Of course, organisations that directly act to facilitate these effects are acting against the interest of humankind. Even still, they can only do so because the public give them permission to do it.
"AI" (LLMs, CNNs, deep learning and all the hype around them) supplanting much of genuine thought, burning fuel polluting the atmosphere and heating the world, privacy being encroached upon by invasive tracking, censorship and sterilization of the internet. I argue that these things happen because individual consumers (that is, the vast majority of people) permit them to happen. Companies generally act to maximise profit, but can only ever earn revenue if people are buying. And when a person buys a product, they vote with their wallet that they are OK with that product and its making.
It is usually easiest to go with the flow. To buy cage eggs because they are $3 cheaper than free range. It just makes economic sense. I argue that we should never do this. We must only ever buy the option that fits our ethical minimum, even at a higher cost.
One might consider that many people can't afford the "ethical" product, and will need to fall back on the cheaper option. I argue that they should go without. I have, in recent history, been in a position where I couldn't afford the classical weekly shop. I could have saved good money by buying cage eggs. Still, either I buy free range, or I go without and substitute with something else.
There is always an alternative. Don't like Facebook? Start a blog website. Don't want those new AI features in your preferred app? Uninstall it and use one that fits your needs. If it comes down to it, learn how to make your own. Want to slow climate change? Be conscious of your energy use and burn less fuel - swap your car for a bike, use public transport if you can. EVs can be good, too.
Yes, it will be inconvenient. It might be painful. But isn't that worth proving that your own principles mean something? That you are more than a consumer?
For most of the people who can read this, we always have a choice. Having lived through the last decades, we have learned the effect of complacency. We now know better, and must choose better.
Yes, but large amount of resources are put into controlling and influencing the population. It's a fight, and we aren't fighting back enough. It's my opinion the problem is systemic, and merely trying to be more mindful of consumption isn't going to improve things much (it will improve things some, and people should do it). For instance, there's a good chance those cage-free eggs involved some sort of very low-paid and abused workers. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
It's hard to get the counter message out there loudly enough to be heard over the din of propaganda.
Perhaps if we put a green hat on and start pursuing the message more vigorously.
I agree with you. Perhaps more insistent messaging would be useful. A pin, maybe?