence supporting your reply? How am I supposed to respond based on the rules, if I'm also forced to disregard your reply in it's entirety? |
I stated in my prior post that I will be providing evidence for my claims and going forth I had an expectation for you to do the same, you failed to do so and thus only provided irrelevant opinion pieces and thus was discarded.
You can still fix that shortcoming however and make an appropriate reply that I will engage with.
| EricHiggin said: Common sense tells me it seems counterproductive, but we seem to disagree on that as well, so. |
Common sense tells me that you would respond with evidence, not opinions.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
