Why can’t something be both for profit and for the environment?
Because inevitably the pursuit of profit takes priority over better solutions. Case in point, recycling has also reduced the amount of plastic waste around, however really that’s just fuelling a waste processing industry that opposes re-using of materials - not without reprocessing through their business. Meanwhile, if you look to countries like Germany they’ve put business profits to the side and created a system that re-uses glass for almost all drinks, all now completely maintained by the income of its deposit system.
And if reusable containers become a thing, I promise you there will be people whinging that it’s profitable for the groceries that they’re selling bottles that you used to get for free with the soap or whatever.
Well, if they were charging you for the use, then yes that would be reasonable to complain about. They should be providing them with a fully refundable deposit - you return them, you get your money back. If you look at re-usable water bottles, that market has exploded with a bunch of over-priced crap, rather than the best solution being mass produced and distributed with the product.
The issue is we have something that was complimentary which is now being charged a marked up price to generate further profit, at further expense to the customer. All the while we’re being told this change is for the environment, rather than for profit. It’s the deceit that annoys people.
It’s sad that kids growing up today will see it as normal. People shouldn’t be conditioned to serve profiteering corporations, we should be teaching people to demand better terms.
They do make a profit. A plastic bag does not cost 20-45p to make. Instead of the business providing the bags complimentarily, instead of the customer paying for the cost of the old plastic bag, the businesses are selling a slightly nicer plastic bag for profit.
The reason they weren’t priced from the beginning is because plastic bags are ridiculously cheap, so they could afford to do it as a complimentary item. The reason they introduced them was to get people to shop more, as people would buy less when they didn’t have bags. So the business could write off the cost of cheap bags for the extra profit from increased sales.
Then, after a few decades’ conditioning, the businesses have taken what was complimentary and started charging a marked up price for it. People now know that it’s better for them to shop with bags, so businesses are taking advantage of that, all while pretending that they’re “doing the green thing”.
Exactly. People bought far less when they didn’t have a bag to put their stuff in, so the shops started offering free bags so that people could buy more. Now, they’ve wrangled a way of getting the customer to pay for what was complimentary, and what’s more the business profits significantly from the sale of bags. It’s exploitative capitalism under the guise of environmentalism.
Lmao now I’m definitely not going to bother. Not least because a Google search will come up with multiple answers, because acronyms have multiple uses, so I still won’t know what you’re talking about.
Seeing as you’re not really arguing in good faith in any way, shape or form, I’m out.
There’s an original poster for each post. When you’re talking in one post about another post, there is another original poster from the other post. What you call that other original poster is up to you, but OOP is what the BORU sub settled on.
The person who posts a repost is an OP for that specific post, to differentiate them from the other commenters in the post. It’s not like Original Content, which his the root source of all reposts, it’s just a term that (automatically, by the site’s own labels) refers to the person who made that specific post, regardless of its content.
Being ginger is not a protected class, so there is no legal restriction on descriminating (so long as you don’t successfully argue that gingers are a race, eg Scottish, but that’s a stretch).
However morally no, you shouldn’t have a say in it. Either way, usually you’ll be dead when the decision is made. Maybe not with kidneys, although with kidneys you tend to know who you’re giving it to - I don’t think anyone just randomly donates a kidney, like you would give blood.