Wow. I don't think I could disagree with you more completely if I treid.
For one thing, not sure what problem you have with that quote... it's exactly true, and in fact, I consider it so intuitively and obviously true, I can't imagine what you're issue is with it. You cannot consume 'new' and throw away to land-fill forever. Resources are not infinite, and in fact, we're seriously starting to run up against the limits, not just in space but in resources. The amount of "crap" that can be produced is hardly infinite... that's an absolutely ludicrous assertion.
I think the video, for what it is (a brief over-view at a high level meant to simply open the discussion) is right on. And the fact is, we've been hearing people use terms like "sustainable growth" with straight faces for so long, that we don't realize what an oxymoron that is.
Decreasing consumption is important (part of the point of the video in fact), but recycling is imperative as well. I've heard your argument way too many times, and I still consider it to be bullshit, because it breaks down to "Recycling right now isn't perfect, so why bother at all"... which is ludicrous.
The problem is that recycling has been too focused on the consumer. That's not entirely bad... you have to boot the system somewhere. Transitioning from the unsustainable and wasteful linear system of "use raw materials, consume products, throw away" to a closed and efficient system, takes a lot of time and retraining of our way of thinking. Products have to be designed with recycling in mind from the start, including packaging. Our current system isn't like that at all. So benefits from recycling are marginal right now at best. But that's not the way it has to be forever. I also don't think recycling has to encourage more consumption at all. Again, specific examples don't make a rule.
The real problem with our economy, our society, and our culture, is that the only real definition of success is expansion and consuming and creating more. A business that doesn't constantly grow is an "unsuccessful" business. But things can't expand forever, and with the current population pressures, and existing and future resource constraints, it becomes more and more impossible... we'll end up with a huge crash instead of simple "expansion/contraction" cycles.
So I guess I agree with the statement you quoted on a very fundamental level (and in fact, cannot see your argument against it... it's just so obviously true, like you disagreeing that water is wet).
BTW, I think the best part of the video is the discussion of the $4.95 radio. I think that's a real issue as well. I think if prices reflected more of the true cost, and the exploitation and dumping on the disadvantaged were eliminated, it would also reign in over-consumption, in addition to increasing the quality of life in general population-wide.
Right now we're dealing with collapsing food chains in the oceans, scarcity of fresh water in many areas of the world, a huge patch of floating plastic refuse twice the size of Texas slowly swirling in the Pacific, and chemical and plastic pollution of our environment and food chains. There is some fascinating reading on these subjects, and I wish more people were aware of some of these issues, and the consequences of their behaviors.
For one thing, not sure what problem you have with that quote...
The context of the quote was on the producer side, not the waste side. On the supply side, for all practical purposes, there is an infinite number of trees on the planet. The problem is with rate we consume them. Here is a practical example:
If I make a piece of furniture using hardwood, I will make it such a way that I can guarantee it will last for 100 years (I'm using designs and techniques used in shaker/stickley furniture). In that 100 years, a tree can easily grow to replace it. Clearly a sustainable, and for practical purposes infinite.
MOST furniture today uses pressed woods, and plywoods with hardwood veneers. Pressed woods and plywoods are made by taking a forest and clearcutting the land. Taking ALL of the wood, grinding it up, adding epoxy and making a 'wood product' with it. The crap (in my experience never lasts) usually lasts five years, if you are lucky... nowhere near enough time to regrow the forest lost. Clearly not sustainable.
Both systems, I might point out are 'linear' as she uses the term. MY point was that her choice of words is silly, and quite frankly meaningless.
In the context of waste disposal (check my quote, and it's timing in the video, it wasn't the context of the discussion), you are absolutely correct.
Decreasing consumption is important (part of the point of the video in fact), but recycling is imperative as well. I've heard your argument way too many times, and I still consider it to be bullshit, because it breaks down to "Recycling right now isn't perfect, so why bother at all"... which is ludicrous.
I'm not saying recycling isn't important, or necessary... I'm saying recycling as it's implemented today is silly and not really very effective. I say this because people 'feel' like they are doing something, when there really isn't any oversight to ensure they are... I see my assertion with most people I know who fervently recycle. The topic of consumption is now a non-starter, if only because it involves something that amounts to real work on their parts. It is HARD to consume less, it is HARD to break the bonds of materialism, especially when it's crammed down your throat like food to factory raised chickens... Think about it: back in the nineties, most corporations were on board with promoting recycling... you don't think this in some small way raised consumption because people could consume with less guilt?
