From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Off Thoughts. Sheep!?
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 10:49:18 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan8.160932.8591@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:

 > I didn't really expect them to... what I was getting at was the _wisdom_ (or
 > more importantly, the _lack_ of it) of expending resources to the manufacture
 > of things like the pink flamingos that people put on the front lawn, or items
 > like the `dipping bird'... you  know the one... it works on the principle of
 > evaporative cooling... it dips down to a glass of water (gets wet, cools off)
 > and eventually repeats the process... I forget the name of the product, but I'd
 > be surprised if you don't remember it.

Oh Don. Some sense of humour required, yes?

All those funny little gizmos really do stimulate the economy in a
very *big* way, especially being targetted as they are to the impulse
buying end of the market.

Here during the 1950s we got little junk plastic toys from Japan, and
we thought of the country as the very epitomy of shoddiness. But then
in the early 1960s we started to get Japanese motorcycles and cars;
the first of the latter I think being a Datsun built from the old
British Austin A40 blueprints. The rest is history.

Then it was Taiwan's turn, and now China's . . .

 > It's not that I object to their manufacture, or that I have anything against
 > free enterprise, but I just don't think it makes sense to be using resources
 > and creating pollution to indulge this type of demand.... regardless of profit.

They allow people to practice their manufacturing skills in a harmless
and good-humoured way, before graduating through the ranks to the more
complex technology. Would you have them start making nuclear weapons
at those levels of skill?

 > Although I am not naive enough to expect to see it evolve in my lifetime (I am
 > 41), I would predict that such a system would prioritize such human endeavours
 > as food production, shelter and medical care up to the level where they belong,
 > and additionally (in relation to the case in point) that it would set
 > guidelines as to what is appropriate to manufacture and what is not. 

Let the poor village make do-dads for sale, so they can get some money
in to start paying for their children's education in medicine, building
construction, and so on. We are quite as happy to buy them as anything
else; there is really nothing more tragic than seeing the villager
having to pedal his bicycle all the way home again having sold nothing
all day. With his wife waiting for money to pay the rent, or buy nice
clothes for the children, all that sort of thing . . .

 > Furthermore, I would predict that nations would enter into this type of system
 > voluntarily, not by force... and that they would adopt the basic tenets of
 > sustainability willingly. After all, the alternative will be to live in a world
 > which becomes more polluted and congested every day... a world ravaged by war,
 > famine and disease... a world where people starve to death in the midst of
 > plenty.

Provided they are allowed to step through it in their own way, yes?
They are the ones who need to learn and develop better skills, not you
or me. I am doing quite OK, thanks, but I can't possibly live other
people's lives for them and they would resent my trying to.

Help us, it really isn't so bad as all that. It is just that *some*
people are still being caught up in events far beyond their control,
without the resource base allowing them to cope in the meantime.

 > If you wanted some better examples of products that fall into the category of
 > `unneeded or unwanted', look into the grocery bags the next time you come from
 > the supermarket... how much is actually food, and how much is packaging and/or
 > other debris that could actually fall into the above category? 

This is a matter of consumer education, and making more appropriate
choices available to people who are rushed to get their shopping done
anyway. The packaging and unnecessary debris issue is far better
tackled at the disposal end, increasingly as we simply run out of
landfill space to dump it all.

 > Or better yet, go down to your local landfill and look at all the `widgets'
 > there... virtually _everything_ in the landfill was purchased by someone... and
 > _someone_ must have made a profit, or all these items wouldn't have been
 > manufactured in the first place!

Indeed, but the positive approach is to sell more appropriate types of
packaging on a win-win basis for everyone, where the manufacturer can
make more profit turning over a product people find cheaper to buy,
and who pay less in rates for its disposal. Else, add the substantial
cost of the packaging and its disposal into the retail price, and
still let people make their choice at the supermarket shelf where it
all really does happen.

 > Admittedly, many items you'll see in a landfill are worn out, broken, or have
 > otherwise served their usefulness, but there is a substantial amount of
 > material which cannot be classified in this way... and it is this material to
 > which I was referring.  

Be creative! See it as a resource for building a career for yourself
to do something really good and constructive about it. That is what I
am doing here with my consultancy, precisely.

Dr Vandeman and a few others will be taking that career path soon too,
I expect, as we put the finishing touches to their education.

 > When the difference between right and wrong is measured in dollars and cents, I
 > think it's time to rethink our strategy... that people have become so
 > complacent that they actually _accept_ that rationale is a sad state of
 > affairs, IMHO.

I don't like so much emphasis on the almighty dollars myself, but
whether we like it or not, money *is* an excellent good lubricant. I
have already discussed here other options including infrastructure,
social credits and quality of life issues which can be negotiated to
serve the very same purpose.

There is happiness there too, Don, as well as a nice place to live
with trees and birds to make your life sweet, and a few quid in your
pocket. It is up to you which you want to choose.

 > If we moved somehow towards a system where our elected representatives'
 > decisions were `divorced' from the affairs of the marketplace, I think we'd see
 > improvements in two directions: first, the market itself could move closer
 > towards the ideal of `pure and perfect competition'.. and secondly, it would
 > have the effect of allowing our government to make more clear-headed decisions
 > with respect to the overall health of our society and the environment. 

Already doing . . .

        [the rest gets a little morbid . . . ]


Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy