|
|
By jwfost, on October 19th, 2009% Some recent positive economic news is being met with some skepticism, especially along the lines that mere decreases in revenue loss or job loss do not constitute bona-fide gains. Seems obvious, but somehow the same thinking does not seem to be occurring with respect to sustainability, where new products, transitions to solar and wind power, and decreased automotive emissions are perceived as “earth friendly” or “good for the environment.” Nonsense. Less bad may be better, but it ain’t good. Recycling just means less waste, not zero waste. Solar power still requires someone to manufacture the panels. Hybrids still burn gas, and they still wear tires, and “earth friendly” products still require manufacturing facilities, transportation, packaging. No way is the entire lifecycle of every one of those dependencies earth friendly. Not even close.
Granted, from a total impact standpoint, most forms of alternative energy are overall better than fossil fuels, and the second law of thermodynamics guarantees that completely eliminating “waste” is impossible. Still, it’d be nice to see fewer people dislocating their shoulders in self-congratulation over how green this guilt-free facade on consumerism is.
By jwfost, on September 30th, 2009% 
Why are some people (like many American men) obsessed with gadgets? Perhaps because tools connote ability, and ability connotes status. This goes way, way back. Tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Your value to society is measured by your ability to get things done. Your are what you can do. It’s the mandate of the hunter and the executive. Into this equation, add a term for peacock feathers (ostentatious expense as a signal of abundant personal resources) and I think you can explain our obsession with things ranging from filigreed armor to Leathermen and gold Rolexes.
By jwfost, on September 8th, 2009% Suppose there were a private militia that went around killing a certain number of people each year. The militia employs the same number of people, at the same salaries, as the tobacco industry. The group provides absolutely no benefits to society other than employment. Now suppose someone presses for the dissolution (at the very least) of this militia. An objection would be raised by the militia and those who supported them: “But think of all the jobs that would be lost!” Under the present conditions of American government, vis a vis the tobacco industry, the militia would win that argument and would be allowed to continue its activities.
You might object that random street killings do not incorporate any choice on the part of the victim. I need hardly say that the influence of free choice in tobacco use is debatable, but all right…let us suppose that the militia kills only those people who use telephones. Like tobacco, use of telephones is not strictly required for survival, though it is stimulating and, once customary, difficult to live without.
|
|