In short: I never said we shouldn't recycle, rather it should be emphasized way less, and we should focus way more on consumption...
So I guess I agree with the statement you quoted on a very fundamental level (and in fact, cannot see your argument against it... it's just so obviously true, like you disagreeing that water is wet).
This may be true, but then again go ask people at Ikea if they agree with it, and they may agree, but they'll still buy the crap anyway. Same thing with crap clothes from Old Navy. I once had a niece who noted when confronted with the quality of old navy clothes, 'who cares if they fall apart in three months? would you really want to be seen in clothes that are three months old?'
For the record MANY of the clothes I wear are 10 years old. I wear them to rags, and then use them as rags... Why? Because my consumption is low, and I KNOW they aren't ultimately going to end up in a landfill. I also make all my own furniture... why? I know it's going to last effectively forever, and it was created in a sustainable way. I buy my wood from a guy who knows the guy in Appalachia that gets it from forests that aren't clearcutted.
I've only bought OLD houses that I've brought up to code, and modernized with energy efficient windows, furnaces, water heaters...
Continued (over the limit)budhaboyFebruary 24 2009, 10:42:31 UTC
None of these practices are popularized, and most people don't do them.
I didn't finish watching the video because on a fundamental level the woman offended me with compete rubbish at the start and quite frankly, I don't have the time to waste... IMHO more harm is done by people dumbing things down in a way that is wrong than doing it right even if it's a little more complex. We just finished eight years seeing where this particular philosophy can lead... let's try something different and elevate a bit. Generally people are smart, and if smart people make an effort to articulate a position, they can follow it.
Re: Continued (over the limit)outintexasFebruary 25 2009, 03:17:23 UTC
You should have watched the video. You made an ASSumption that was completley incorrect.
Most of the video talks and concentrates on the consumption side, and points out how things like 'fashion' are DESIGNED (along with "planned obsolescence") and are bad and why we have these problems and issues. Also the context of the "linear" quote DID include the fact that our current economy is based on 'throw away'. So all your objections really aren't valid, imho. I mean, you're points and opinions are perfectly valid: the idea that the video somehow doesn't incorporate them is what is invalid. It's precisely what the video is ABOUT. The video wasn't wrong... you just gave up on it too soon.
The point of the video is to start the conversation and give the information to people who have never ever thought about it before. It's not targeted for you, really. But I think if you watch the whole thing, you'd almost have to agree that knowing about what is in the video is far better than not knowing it. And that if more people watched this, we'd be better off in general.
As for recyling, we have to bootstrap somewhere. It's sorta bad now, but without emphasizing reuse and recyling on the consumption and waste side, with the consumer, you'll never get anywhere "ultimately". The problem only occurs if we stop here (which admittedly some communities have done, and of course the last 8 years didn't help much). Demand must be there eventually, and getting consumers thinking about their consumption in more realistic ways, in more sustainable ways, is a start. It's certianly better than nothing.
Give the video another try, and this time don't just assume you know how it's going to end, because teh whole point of the video is to break the cycle of throw-away consumerism... which it seems to me from all you wrote, you'd emphatically agree with.
Re: Continued (over the limit)budhaboyFebruary 25 2009, 08:55:59 UTC
I'm sure the information in the video is better for most people to know. I just think that elements of the video aren't going to work really, really hard to keep people from following it.
Another example:
When she off handedly says that friends of hers would rather see the government as a tank... I live in a weird world, were ultra conservative people ride the train with liberal libertarians (such as myself)... We all manage to get along, because we have to. I talk daily with people who would quite likely agree with everything in that video, but would dismiss it out of hand, and do the exact opposite of what it proposes to spite the woman if only because of that single comment about the tank.
In a somewhat related issue, simple characterizations about people that are force fed to us (not unlike consumerism) really are misleading and tend to make things far, far worse.
I ride the train regularly with a guy who's about sixty. He grew up in Lancaster OH, and is a special forces colonel. He's also a complete hard-ass, the way he talks and promotes his ideas about war, Haliburton, etc.... you'd never think that 1) He's married to a wicked cool woman who is an 'off the boat' Asian immigrant who is also a colonel and is currently serving in Iraq as the liaison for women's affairs. 2) Tended bar at Larry's (on high street in Columbus) while in graduate school, studying philosophy. For all intents and purposes, he's identical to the dude in 'a few good men', but he is way, way more complex than that character, and quite frankly way, way smarter... He'd be a prime candidate to watch the video, but would likely never sit through it for the reasons I stated.
