spittleteets
483546
1031
45
Surprise! A captioned screenshot isn't actually true!
Watch the video and you'll see she is actually saying:
"You need to start calculating sustainability because the Earth isnt an infinite resource to trash"
Progressive Leftist here, I obviously don't support the neoliberal late-stage capitalist hellscape we live in...but I also don't support rage-baited disinformation.
She's not saying we need to monetize breathing. Think about how ridiculous that statement sounds...it's because it's precisely intended to evoke rage and anger. She's saying that we need to protect our planet.
This is Lindsay Hooper from Cambridge's Institute for Sustainability Leadership, while I don't agree with her advising how to maintain a capitalist mode of production, I do agree that we have to understand how precious our planet's resources are and continuing as we are is unsustainable and bring about ruinous destruction.
StupidCanadianWolfBird
stevelepastis
Thank you for this clarity!
Mikeiller
Spaceballs is not meant to be a guideline for anyone
Howlingowl
She literary said resources are finite and not free therefore companies need to account for them so they are not indiscriminately used up completely.
idiotsonfire
Hey, if we're looking for people to bring to the gallows to improve worldwide welfare for everyone, the WEF is a great place to start.
CrumpetsWithHoneyAreCrumpetsWithBeeVomit
Right so the economic model that is based on unlimited resources and growth is now telling us that these things don't exist... For us?
CrumpetsWithHoneyAreCrumpetsWithBeeVomit
Sorry I mean that the model itself was a lie...
tinydog
Thank you.
MightyIink
We live in a world where robots have more rights and financial assistance than humans do.
blaghart
We live in a world where dead people have more rights and financial assistance than women do.
PunnyTiger
nestle thinks they should be able to bottle local water and take all avaiable water, then sell it to locals for a dollar a bottle
IDontKnowWhatToDoAnymoreAndImTired
You're providing a perfect example of what the OP is talking about: that is not what the Nestle CEO said.
DiracsDelta
Does including them on balance sheet mean we can get legal accountability when a company poisons the air and water?
TheVillageGrouch9000
X is an information wasteland of bullshit. Sheeple believe anything. https://imgur.com/F0G6HVB
XEtAl
This is a great lesson on anchoring bias, which I encourage people to raise more awareness of.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-the-anchoring-bias.html
rhalm
Even without seeing the video or description, I was almost positive that quote was was referring to that those are depletable and polluable natural resources, and we need to have an organized plan for how to manage it and how to make it economically viable with what we have to work with. Nice to see that I was pretty much on the right track.
ricpaul
Been saying this for years: we cannot keep growing our economies nor should we want to, as current models don't incorporate many things that are at least as important as money. Like health and happiness instead of being able to buy more stuff. Water, soil and oxygen ARE assets, so I pretty much knew Samantha was likely wrongly interpreting what ws said at the WEF. Probably knowingly... BTW: I'm pretty right wing, or by American standards in Bernies direct vicinity. https://imgur.com/hhD67ZH
walnutbreath
Economist here that's done some work in this research area some years back: if anyone wants to know more about this topic, lmk and I can put together a reading list.
Filanwizard
I do however believe that if Silicon Valley tech bros could make breathing a paid service they would absolutely try it.
IDontKnowWhatToDoAnymoreAndImTired
There is a LOT of this sort of misinformation going around, and a lot of people on here accept it uncritically for the same reason the right swallows misinformation: it reinforces what they WANT to believe is true. There's a post on here right now where people are just repeating the most obviously fake information about data centers because they WANT to believe the worst.
RestlessVagabond
You mean this post about data centers where you couldn't articulate a factual argument against anything other than, "trust me, bro I work at a dairy plant" and "you're lying this is misinformation."
/gallery/fact-check-100-rage-bait-bcRBAGA
OfficialTrollInspector
Rush Limbaugh already was selling this "tax on the air we breath" bullshit decades ago. The good news is he's dead.
DianNaoChong
What he is saying about balance sheets doesn't mean monetization, it means accounting for fucking up the soil water and air as they are resources we are effecting
Drylegs
As much as I hate capitalism I do believe comerse is much a humanly ingrained trait, similar to how spirituality has a dark backside in how religions can manifest as death and suffering. So if I’m accepting comers and perhaps some form of capitalism as “natural” or reasonable it just makes sense to me that we need some sort of post-capitalism, where we say “ if we want companies to survive, we have to make the planet and the people who we depend on it’s survival feel good and likely to want us
PlausibleLies
I can't help but read this with a VERY different meaning when you say comers is built into humanity.....but I really think you meant commerce.
Drylegs
Obviously ment c*mmerce
Revicus
On a closely related topic: "You will own nothing and you will be happy" was not some sort of announcement by the WEF. It was a (kinda misleading) summary of an essay, linked in the same tweet, in a series of speculative essays about what the world might be like in 2030. This one posited that people might lease/rent a lot more of their stuff, and that it was not necessarily a good thing. Not a good summary of the essay, but also not a proclamation of intent.
