By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fatslob-:O on 15 October 2019
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:

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.

What is 'substantial' is totally a matter of opinion ... 

At most only a legal argument could be had here defining levels of what is and isn't an acceptable amount of pollution ... 

Pemalite said:

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.

I don't think life will cease to exist anytime soon and that also includes human life as well so the industry will be fine for the forseeable future ... 

Sure you can argue that some inhabited areas are being negatively effected by climate change but the undeniable trend is that the quality of life on earth in general has risen over the past several decades and I don't see climate change causing a regression in the distant future either ... 

Industrialization at the cost of pollution and anthropogenic climate change is well worth it to the people since it has arguably been proven time and time again that it is comparatively the bigger well of life than maintaining nature who more often than not is cruel towards human life ... 

Pemalite said:

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?

That still doesn't erase the fact that their promoting a very extremist political stance and if they want to make their point heard then they should get a larger representation ... 

Pemalite said:

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.

I would argue otherwise because there's no consensus regarding the issue and considering this is being mostly pushed by a very fringe political group ... 

A planet is a far more complex system than a house so I don't think that's an apt comparison there ... 

Pemalite said:

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.

More companies getting political is often a sign of partisan dysfunction ... 

@Bold It does and it doesn't work work that way. A company that strongly controls the means of living such as hydrocarbon energy extraction or a health corporation means that consumers have next to no leverage against those types of businesses which are often monopolistic in nature because they provide goods/services with inelastic demand so consumers effectively have no choice but to support those businesses regardless of the political message they are sending ... (unless of course they're okay on living without amenities that makes life extremely convenient) 

Pemalite said:

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.

@Bold Yeah, doing energy production cost effectively is easier said than done. It's not practical to be individually energy self-sufficient which is why not many people ever go off the grid or if they do they have sources of hydrocarbon energy nearby to access. The other recommendations are scraping the bottom of the barrel ... 

And hardly any corporations base their strategy on such speculative distant future. At most, many corporations don't plan ahead for more than 5 years because banking on certain trends happening is not a sound business strategy because it could backfire very quickly on them if the events unfolding aren't happening the way they want it to ... 

Pemalite said:

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.

@Bold Sometimes it's best not to work together "if they don't want the same things" ... 

In some cases there is no room for compromise and this is where political unions should "split up" so to speak IMO ... 

Industrialists demand a world with the highest productivity while the greens demand a world with near endless environmental sustainability but these goals are not compatible with each other so this is case where the two should separate sovereign entities instead of being a unified sovereign entity ...