I'm not sure what my point is for including this point other than to continue the discussion, and I'm insanely tired... I haven't been sleeping well lately.
For one thing, not sure what problem you have with that quote... it's exactly true, and in fact, I consider it so intuitively and obviously true, I can't imagine what you're issue is with it. You cannot consume 'new' and throw away to land-fill forever. Resources are not infinite, and in fact, we're seriously starting to run up against the limits, not just in space but in resources. The amount of "crap" that can be produced is hardly infinite... that's an absolutely ludicrous assertion.
I think the video, for what it is (a brief over-view at a high level meant to simply open the discussion) is right on. And the fact is, we've been hearing people use terms like "sustainable growth" with straight faces for so long, that we don't realize what an oxymoron that is.
Decreasing consumption is important (part of the point of the video in fact), but recycling is imperative as well. I've heard your argument way too many times, and I still consider it to be bullshit, because it breaks down to "Recycling right now isn't perfect, so why bother at all"... which is ludicrous.
The problem is that recycling has been too focused on the consumer. That's not entirely bad... you have to boot the system somewhere. Transitioning from the unsustainable and wasteful linear system of "use raw materials, consume products, throw away" to a closed and efficient system, takes a lot of time and retraining of our way of thinking. Products have to be designed with recycling in mind from the start, including packaging. Our current system isn't like that at all. So benefits from recycling are marginal right now at best. But that's not the way it has to be forever. I also don't think recycling has to encourage more consumption at all. Again, specific examples don't make a rule.
The real problem with our economy, our society, and our culture, is that the only real definition of success is expansion and consuming and creating more. A business that doesn't constantly grow is an "unsuccessful" business. But things can't expand forever, and with the current population pressures, and existing and future resource constraints, it becomes more and more impossible... we'll end up with a huge crash instead of simple "expansion/contraction" cycles.
So I guess I agree with the statement you quoted on a very fundamental level (and in fact, cannot see your argument against it... it's just so obviously true, like you disagreeing that water is wet).
BTW, I think the best part of the video is the discussion of the $4.95 radio. I think that's a real issue as well. I think if prices reflected more of the true cost, and the exploitation and dumping on the disadvantaged were eliminated, it would also reign in over-consumption, in addition to increasing the quality of life in general population-wide.
Right now we're dealing with collapsing food chains in the oceans, scarcity of fresh water in many areas of the world, a huge patch of floating plastic refuse twice the size of Texas slowly swirling in the Pacific, and chemical and plastic pollution of our environment and food chains. There is some fascinating reading on these subjects, and I wish more people were aware of some of these issues, and the consequences of their behaviors.
Reply
The context of the quote was on the producer side, not the waste side. On the supply side, for all practical purposes, there is an infinite number of trees on the planet. The problem is with rate we consume them. Here is a practical example:
If I make a piece of furniture using hardwood, I will make it such a way that I can guarantee it will last for 100 years (I'm using designs and techniques used in shaker/stickley furniture). In that 100 years, a tree can easily grow to replace it. Clearly a sustainable, and for practical purposes infinite.
MOST furniture today uses pressed woods, and plywoods with hardwood veneers. Pressed woods and plywoods are made by taking a forest and clearcutting the land. Taking ALL of the wood, grinding it up, adding epoxy and making a 'wood product' with it. The crap (in my experience never lasts) usually lasts five years, if you are lucky... nowhere near enough time to regrow the forest lost. Clearly not sustainable.
Both systems, I might point out are 'linear' as she uses the term. MY point was that her choice of words is silly, and quite frankly meaningless.
In the context of waste disposal (check my quote, and it's timing in the video, it wasn't the context of the discussion), you are absolutely correct.
Decreasing consumption is important (part of the point of the video in fact), but recycling is imperative as well. I've heard your argument way too many times, and I still consider it to be bullshit, because it breaks down to "Recycling right now isn't perfect, so why bother at all"... which is ludicrous.
I'm not saying recycling isn't important, or necessary... I'm saying recycling as it's implemented today is silly and not really very effective. I say this because people 'feel' like they are doing something, when there really isn't any oversight to ensure they are... I see my assertion with most people I know who fervently recycle. The topic of consumption is now a non-starter, if only because it involves something that amounts to real work on their parts. It is HARD to consume less, it is HARD to break the bonds of materialism, especially when it's crammed down your throat like food to factory raised chickens... Think about it: back in the nineties, most corporations were on board with promoting recycling... you don't think this in some small way raised consumption because people could consume with less guilt?
