Slavoj Zizek: The Delusion of Green Capitalism

Рет қаралды 170,744

13 жыл бұрын

Complete video at: fora.tv/2011/04/04/Slavoj_Zize...
Philosopher Slavoj Zizek argues environmentally conscious consumers are desperate for simple tasks they can perform to alleviate their guilt, so they do things like purchase overpriced organic produce. Zizek also highlights Starbucks, which he suggests attracts customers by appealing to their sense of altruism.
-----
The Committee on Globalization and Social Change will launch with a special lecture by philosopher and critic Slavoj Zizek who will speak on "The Situation Is Catastrophic, but Not Serious." This alleged message of the Austrian military headquarters during WWI renders perfectly our attitude towards the ongoing crisis: we are aware of the looming (ecological, social) catastrophes, but we somehow don't take them seriously. What ideology sustains such an attitude?
The Committee on Globalization and Social Change (CGSC) is an interdisciplinary working group composed of a core group of CUNY faculty interested in reflecting on globalization as an analytic category for understanding social change.
Slavoj Zizek, born 1949 in Ljubljana, Slovenia, Senior Researcher at Birkbeck College, University of London, is a Hegelian Philosopher, Lacanian psychoanalyst, Christian atheist, Communist political activist, and he thinks these four features are four aspects of one and the same Cause. His latest publications are: in philosophy The Parallax View, in psychoanalysis How to Read Lacan, in theology The Monstrosity of Christ, and in politics Living at the End Times.

Пікірлер: 272

@93Quizno 6 жыл бұрын

I'm so relieved to discover that I can pay to be an ethical person. Thanks capitalism!

@Elite7555 5 жыл бұрын

Who thinks responsability doesn't come at a price is an idiot.

@kev1257ful 5 жыл бұрын

Elite7555 I think you’re misunderstanding the usage of the word “pay”. What Edward is saying is that the belief that, under capitalism, one can be an ethical person simply by buying other products is illogical. Of course responsibility comes with a price, but it doesn’t always come with a price tag.

@lazypops3117 4 жыл бұрын

Elite7555 yes, a price for the capitalist, as lower profits, and legally binding. not for the consumer as just a choice.

@dylansingh3297 3 жыл бұрын

What...?

@deadmeme2403 3 жыл бұрын

@@dylansingh3297 cool tech channel

@PLOttawa 13 жыл бұрын

Oxymoron of the day: Consumer activism.

@henrygallagher6109 4 жыл бұрын

This man is speaking in cursive

@Lambda_Ovine 3 жыл бұрын

Somehow this makes sense.

@rikospostmodernlife 3 жыл бұрын

In Spanish we have something called 'español neutro' in the industry of cultural products; I believe Zizek to to be the inventor of neutral english

@osh1278 3 жыл бұрын

and his body language is not helping

@thee-wastegamer4044 4 жыл бұрын

In 50 years, philosophy departments are going to look towards Zizek a lot more than they think...

@alonsofrancescutti4956 3 жыл бұрын

They're already doing it

@CrniWuk Жыл бұрын

You're an optomist I see. Expecting that in 50 years people will be doing philosphy :D

@thee-wastegamer4044 Жыл бұрын

@@CrniWuk Fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is, but if you mean that continental philosophy will be phased out of formal academic studies, certainly (The thought of analytic philosophy being phased out is just ignorant to how many coding languages work). Perhaps not so much in political circles. But in so far as philosophy is the process of understanding modalities in themselves, or just ways of knowing in general, it probably wont... "disappear". My only sense of optimism rests in the fact that the usage AI models will pressure the need for a philosophy of some form to emerge. I think people are too (as Zizek may put it vulgarly and inappropriately) stupid to function in autocracy. Most displays of it working are nestled in superficiality.

@CrniWuk Жыл бұрын

@@thee-wastegamer4044 Actually, I was thinking more in the sense of WW3, nuclear apocalypse, global ecological catastrophy etc. XD

@benjaminbrown6717 Жыл бұрын

Agreed

@nightoftheworld 5 жыл бұрын

2:09 "Who really believes that those semi-putrifying and overpriced organic apples are really healthier? The _point_ is that by buying them, we are not just buying and consuming a product. We are simultaneously doing something meaningful-demonstrating our capacity for care and global awareness, participating in a noble, large, collective project."

