Caramel Baloney

$krona: space-armadillo: krona: proseandcons: OOOOOOOH check yo’ privilege. hahaaaaa oh silly anarchists :\ because there is privilege evident in the way the message was stated doesn’t nullify their point. privilege doesn’t override everything. There are many things destroying the planet, people buying things is not one of them. And dumpster-diving/squatting (as rad as it may be) is not an option for very many people. The ‘privilege’ is in ignoring that and victim-blaming the most vulnerable who are just trying to survive in a shitty system that hurts them as much as it hurts ‘our planet’ There are better points to be made If ‘people buying things’ is not one of the causes of environmental destruction, even if not the primary cause, then what is? Consumerism is an economic policy of increasing consumption. This doesn’t refer to the ‘most vulnerable’ keeping their needs met; it refers to ever expanding and excessive consumption. The knick-knacks, the holiday indulgences, the disposable everything, the individual kitchen tools to cut every unique type of vegetable or fruit. The average number of TVs per household in 2010 was 2.93, while the average number of people in those households was 2.54. This pattern is absolutely destroying the planet, and consumerism is the primary force behind climate change, pollution, energy shortages, water shortages, sprawl, habitat loss, species loss, etc. Society’s most vulnerable are also most vulnerable to these environmental changes. The privileged over-consumers are the ones who can buy bottled water or move to higher ground or toward the windward side of town. Then again, reducing consumption without any replacement desires could also put many people out of work and increase the incidence of poverty. There really is no such thing as ‘sustainable growth’. On an unrelated note: oh silly anarchists.$

View Separately

krona:

space-armadillo:

krona:

proseandcons:

OOOOOOOH check yo’ privilege.

hahaaaaa

oh silly anarchists :\

because there is privilege evident in the way the message was stated doesn’t nullify their point. privilege doesn’t override everything.

There are many things destroying the planet, people buying things is not one of them.

And dumpster-diving/squatting (as rad as it may be) is not an option for very many people.

The ‘privilege’ is in ignoring that and victim-blaming the most vulnerable who are just trying to survive in a shitty system that hurts them as much as it hurts ‘our planet’

There are better points to be made

If ‘people buying things’ is not one of the causes of environmental destruction, even if not the primary cause, then what is? Consumerism is an economic policy of increasing consumption. This doesn’t refer to the ‘most vulnerable’ keeping their needs met; it refers to ever expanding and excessive consumption. The knick-knacks, the holiday indulgences, the disposable everything, the individual kitchen tools to cut every unique type of vegetable or fruit. The average number of TVs per household in 2010 was 2.93, while the average number of people in those households was 2.54. This pattern is absolutely destroying the planet, and consumerism is the primary force behind climate change, pollution, energy shortages, water shortages, sprawl, habitat loss, species loss, etc.

Society’s most vulnerable are also most vulnerable to these environmental changes. The privileged over-consumers are the ones who can buy bottled water or move to higher ground or toward the windward side of town. Then again, reducing consumption without any replacement desires could also put many people out of work and increase the incidence of poverty. There really is no such thing as ‘sustainable growth’.

On an unrelated note: oh silly anarchists.

(via krthing)

Source: earth-muffin