Revicus
The zero-context quotation of that particular line has apparently gotten bad enough that it has its own Wikipedia page just now, which I didn't know until I went to retrieve that screenshot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy
supervillin
I just read the essay and it's pretty much what I expected from that summary. Maybe people just aren't reading enough ominousness (or whatever the right adjective is for ominous) into it, but it sounds ominous as hell to me. Then you get into the essay and it's like "everything's done for me - sure I miss privacy, and I'm registered everywhere I go, and I hope no one uses that against me... But hey it's better than what we had!" which is the same sort of forced smile feeling as the headline.
Revicus
The tone sure seemed weirdly positive to me too, but the "forced smile" feeling could be deliberate. It may or may not be true, but the author did follow up with a later-added note in the intro to specify the hypothetical wasn't meant to be a desirable one. "Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse."
Revicus
(Taken from the version archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20210319013318/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/how-life-could-change-2030/ to be more specific)
supervillin
Whoops, can't edit but: "whatever the right noun* is" since ominous is already the adjective.
Tolocamp
This is something we should introduce and keep, regardless if our production is or stays capitlistic. We will continue to produce even if we (hopefully soon) are able to move past the concentrated ownership of the means of production.
Otherwise we will never be able to really comprehend the impact some new tech or product will have on our lives and environment.
IDontKnowWhatToDoAnymoreAndImTired
Regardless of how we organize society in the future, the basic principle of ECONOMICS is not going away, and it's not just an artifact of capitalism. It's a basic reality of the universe dictated by physics, technology, knowledge, and human effort. Whether or not something is economical or desirable to do in terms of cost versus benefits has nothing to do with capitalism.
scrumbles666
There really needs to be an economics for leftists book/lecture/whatever. It's the science of resource management, an incredibly important and useful subject that needs to be wrestled out of the hands of capitalist dipshits at the basic levels. Environmental cost as part of overall costs isn't evil business mindpoison. It's how we make industry, all the manufacturing and production we do as a species, sustainable.
IDontKnowWhatToDoAnymoreAndImTired
Yes. And regardless of what anyone thinks, we're still going to need industry in the future unless you want to go back to shitting in a hole in the ground and dying from an infected splinter. Economics isn't an argument for capitalism; if anything it's the proof that capitalism doesn't work long term because it's wildly inefficient.
Germanswisscheese
Not just that capitalists assume that nature is free, they assume that the system is *worthless* until it is improved into something that generates profit. If you bulldoze a mangrove forest to replace it with shrimp aquaculture, you'll have to build a sea wall to prevent flooding in the region because that forest was providing that service. It's unfortunate we have to do this, but you need some kind of model to give these systems worth, ortherwise they assign it a default value of nothing.
INeverReadTheTOS
Do you really think people would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?
Ac1dBurn72
I mean. I'd be willing to believe you read the TOS at least once!
This guy's a big fat faker!
INeverReadTheTOS
How dare you spread such flagrant defamatory misinformation!
Ac1dBurn72
I'm sorry! But the truth must abide!
RhymingEverything
>But when you share to discredit it
>You actually spread that shit
>It's bad for that purpose
>This happens with flat earthers
XEtAl
To anyone doubting this comment, look up "anchoring bias."
It's a powerful tool in the right hands, but a devastating weapon in the wrong ones.
The reason why Republicans are so quick to make authoritative and conclusive statements/accusations soon after a major event, such as the recent Minneapolis murders, is because humans are less likely to discard the first bit of information they received despite newer information proving that initial information false.
We are all vulnerable to this.
RhymingEverything
>Thank_you_michael_scott_dot_gif
>Intentional sharing is important for this
StewedTomaters
A conservative? Lying on the internet for attention? I am shocked.
spittleteets
TBH I didnt realize she was a conservative, I just thought she was an idiot! lol
StewedTomaters
I took a guess, searched the username on the affected site, and got the general flavor of her takes. Very anti-immigrant
ansiichan
they are not trying, this is gigantic circlejerk, and sure, some morons try to act upon their dellusions but they are just that, 2 years ago everyone was screaming bloody murder because bezos wanted them to eat bugs or something ...
IDontKnowWhatToDoAnymoreAndImTired
There's sadly some overlap of the anti-intellectual portions of the right and left. We've got our fair share of anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, and people who want to just scream and rage at anything new or suspicious. So you've got people screaming bloody murder about sustainable agriculture because they think it means "fake food," you've got people screaming about automation that's supposed to reduce human labor because they're afraid their drudge work will get taken away, etc...