In short: I never said we shouldn't recycle, rather it should be emphasized way less, and we should focus way more on consumption...
So I guess I agree with the statement you quoted on a very fundamental level (and in fact, cannot see your argument against it... it's just so obviously true, like you disagreeing that water is wet).
This may be true, but then again go ask people at Ikea if they agree with it, and they may agree, but they'll still buy the crap anyway. Same thing with crap clothes from Old Navy. I once had a niece who noted when confronted with the quality of old navy clothes, 'who cares if they fall apart in three months? would you really want to be seen in clothes that are three months old?'
For the record MANY of the clothes I wear are 10 years old. I wear them to rags, and then use them as rags... Why? Because my consumption is low, and I KNOW they aren't ultimately going to end up in a landfill. I also make all my own furniture... why? I know it's going to last effectively forever, and it was created in a sustainable way. I buy my wood from a guy who knows the guy in Appalachia that gets it from forests that aren't clearcutted.
I've only bought OLD houses that I've brought up to code, and modernized with energy efficient windows, furnaces, water heaters...
Reply
I didn't finish watching the video because on a fundamental level the woman offended me with compete rubbish at the start and quite frankly, I don't have the time to waste... IMHO more harm is done by people dumbing things down in a way that is wrong than doing it right even if it's a little more complex. We just finished eight years seeing where this particular philosophy can lead... let's try something different and elevate a bit. Generally people are smart, and if smart people make an effort to articulate a position, they can follow it.
Reply
Most of the video talks and concentrates on the consumption side, and points out how things like 'fashion' are DESIGNED (along with "planned obsolescence") and are bad and why we have these problems and issues. Also the context of the "linear" quote DID include the fact that our current economy is based on 'throw away'. So all your objections really aren't valid, imho. I mean, you're points and opinions are perfectly valid: the idea that the video somehow doesn't incorporate them is what is invalid. It's precisely what the video is ABOUT. The video wasn't wrong... you just gave up on it too soon.
The point of the video is to start the conversation and give the information to people who have never ever thought about it before. It's not targeted for you, really. But I think if you watch the whole thing, you'd almost have to agree that knowing about what is in the video is far better than not knowing it. And that if more people watched this, we'd be better off in general.
As for recyling, we have to bootstrap somewhere. It's sorta bad now, but without emphasizing reuse and recyling on the consumption and waste side, with the consumer, you'll never get anywhere "ultimately". The problem only occurs if we stop here (which admittedly some communities have done, and of course the last 8 years didn't help much). Demand must be there eventually, and getting consumers thinking about their consumption in more realistic ways, in more sustainable ways, is a start. It's certianly better than nothing.
Give the video another try, and this time don't just assume you know how it's going to end, because teh whole point of the video is to break the cycle of throw-away consumerism... which it seems to me from all you wrote, you'd emphatically agree with.
Reply
Another example:
When she off handedly says that friends of hers would rather see the government as a tank... I live in a weird world, were ultra conservative people ride the train with liberal libertarians (such as myself)... We all manage to get along, because we have to. I talk daily with people who would quite likely agree with everything in that video, but would dismiss it out of hand, and do the exact opposite of what it proposes to spite the woman if only because of that single comment about the tank.
In a somewhat related issue, simple characterizations about people that are force fed to us (not unlike consumerism) really are misleading and tend to make things far, far worse.
I ride the train regularly with a guy who's about sixty. He grew up in Lancaster OH, and is a special forces colonel. He's also a complete hard-ass, the way he talks and promotes his ideas about war, Haliburton, etc.... you'd never think that 1) He's married to a wicked cool woman who is an 'off the boat' Asian immigrant who is also a colonel and is currently serving in Iraq as the liaison for women's affairs. 2) Tended bar at Larry's (on high street in Columbus) while in graduate school, studying philosophy. For all intents and purposes, he's identical to the dude in 'a few good men', but he is way, way more complex than that character, and quite frankly way, way smarter... He'd be a prime candidate to watch the video, but would likely never sit through it for the reasons I stated.
I'm not sure what my point is for including this point other than to continue the discussion, and I'm insanely tired... I haven't been sleeping well lately.
Reply
Leave a comment