Have fun not existing.
That's why I mentioned Costco because I wanted to specifically attack those encouraging wasteful behavior. Forcing people to buy in bulk is a form of that but that's just one thing they do. The giant sizes of their stores, focus on making it cheap and convenient to buy gas, and providing a status symbol that's about acquiring cheap stuff are others.
If you want to screech about consumerism you're barking up the wrong tree.
If only there was a way to have more than one location to store frozen foods in a home.
>And none of the expiration dates apply to refrigerated food
They don't. "Use or freeze by".
>That's how long you can leave it outside the fridge.
Which you wouldn't do if you're not using it.
If you are looking for things Costco doesn't carry, it is what it is. If your needs or desires line up with Costco's selection though, then there's no better place in terms of both price and efficiency of procurement.
If you find stuff from Costco is going to waste (namely foodstuffs, almost everything else they carry is non-perishable), just throw them all in the freezer. They will last months if not years.
This is where you get deeper into Wall-E territory. A lot of their "good stuff" is junk food. And a lot of people eat more of it when it's lying around their houses. And really it's only "good stuff" because it's brand name. There are better tasting chocolate bars with less packaging than Hershey's Nuggets.
If you get junk food from Costco, that's because you bought junk food.
But isn't the argument was that Costco carries good stuff?
The "junk" in junk food isn't talking about the quality (good/bad) thereof.
If its going bad before using it, thats on you to manage. There are plenty of ways to avoid food going bad, from storing it properly to planning out what your going to use when.
I assume in good faith that your value is pristine nature but it’s a fallacy.
To summarize: yikes.
This sentence alone proves your entire reply unsound. You have assumed something which is obviously irrelevant given not only the context of this conversation but even the tone and content of that comment which you supposedly critique. Then you go on to be condescending.
You can convince people of your honesty and good faith by acting honestly and in good faith, not by trying to reframe your hurried comments ex post facto to retrofit some desired message from what is obviously a bad take.
I don't. It's by now clear they don't think they were doing that either. But your assumption colored your entire reply as a response to an argument that no one was making.
Costco sizes makes perfect sense for many people. There’s nothing weird about buying 3lb of chicken at once or a 4 pack of butter. It might even be better by minimizing amount of trips and packaging material.
That is, your income is proportional to your damage almost regardless of what you choose to spend your money on (indirect damage is high for every $ whether spent or invested).
The US is roughly 25% of the world’s GDP with ~5% of the world population, so each person in the US is on average causing ~5x the damage of the average person in the world (often indirectly in other countries).
The single easy thing you could personally do to reduce your long term footprint is to not have kids.