@Nordkiinach 4 жыл бұрын

And that notion; turned out to be the Illusion of *_"...a noble, large, collective project."_*

@foxoftrot 13 жыл бұрын

This video was preceded by a McDonalds advert encouraging people to find an 'extra dollar' so they can buy a two dollar cheeseburger. So appropriate.

@EvaRose85 12 жыл бұрын

he has that nervous tick because he has a zillion thoughts and ideas swimming and brewing in his brilliant mind! he is fantastic!

@nassah2010 11 жыл бұрын

I always wondered why healthier organic food was expensive, if it was more ethical wouldn't companies strive to make it more affordable than the alternative and then sell it off to us. That way we may actually have an impact of some significance, and the so called guilty consumers won't have to spend as much.

@gonzalezmartinez7511 Жыл бұрын

It is not at all about the product actually being more ethical, it is about the consumer being able to feel good about themselves for sacrificing extra money for the "better" alternative. Basically a clean contiousness tax

@gabbar51ngh 10 ай бұрын

That's more due to logistics snd supply chains. Try getting into organic farming. You produce lower yield just to feed some elite pretentious class of people. To top it off it takes in more resources usually so it's not necessarily even good for the environment. Organic farming wouldn't really come close to modern day farming. It's like trying to produce an efficient candle when we have moved on to bulbs and tubelight.

@GreyBearLine Жыл бұрын

I immediately thought of this part of Zizek’s thoughts as soon as I heard the news that the owner of Patagonia was “giving-away” his company to become some sort of a yet to be properly defined “extreme ethical-comsumer-NGO” type organisation. Interested to see if this the way a lot of the big corporations will turn towards now!

@farrider3339 Жыл бұрын

Why seriously change direction, if customers and consumers can get fooled by a shoddy "social" button.. Hahaha

@mdlittle5466 11 жыл бұрын

No, your right...it's astoundingly delusional to think 'buying green' is possible in a capitalistic, monetary-based economy. Companies -MUST- make a profit or go bankrupt, hence...there is really no such thing as 'buying green' because said companies will do anything to maximize their profit margin - which means taking shortcuts in production, negligently disregarding waste production and harvesting resources in mass for manufacturing. You can't 'buy green' in a capitalistic model....

@gilgameschvonuruk4982 3 жыл бұрын

in a pre gobalised world, you could regulate, in a globalized world we are doomed

@tisiaan 3 ай бұрын

I think this is a sad gesture. It’s the most easy for everyone to give up hope for green futures. Do not believe in anything because we live in capitalism? How the hell is anything ever going to be alright? Nothing will ever be ok. Maybe you can try to see just a little bit of goodness in the world and don’t buy food that comes from a hightech farmfucks up the soil.

@larshansson338 11 жыл бұрын

2:39 my favorite part. Save the earth - use your hair as a handkerchief.

@paulam7893 8 жыл бұрын

I think he doesn't mean that recycling is bad, but we have to admit that doing it (IN CAPITALISM) It strengthens the system.

@neglesaks 8 жыл бұрын

+Paula M Pretty much anything we do in a system bolsters it if you look at it that way. However, it likewise goes the other way: Increasing participation in a system that has little underlying substance will eventually bring it crashing down, just like any pyramid scheme (like post-Cold War Albania).

@daaronk 7 жыл бұрын

yes but perhaps not strengthen the system itself but to allow people to continue business as usual within it, so a kind of systemic maintenance role... which is what ultimately most actually want... since i do my recycling bit i can go to the sushi bar on friday in my car with a sort of clear conscience and perhaps even pontificate about it... but i agree, recycling itself is not only not bad but essential no matter the system... the problem with capitalism is NOT recycling, thats for sure but of course it is being used to avoid confronting the real issues.. capitalism´s ability to absorb anything is quite amazing.. i am curious as to how it will deal with serious environmental threats such as resource depletion and mass migrations...it seems the system is doomed at some point but wonder how shocks will be dealt with, especially in consumerist societies used to a certain lifestyle if/when that lifestyle is disrupted.. anyway am rambling now... regards