TheOvy
Terminally online leftists can fall for the exact same ragebait tactics as the terminally online far right, you HAVE to be vigilant of all-too convenient information that fits your political narrative. Never trust a source-less twitter caption. Never trust twitter, really.
epithymetic
Distrust and verify everything, especially if it supports your existing viewpoint
Revicus
An image we should all take to heart:
iwenttousersubandalligotwasthislousyusername
Which means we should all take a propa-ganda at our sources before believing what we read
XEtAl
I urge EVERYONE in this community to learn more about "anchoring bias" and how to avoid being a victim of it.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-the-anchoring-bias.html
IDontKnowWhatToDoAnymoreAndImTired
Oh, and we absolutely do fall for it, all the time. One of the reasons I originally loved Imgur was because this place was absolutely nuts for sources and fact-checking; posting literally anything here without a link to back you up used to get you piled on. Now, people uncritically accept stuff that's posted with zero fact-checking, and if you actually fact-check things in any way that goes against the groupthink you get downvoted.
BeachsideBarghest
Right?!?! It drives me fucking crazy! Call people out on it and they get butthurt. It's up to all of us to enforce these standards but people just mindlessly scroll and upvote whatever triggers an emotional response instead of using their goddamn critical thinking.
IDontKnowWhatToDoAnymoreAndImTired
Honestly, I feel like critical thinking is the most under-emphasized skill in America. If I could have one thing taught in schools, it would be that.
I understand why people do that: having your opinions validated feels good, and being able to project all bad things in the world onto things you hate is comforting. But we've seen where that ends up with the right. People need to learn to accept complexity, and the fact that we're not always right about things. Learn to say "I don't know."
TheOvy
Yeah, I'd like it if we had a moratorium on posts that are just screenshots of unsourced tweets, or cropped screenshots of headlines that leave out context.
IDontKnowWhatToDoAnymoreAndImTired
Tiktok type videos without a supporting link, too. Or really, anything off social media should be verified with an actual credible media source.
Tarmaccian
Yep. Same story here.
The hivemind attitude has always been Imgur’s most toxic trait, and it’s only gotten worse.
spinymouse
I'm not sure capitalist leaders would listen if it weren't in the shape of "exploiting resources beyond sustainability will hit your bottom line". Costs to ecosystems, people in more affected countries, and whatever the future consequences of our current consumption aren't reflected in the price of things. Talking about how this isn't fair won't get her very far.
psugab
Go to 1:35 in the video and listen to what she says. She is talking about how lack of water could cause issues where it's an essential input such as in manufacturing. She's talking about their bottom line and future growth/sales.
TheTojo15
The solution is simple. Just don’t allow the access of water to the population. It’s so easy!
donthaveonebrojustlurk
As someone who used to sell ecosystem services to large corporations, they definitely listen to this.
katoutwo8
She's saying that we all have a right to these things and these things should not be free....to companies.
laternamagicalux
The gobsmacking shock when ppl realize this exact thing happened before, when an exec at Nestlé said that water should be controlled so that companies like Nestlé can't just buy up all the water in an area that normal people need to survive. He was mostly just quoted as saying water should be controlled, and that it likely meant that Nestlé should own it all.
AnythingMuchShorter
Thanks, I was going to point that out.
I mean, I agree with her. If were going to go full capitalist we need to include the parts that protect us. Under capitalism anything under priced will be abused. If there is no cost for damaging our atmosphere, which is a limited resource, then it will be overused to death. It needs to cost them.
PrincessWasabi
Funnily enough thats how I interpreted it without context, idk what that says about me
Atomic2
Funny, thats exactly what I assumed given the quote, before Samantha Smith put a bullshit context there.
1stDrunkJoe
I love that line,"You can't do business on a dead planet."
rhalm
I'd say it's more that it shouldn't be "free" to anyone, but rather those resources need to be economically decided how to best conserve and use. Not just corporations, but individuals and groups of people (the micro level) also can cause undue harm and wastefullness. Basic needs should always be met and available, but nothing should be taken with unnecessary excess. It was callifornia I think that would be an example, where you were restricted from things like watering lawns in a drought.
rhalm
Essentially, there should be no wastefullness that would impact the ability for others to have their needs met. One contentious examples is the use of river water to irrigate farms, because it can greatly reduce the water flowing downstream (the Amazon river being an especially unfortunate standout). This doesn't mean farming shouldn't be allowed, just that it should be done in a sustainable way that doesn't damage others livelihoods, with economics taking that into account.
INeverReadTheTOS
Wild how she's saying literally the exact opposite of what that Xitter post has misquoted her saying.
Isthe4thtimethecharm
Not so wild. I have posted a 5 word sentence on here before and someone will reply with a paragraph saying what I actually meant. Which was no where close to what I was saying.
ArcUlfr
Xitter, spreading misinformation? How can that be?
People need to leave that damned platform to the Nazis. It's a Nazi bar now.
HandoB4Javert
NightOwlRally
https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1OXlzbTE4Zm9sajJmMjh1azVzamh3d3c4bWkxZ3BlaHVtejViNmViciZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3oFzmkkwfOGlzZ0gxi/200w.webp