[EarthIsHome]

Yes they did. Reduce, reuse, recycle.

While recycling is last in that mantra, it is overemphasized more than the other two. It shifts the onus of stewarding our environment to the individual rather than the corporations and militaries, which wreck our planet more than any individual can. They'd rather you not look at what they're doing to the environment, and instead look at the individual.

Moreover, companies don't want you to reduce your consumption, they want you to keep buying their products. Reuse? Nah, here are products that are obsolete, buy the new model.

[ainiriand]

Repair! We should fight for that. I want to be able to repair not just my electronics (or pay someone to do it for me), but also my tools and machines.

[xnx]

Refuse! Stop unnecessary consumption at the source.

[xnx]

Reducing consumption is the ultimate taboo. That message is effectively censored from all commercial media.

[lm28469]

Anything that doesn't imply infinite growth is taboo... Which is weird because it will for sure happen, the question is whether you plan it or suffer from it

[mrmuagi]

I guess because commercial media drives on advertising dollars that ultimately are meant to drive consumerism?

I think minimalism/no buy movements are big though.

[raincom]

Making products that are hard to repair and which don't last long are the huge culprits. Also, when it comes to clothing, it is all fast fashion. Wear a few times, then dump.

Also labor costs to repair in the developed world is another factor.

[whycome]

> commercial media

They pause for breaks to sell you things and the pauses are unashamedly called “commercials”

[tshaddox]

For what it's worth, the mantra I was taught in the U.S. in the 1990s was ordered "recycle, reduce, reuse," but there was no indication that the ordering mattered. We were just taught about all three things.

[kalleboo]

I think because it rhymes better. I still remember the jingle in my head.