@daaronk 7 жыл бұрын

sorry, not sure if u are adressing me when u state "... your peace of mind" if so, let me respond... i agree that , of course, within the current market system recycling offers the illusion/delusion to the individual of doing one´s bit to be sustainable... of course it is an illusion because the entire system is itself unsustainble... so, to clarify what i am saying is that an alternative new system (not capitalism) would have at its heart recycling as a strategy as well, to avoid unnecessary wastefulness of valuable resources... it would be central and not a means to wash one´s conscience while the system itself continues its highly destructive dynamic (which is what happens today)... so, recycling is only a delusion in capitalism, because it obfuscates the systemic functioning and its intrinsic unsustainability ... but of course, a new sustainable system would require the highest possible efficiency regarding the use of natural resources and , as such , recycling would be an essential strategy to do so...to avoid waste you must recycle but within a system that looks at a sustainable form of production holistically : renewable energy, recycling, non-capitalist forms of production, technically efficient etc

@93Quizno 6 жыл бұрын

Recycling is like scooping buckets of water out of a sinking boat

@nicholasbinaco4935 6 жыл бұрын

why won't you want to strength capitalism? It ends poverty, provided millions of cell phones to people around the world, and let your own property and freely exchange it for stuff.

@0ldskool2121 10 жыл бұрын

I don't suppose anyone else noticed the intro had the exact same ambient music as InfoWars commercials for Nascent Iodine X2. It's either public domain, or one organization knew they were so ideologically polar opposite to the other that the chance of someone like me finding it were zilch.

@StreetBoi69uk 11 жыл бұрын

Except those that're so green they live off grid, grow their own food, make their own produce, don't buy anything etc. Communities completely cut off from capitalism. But that is the minority, the exception.

@shimunism 12 жыл бұрын

#2 Buying organic apples shows that some people are ready to do, what is said to be useful. Give them concepts, tell them whats useful and there you go. That's pretty much all you can expect as hard as it sounds.

@azimsaleh7507 5 жыл бұрын

Where can i read the transcript of this speech?

@whoisaiahmoore9100 5 жыл бұрын

FYI: The link provided in the description does not work

@arsenalfanatic09 Жыл бұрын

sadly can't find this full video anywhere, looks like the website is gone for good.

@SPKaa 13 жыл бұрын

@asubjectiveopinion he did a disclaimer beforehand that this was a work in progress, and an extensive Q&A with the live audience afterwards. He does quite a lot of extemporaneous and unread speeches otherwise. I don't think anyone here felt cheated. His ideas, however, are highly assailable.

@Sardonac 13 жыл бұрын

@AussiePolitics There's often just an absence of some other preservatives. There're also different hidden costs, often including the environmental, economic, and legal externalities.

@henryrichards1481 2 жыл бұрын

Anyone know what chapter of Living in the End Times he is reading from in this?

@hqlion 13 жыл бұрын

A man with some sense.....Finally

@pratsha45 13 жыл бұрын

youtube didnt' use to have so many ads.....

@asubjectiveopinion 13 жыл бұрын

What is the point of appearing live only to read from a piece of paper and not engage with the audience. This is not discourse, it is a performance.

@somethingness 13 жыл бұрын

"frantic obsessive activities" -- good observation

@daxxx6 13 жыл бұрын

danm i love listening to stuff like this

@GOPsithlord 13 жыл бұрын

Mr.Zizek nails the national psyche when it come to guilt and even ballances his argument between the desire to influence everything and doing nothing when it comes to making a political statement through something as simple as shopping. Bravo.

@DBrownofdc 13 жыл бұрын

OMJ i love this cat! i just watched one of his documentaries!

@LuisManuelLealDias 10 жыл бұрын

They have a sense of humour. That's all.

@jiminy_cricket777 13 жыл бұрын

not to mention that the organic produce that i have access to is of equal or greater quality (not rotting and old and disgusting like Zizek suggests) than the GMO, pesticide-sprayed stuff.

@dawgpost90 13 жыл бұрын

@gettingolder2 explain. not the god part...but no organic food?

