80% - forgotten about
60% - caused me to say, “I wrote that?!”
30% - wished still resonated w/ me now…
I thought about making this new entry a deeply philosophical and profound life lesson on the new and wonderful events that happened in the day and life of Julie Cho… but then I realized how little has changed.
Anyway, being the optimist I am, I did think a lot about how the world is going to end. The destruction of the world is going to be caused by 2 very preventable and subtle sources: inconvenience and discomfort. Allow me to explain…
Inconvenience “forces” us to:
- Drive to places that are sometimes walking distances
- Not car pool
- Shop at ‘mega stores’, despite the economic hardship mega stores inflict on local small businesses
- Consume fast food
- Demand small individually packaged items
- Leave the lights on w/ no one in the room
- Buy imported groceries w/out consideration as to how much fuel was used to get it here
- Not fix leaking faucets, poorly insulated windows/frames, etc.
- Use a lot of ‘disposable’ things
Discomfort “forces” us to:
- Leave the water running while lathering in the shower to stay warm
- Sit in the TTC “Priority Seating” area with our eyes shut
- Turn the heat or air conditioner higher during peak days/hours
- Idle the car more
- Use more Styrofoam (Styrofoam is the cheapest “disposable” calorimeter)
- Require the use of plastic bags in grocery stores
- Continue smoking knowing the harm it causes
Oh, and what gets me even more is that here we are bending over backwards to make ourselves feel better about whatever the media/profit-driven society deems important (i.e. beauty, money, power, etc.)… In the long-run, what does it do? None of it is permanent and we’ll always want more. And then the feeling of simply having enough… fades away…
1 comment:
I'll try to keep this appropriate length for a long blog comment. haha As someone who is fairly scientific (and in socio) I need analysis of the social processes behind the two 'causes' that you identify. I'm sure you can see that the specific way that "convenience" is constructed and pursued has material and cultural basis.
For example, fast food is both a quick lunch for people working in downtown offices, and "fun" for kids. For many people 20+ it even evokes a nostalgic familiarity and guilt, in the context of a hyperreal consciousness about nutrition. ("I don't see blueberries... I see anti-oxidants!")
For me the question is what factors/processes lie 'behind' the social patterns we see, and what explains the variation in them.
Along those lines, let me look a little more closely at the impact of multi-national corporations (MNCs) setting up shop and the measureable damage it has caused. I think we can reject the objection that "people don't know about it" as an explanation of social patterns AND variance because, well, people know and don't care. In terms of processes, if we train ourselves to think solely in terms of pros and cons, benefit and cost, efficiency and convenience, AND we do so in terms of individualism, MNCs are beneficial to the majority of people.
We have there at least four explanatory factors: a specific kind of (capitalist) cultural logic, individualism, widespread utilitarian thinking, and an emergent notion of 'the good'.
Let's play with the scenario a bit. Let's start by taking out individualism and replacing it with a generic collectivism.
Setting: some city outside a major city. It is more or less self-sustainable with a significant proportion being farmers, and the only main imports are farming technology. Before every planting and harvesting season, a couple of the dudes take a truck or two and get most of what the town needs. Now, some MNC takes a look at this place and decides that if they set up shop in this town they can run a profitable "big box mart" (scary). They get permission from the state gov and set up their shop. Suddenly the people have convenient access to the best frigs, video games, satellite TVs, processed butter, produce from California, etc. And of course the prices are amazing.
The baker, tailor, shoe-maker, generic handy men, and two restaurants suddenly find that they only have a third of the business they need to survive. The cause of this is obviously the "big box mart". They spread word and there is a town meeting, and some of the smaller, nearby towns send reps. Key, valued members of their community are in trouble. Cheaper prices will not benefit the community as a whole, but only individuals in personal ways (namely: modern entertainment and similar technological wonders like microwaveable dinners--microwave included). Because looking out for the good of the community has provided them with a long history of collective benefit, it is decided that things will return to the way they were before "big box mart". The wealth of individual members exists as a stash for the community's less majestic days, not simply for individual pleasure.
The profitable run projection of the MNC has gone wildly astray and they must leave, only with an abandoned building to mark their sordid existence.
===
Note that the town can still be fairly capitalist in orientation, it'd just be some kind of group capitalism (or to conceive of the group as a unity).
What happens if you replaced utilitarianism with (here's a scary idea) some kind of Christian deontology? Or to put it another way, what if the Church actually was the Church? The city would see that the presence of a "big box mart" is not justifiable. It benefits many, but as individuals, and threatens the moral livelihood of a few. (Btw--many Christian capitalists would say that it's good if Christians have more wealth, because they would benefit more with the increased wealth. Historically, I think that idea as a description of wealthy Christian behavior is almost universally wrong.) Seeing the rightness of everyone in the community engaged in creative, contributive work, it is seen as wrong that a MNC should threaten the livelihood of a few.
===
I suggested four explanatory factors, and I think you'll find that they explain a lot of examples you list. I would also add analysis of middle-classness. It's also tempting to add in "stupidity" as a factor, but that clouds more than reveals--what is the assumed notion of "smartness" that I would be assuming, and why should that be used as a standard? (For example, "rationality" and "common sense" are often simply capitalist logic. You'll easily get people to agree that it's "common sense" to buy things that are cheaper, but magically price is often the only factor that "common sense" considers.)
I love idling my car. In fact I idle my neighbor's car too.
===
About buying imported groceries--I was reading about the development of non-traditional agricultural exports (NTAEs) in Latin America. Those include flowers, macademian nuts, and a ton of different exotic fruits. Not only does it take a lot to get it up here, there are very strict aesthetic and sanitary conditions for import into North America. This is good in some ways (i.e. those ways that the media will mention), but engenders anxiety about meeting those standards, which then disposes companies to overuse of pesticides. More expensive operations use greenhouses, and you can guess how healthy it is for the workers to be inside there with all kinds of chemicals in play. (Women dominate the workforce for the more chemically heavy operations. Wonder what that does to their children? o_O) Oh, and it's not unsurprising for tons and tons of food to be destroyed because it doesn't meet some import condition or another. You get tons and tons of green beans, for example, rotting away somewhere.
Note that these are all exports. Meaning that little to none goes to local markets. Local society falls into disfavor because so long as people survive and there is cheap labor, infrastructure that doesn't directly help the export process isn't very important.
All those social processes we see in North America lock hands with MNC operations and skip merrily down the imported stone garden (look at those bonzai trees! They arrived from Japan just last Monday).
This is too long. >_> I'll end by saying that I consider a history of capitalism and analysis of a society to be the best explanatory factors.
If we could teach our kids a more collectivist way of life, group living would not be a strange idea or one that seems to have huge logistical problems. BFF. lol
Post a Comment