I've made it through Chapter 6.1 Things of the ERE book so far, so I found the following blog post topical: ‘The Story of Stuff’ 2.0: An E-Waste Sequel
My life depends on electronics and I hate to get rid of the old stuff that breaks or is no longer useful (i.e., older computers can't always run the software I need to earn a living). But it's sickening to know that people and the planet are being destroyed by the electronics industry.
The Story of Stuff
I started a thread on this very subject:
viewtopic.php?t=208
My dissatisfaction was with the technology outrunning the hardware, which is expected and normal, but costs us way too much money. Then your left with hardware not as yet worn out, and possibly useless.
viewtopic.php?t=208
My dissatisfaction was with the technology outrunning the hardware, which is expected and normal, but costs us way too much money. Then your left with hardware not as yet worn out, and possibly useless.
I found this critique of the original Story of Stuff pretty interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY
I think a lot of his arguments rely on the assumption that consumption = prosperity, but I appreciate his focus on individual agency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY
I think a lot of his arguments rely on the assumption that consumption = prosperity, but I appreciate his focus on individual agency.
Even though I don't like working in Corporate America as an employee, I do enjoy owning a piece of Corporate America as an investor. Corporate America definitely knows how to separate people from their money (Sales Pitches You Can't Resist).
The e-waste issue will be solved eventually with regulations. Back in the 1960s, for example, Ralph Nader wrote "Unsafe at Any Speed" and the result was greater emphasis on automobile safety. Rachael Carson wrote "Silent Spring" and the result was the banning of DDT.
The e-waste issue will be solved eventually with regulations. Back in the 1960s, for example, Ralph Nader wrote "Unsafe at Any Speed" and the result was greater emphasis on automobile safety. Rachael Carson wrote "Silent Spring" and the result was the banning of DDT.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
@AlexOliver Really? I think he has the sweetest voice. I wonder if he's ever tried singing. 
But yeah, aside from the voice, there is a lot to be annoyed by in that video. I posted it to see how the ERE crowd would respond to the notion that unchecked growth will either continue with no consequences or that it will "self-correct".
Maybe ERE and alike movements are part of the self-correction.
But yeah, aside from the voice, there is a lot to be annoyed by in that video. I posted it to see how the ERE crowd would respond to the notion that unchecked growth will either continue with no consequences or that it will "self-correct".
Maybe ERE and alike movements are part of the self-correction.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
The thing is, the original story of stuff was just about "stuff" and garbage and the space of landfills and didn't mention peak oil or water or anything else. So when she says, "You can't do infinite growth on a finite planet" (paraphrase) and he gets into his thing "but but but you didnt take into account this!!!!" I got kind of ticked until I noticed he was responding to the video and not real life, does that make sense?
@AlexOliver
Yes I see what you're saying. There are lots of cheap shots in his critique (Did you make it to "Marxism for kids"?). I think my main problem with it is that "better technology" seems to be his go-to solution. As if we are one self-serving bullshit publication in the Journal of Niche Method in Dying Subfield of Theoretical Field X away from discovering how to turn the molten core of the Earth into bread and super-compacting electronic garbage into fish.
Yes I see what you're saying. There are lots of cheap shots in his critique (Did you make it to "Marxism for kids"?). I think my main problem with it is that "better technology" seems to be his go-to solution. As if we are one self-serving bullshit publication in the Journal of Niche Method in Dying Subfield of Theoretical Field X away from discovering how to turn the molten core of the Earth into bread and super-compacting electronic garbage into fish.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15980
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
This is the classic economist vs ecologist argument.
Economists believe in infinite substitution and that demand causes supply when the price is right. If an economist is stranded on a life boat in the middle of the ocean with a engineer, the economist seriously believes that a) they'll never die of thirst because they're floating on an entire ocean of water(*), and b) if the economist writes a check big enough, the engineer will invent something to make it drinkable.
I usually try to identify whether I'm dealing with such an economist as fast as possible. If I do, I try to leave ASAP using some excuse like "Sorry, I got to go home. I forgot today was the day I promised to teach my dog nonlinear algebra."
(*) This is why many economists believe that a hydrogen economy is coming. You see, water contains hydrogen. Now, using enough credit, we can pay some scientist to figure out how to extract that hydrogen. Problem solved.
Economists believe in infinite substitution and that demand causes supply when the price is right. If an economist is stranded on a life boat in the middle of the ocean with a engineer, the economist seriously believes that a) they'll never die of thirst because they're floating on an entire ocean of water(*), and b) if the economist writes a check big enough, the engineer will invent something to make it drinkable.
I usually try to identify whether I'm dealing with such an economist as fast as possible. If I do, I try to leave ASAP using some excuse like "Sorry, I got to go home. I forgot today was the day I promised to teach my dog nonlinear algebra."
(*) This is why many economists believe that a hydrogen economy is coming. You see, water contains hydrogen. Now, using enough credit, we can pay some scientist to figure out how to extract that hydrogen. Problem solved.