@benw2292 4 жыл бұрын

Absolutely, however I do believe people with the economic means to do so should buy organically and locally until we actualise that fundamental societal change. The crime is that the cheapest options are often the most ecologically devastating, and that thus green lifestylism is reserved for those with expendable income. The crime is that ecologically devastating products are available to begin with, let alone that they are the only thing the underprivileged can afford to buy. There is so much to change, but I would hate for this message to lead to apathy amongst the economically privileged - rather, accept that the action is meaningless but use some of your expendable cash to buy the damn organic apples and fair trade bananas anyway. You can't consume ethically but if you have the money you can consume in the least destructive way available.

@redword2007 12 жыл бұрын

Which aspects of his arguments do you consider flawed?

@mattotto87 3 жыл бұрын

The sports analogy. Fandom does change the overall environment and trend of a sports franchise. The MLS team the Philly Union had a fan supporters group before they had a team. The supporters clearly did not impact play on the field since the team did not exist. However, they did change the trajectory of the market. In the same way, we can, as consumers, group together to change the trajectory of the items provided to us.

@not2tees 11 жыл бұрын

I buy organic food because it is in my self interest to know to avoid the factory farm products, and it might be some kind of delusion I have, but it seems true that if even a slight majority of the dumbed-down, impulse-managed CONsumers bought organic, not for any noble reason but basic self-interest only, the damn price of organic food would come down way down. But they've been trained to go for dependence since kindergarten, and the best dependence is addiction, maxing out your cards & etc.

@MortalBane 10 жыл бұрын

This is not at all true for organics and especially permaculture... Organic food tends to be grown using natural fertilisers and materials which don't have such an impact on local waterways, or local animals etc. Buying organic produce really does minimise the impact the food has had on the environment.

@Moshimoshism 10 жыл бұрын

***** to agree with you and to answer the OP. He isn't saying that organicly grown food isn't helping. itsj ust that its not helping enough. It is being used as a product to distract us from the real damage we do. Offsetting out guilt instead of our gigantic ecological footprint.

@joshdavid247 10 жыл бұрын

you're simple

@crashdummyglory 6 жыл бұрын

Try feeding a burgeoning world population on low yield pest ridden higher wastage organic farming. Yes the rich will have nice earth smelling produce while the rest can fuck off or die.

@gilgameschvonuruk4982 3 жыл бұрын

@@crashdummyglory considering the soil erosion problem, we are left with the choice between permaculture and vertical farming

@tomg5516 13 жыл бұрын

@Praxis71 Their mistake is believing organic is actually healthier or higher in quality. Organic is really now just a branding for the purposes of marketing. Like how Black Angus beef is trendy now, its the same cow, just with a different colour fur.

@jiminy_cricket777 13 жыл бұрын

@Trickee360 uh huh... who said anything about not resisting?

@milascave2 11 жыл бұрын

Yes, buying organic was a poor example because many people do it for purely selfish reasons. But the idea of "Greenwashing," that companys try to make products seem environmently sound, is totaly true. Even nuclear energy and coal have been greenwashed. And the idea that people are made to feel that they can make change just by buying stuff for themselves that they would have bought anyway, this to is true.

@freesk8 13 жыл бұрын

@welkinator He's using his phlegm as an environmentally correct hair mousse.

@totipark54 11 жыл бұрын

very interesting, some phrases are great! but hide the image...

@whoisaiahmoore9100 5 жыл бұрын

I thought the consumer's dictated production or is my equation wrong?

@theresewalters1696 4 жыл бұрын

We need to vote with our $$.

@chamal75 4 жыл бұрын

True in part but a lot of the times you're told what you want in a product and that's marketing! Example, my mobile phone is 5 years chinese brand and it still suits my needs and probably would suite the needs of the majority of the population. How many people really need AI 40MPx cameras on their phone? Almost no one but marketing says that is something you want and so it's something you want!

@Nclm1 3 жыл бұрын

Not at all, the process of production determines the process of consumption! I cannot consume what isn't being produced.

@theamici 5 жыл бұрын

Don't see how this relates specifically to Greece though.

@Sardonac 13 жыл бұрын

@AussiePolitics "organic farming" does not mean farming in the manner done a thousand years ago, it means using few-to-no chemical pesticides/herbicides and a more minimalistic approach towards modifying the surrounding environment. These methods have been demonstrated, many times over, to produce higher yields than monoculture. The difference is generally just the amount of direct labour involved. Another consideration is how much arable land would be needed if people ate less meat.

@playlifesgame 13 жыл бұрын

@gettingolder2 There could be such a thing (food from from products that did not use pesticides, that were not genetically modified, that aren't chock full of red dye #42). Unfortunately, there pretty much isn't such a thing because the FDA has no regulations for the words organic or natural so they are meaningless words.

@Sardonac 13 жыл бұрын

@AussiePolitics Billions of people are already fed by organically grown produce. There's a fair argument to be made that massive American monocultural production is one of the essential causes of the demand for many pesticides/herbicides, as is the non-organic meat industry. As for those studies you mentioned it depends on the product. Many pesticides/preservatives have little to no harmful effect on the body but have a significant environmental effect.

@denissilajdzic1973 4 жыл бұрын

Reduce significantly int'l transport and packaging. That's what pollutes. E.g. import "chinese" toys that last 5 min should be prohibited.

@AyeTV1 12 жыл бұрын

who are you talking to/about?

@sniperquasi 12 жыл бұрын

@Redfingers it's sort of a tick, and his accent

@econogate 12 жыл бұрын

Wars generally lead to inflation, the destruction of money. We don’t honor the biblical principles of honest money. We invite this idea that we can spend endlessly and we can print the money, and literally it undermines the family and undermines the economic system. When you lose a job, it’s harder to keep the family together. - Ron Paul

@shimunism 12 жыл бұрын

One might not forget that the time needed for buying an organic apple is very little. So it comforts our life with its social parts and professional obligations. But going to work, leading a more or less meaningful social life AND changing one's personality and the whole (understanding of the) world needs a lot of time and a concept, too. That the commercialisation of green-thinking is in any ways misleading and wrong needn't be said.

@tygbsn 2 жыл бұрын

Zizek is so on point. But I can't help but view his lecture through the covid lens.

@equalityrules33 12 жыл бұрын

yes, i think slavoj has a point in that some or most of "green" things you can do are simply painted green. but i think slavoj, as i believe he has said before does not like philanthropy, and i think that saying that because most actions are greenwashed, does not mean that a green capitalist system could not be made. but we shall see i guess :P

@Junitaco 13 жыл бұрын

i just wanna give this man a big handshake

@TheSpiritOfTheTimes 13 жыл бұрын

@miropasco Jaz nisem zapazil kakšnih posebnih slovničih napak, naglas pa nima nikakršne veze z 'izobrazbo'.

@jiminy_cricket777 13 жыл бұрын

@halalbackgirl nice to talk about, but we both know that avoiding that handover is not realistically possible. it's part of the way capitalism functions, as Zizek would say.

@tofupowda 11 ай бұрын

zizek explains carbon credits/offsets

@AgentHomer 10 жыл бұрын

*we'd be

@Philosification 13 жыл бұрын

I don't think he was actually against it, it was observing what is going on. There is a good point in there though, you're better off not buying the coffee and donating the whole $5 to a charity rather than 1 cent over 500 coffees. Probably not exactly his point but its worth thinking about.

@Praxis71 13 жыл бұрын

I also don't believe people buy organic food simply because they want to do their part in terms of avoiding enviromental degradation, etc. Most people eat organic food for much more self-centered reasons-e.g., keep healthy.

@sideroredis 12 жыл бұрын

in general i like the was Zizek thinks but i think he is bracking different things: (over)consumerism is (over)consumerism, no matter if you buy ecological or non-ecological, it harms the environment. but if more and more are conscious about their consume (also when they use e.g. electricity, water), it does make at least a little difference.to make a greater one, forces have unit in order to pressure politicians. however, the revolution wave in 2011 begun with 1 person setting himself on fire.

@blackiron60 13 жыл бұрын

Reminds me of George Carlin when he talks about "saving the planet".

@zd4v1d 3 жыл бұрын

We delude ourselves quite often. One way we do it is that believing that socialism will work without being at the receiving end of a muzzle.

@somethingawesome9547 4 жыл бұрын

the baseball fan analysis was wrong. The problem with being so wrong about an example used to back up your point so early in a video makes viewers check out.

@lemivinx 12 жыл бұрын

i don't know much about ecology,really,and i can see how our guilt for "ruining" nature can be taken advantage of,but i think he is going too far abour recycling.if eveybody saved energy and recycled,of course you would make some difference.I think he feels more comfortable in giving up,in having NO RESPOSIBILITY.As Kant says:"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

@asubjectiveopinion 13 жыл бұрын

@Beicon55 Obviously?

@FreeScience 12 жыл бұрын

"Pull the strings!"

@LicoriceLain 13 жыл бұрын

He seems to be implying that it is futile. I don't agree. It isn't astoundingly effective, but it isn't pointless.

@asubjectiveopinion 13 жыл бұрын

@fbaraglia It is an exercise in intellectual and social vanity.

@zivkovicable 10 жыл бұрын

Is it because you keep obsessively clicking on his videos? That's usually how it works.

@MultiSmartass1 11 жыл бұрын

Thanks-although that wasnt my intent.

@alvincay100 13 жыл бұрын

Going green is mostly a fashion statement at this point.

@jiminy_cricket777 13 жыл бұрын

@Askancey it won't. my reason for buying organic food is mostly self-interested, to be honest. the fact is that i think that pesticides may be extremely harmful and at least in part responsible for a wide range of human health problems. there's some evidence for this already, and i don't see the reason to take the risk. the ecological issue is secondary for me, although i do have some appreciation for it. but i know very well that buying organic food is not going to save the planet.

@SolusNimbus 13 жыл бұрын

@45means45 I got nothing out of your comment.

@HToothrot 13 жыл бұрын

@ArcaneKarma Thats sort of his point, you don't need to be

@greenghost2008 13 жыл бұрын

@AlchemyFC he is european.....

@smallpotatoes989 13 жыл бұрын

we are reducing our guild when we buy natural food.

@unitedcyclists 12 жыл бұрын

Poland Spring on the table !!! NYC

@nothke 13 жыл бұрын

@frankbass1 none, trust me, I know him. He is just completely he in his selfness!

@T6S10CM 5 жыл бұрын

Marx : see, i told ya

@2012forlove 13 жыл бұрын

@Valoric0 ... i think we have to be realistic here ... going green is a nobler idea, should be our way of life BUT you see it becomes a commercial motto rather than anything else now. I live in QLD also, now a shop in China Town charges 15 cents for helping the environment, what a lot of bulls !!! When you buy something heavy, you expect double bag, they want to charge 15 cents extra for one more bag ? what the ??? Solar is great but is it practical ? cost you lots but you save none

@exlesoes Жыл бұрын

First it was donate x (amount of money. Or a $1) to a charity for whatever, you name it, now you have to TIP the person making you a coffee almost anywhere even starbucks with their overpriced black coffees teas (you name it their chips are $2 I just bought a bag and it barely had 10-15 crips lolll) I mean anywhere you go charity donation or tip (on top of tipping already in everyday life like food and/or grocery deliveries AND of course dining in at a restaurant where we tip...)

@v1das007 12 жыл бұрын

Ok, it makes sense. And what now? What's the plan? Criticizing is not hard, solving problems is harder.

@pauloseara1638 3 жыл бұрын

Starbucks is more expensive to keep the coffee farmers attached to the land, otherwise they will stop producing and move out. There was something similar when the fascist regime in Portugal created an port wine producers (including small and big) concerned with the exodus and social unrest following the great depression that hit the port wine exports. We should make better!

@ivangoran4461 3 жыл бұрын

The pattern of behavior and the logic behind it explained by Z is so conspicuous in covid era. Government taking advantage of it, to meet its goals.

@amargamentedoce 7 жыл бұрын

People feel good buying organic but the true is most of the products are all packed in plastic (and the vast majority of plastics come from petroleum with are used to make the packaging and also use water in the manufacturing plastic process). Most of those products also come by trucks, and ships to your country, with use petroleum and pollute. It's only perpetuating the system. The best way is to grow your own, or buy from local farmers products non-packed in plastic. Products that are distributed by companies that not only are non-environmentally friendly, and also explore the worker too.... It's a very bad system! Grow your own or support local farmers! Don't buy organic in a plastic package.... and think you are saving the world, or yourself...

@JejuLee 13 жыл бұрын

It's all fashion, fad, and futile. We either have a government that works--ecologically, or we are fucked. Hence, we are fucked.

@richardnsalvador 13 жыл бұрын

My my!

@ThisSaturatedMind 11 жыл бұрын

You put it better than Zizek.

@slonamu 13 жыл бұрын

I wonder where he gets the organinc cocain from...

@thechadeuropeanfederalist893 4 жыл бұрын

The opposite is the case. Green capitalism actually works because it can be adopted on a mass scale, so that the tiny individual positive effect on the environment is multiplied a millionfold and thus becomes a huge positive effect on the environment. Whereas radically changing ones life is not and cannot be adopted by many individuals and thus has an insignificant effect on the environment in total, while it feels like a big effect, merely because one's individual effect is larger than as a green consumerist. The main purpose of radically changing one's life has thus the main purpose of virtue signalling, feeling better about oneself, feeling like one is doing something to save the environment etc. Green capitalists are doing it right. Continue to buy green capitalist products and thereby giving incentive to mass industry to make production more green. Radical environmentalim is the delusion. Radicalism is always radical individualism and thus ineffective.

@shitlordflytrap1078 3 жыл бұрын

Green capitalists are mostly faking their "greenness." Starbucks pretends they recycle their cups but in reality, they don't.

@gilgameschvonuruk4982 3 жыл бұрын

only if greenwashing didn't exit

@syvargasv 12 жыл бұрын

@lemivinx Well, we all working together to make a difference wont be possible if we stick to he model. It means that while you save water, Coca Cola stills spending so much in the most unnecesarry products. So, i agree about a possibilty f working as ants and stop global warking, but we must be conscious of the real context we live in. ( I speak spanish, so sorry for the grammar mistakes)

@N1ghtH4wk86 5 жыл бұрын

Why does he always have a cold

@darthutah6649 5 жыл бұрын

In the US, coal consumption is slowly being replaced by natural gas. In 2000, coal provided a little over half of America's electrical output. In 2017, it provided only a third. For those who don't know, natural gas emits less CO2 than coal. The main controversy with natural gas is how it's obtained: hydraulic fracking. Wind and solar are on the rise. In 2000, wind provided just 0.15% of America's electricity and solar did a measly 0.013%. In 2017, wind provided 6.33% and solar provided 1.32%. Granted, it will be awhile before wind and solar begin to replace coal or natural gas but that's a tremendous increase over the last 17 years. Furthermore, from 2000 to 2012, carbon emmissions per capita went down from 20.2 mt to 16.3. Although, they did increase a bit to 16.4 in 2013.

@androydnyc 13 жыл бұрын

@Vrchni classy

@Phi1eap 11 жыл бұрын

Flaws in capitalism enhance gap beetween rich and poor. Destroying middle class consumer power equals destroying croud-founded decision power. Politics such as Sturbucks case(which belong to the same corporation that owns non-eco,children labor companies)are used to weaken this fresh born awerness already consequently suppresed by middle class contraction. Consumer power is not illusion for those with enough money to not be forced to choose cheapest. That's why crisis by designe is usefull.

@unchattytwit 3 жыл бұрын

Of course we can help with seemingly small individual actions. The analogy with a baseball fan sitting in front of a TV is false: Firstly they pay TV fees et cetera that help support the league and clubs and secondly, fans going to the games would be a more equitable analogy. And by going to the games you're giving money to the club. Thirdly, people begin to think differently. Surely basic economics and psychology. I find that Zizek is a like Paul Mason - playing a jinxing running game for neoliberalism.

@shitlordflytrap1078 3 жыл бұрын

Exxon has lied for 40 years.

@dezmodium 12 жыл бұрын

@ecopsychoanalysis On the contrary, I think Zizek would agree that people do in fact state that, and possibly believe it, but that isn't the truth. Underneath their belief in their own helplessness, and the illusion of helplessness, lies a real responsibility where guilt lies. And this abstract guilt is what drives the "green" push. Think about it like this, companies aren't doing this for nothing. It appeals to people. They make money from it. If what you say is true, why?