From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Off thoughts. Sheep!?
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:09:32 GMT

>>In <1993Jan5.145017.25718@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>>
>>|The men and women whose ideas became our rights and freedoms had no way to
>>|foresee how they would be interpreted in the late 20th century. If they could
>>|see the range of useless products, needless waste, the pollution and mayhem
>>|we have produced, they'd roll over in their graves! 
>>
>>Just because you think a product is useless or needless, does not mean that
>>everybody agrees with you.

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.

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.

>>Do you want to use government to force people to live in a manner you approve
>>of or are just trying to shame them into it.

Actually, neither one. As I said in my previous post, it is my opinion that
none of the political systems devised to date actually work to the benefit of
mankind (or the environment). 

Penny Cass said it far better than I in her article entitled `Politics of
Environmental Problems' (posted on this newsgroup 30 December 1992). 

It is my feeling that sooner or later mankind will devise some kind of system
for governing ourselves that _will_ take into account all nations and their
needs... independent of financial profit. 

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. 

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.

>>|If Joe Herbie can make a buck producing and selling widgets, then Joe Herbie
>>|is allowed to make and sell widgets... regardless of whether or not the product
>>|is needed (or wanted). 
>>
>>This has got to be one of the most idiotic statements I have seen in a long
>>time.  Just how does Joe Herbie make money selling a product that nobody
>>wants.  What is he doing holding a gun to the consumers head.

When studying Economics, I was introduced to the term `widget' (used above)...
A widget, in that context, is a hypothetical product used for the purposes of
explanation. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term in my original post. 

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? 

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!

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.  

>>|In my opinion, what we do not need is _more_ government involvement in our
>>|lives, and what we _do_ need is a system of government that actually does
>>|work... on a global scale.
>>
>>But what you have advocated is precisely more government.  

Not actually (at least that wasn't what I had in mind). The article I cited
above by Penny Cass does a good job of describing some of the mechanisms that
have the effect of influencing the decisions of our elected representatives to
favour those who have the most to gain financially.

I'm sure none of this is news to anyone. As a matter of fact, it is such 
commonplace knowledge that many just shrug their shoulders and say `so what?.. 
that's just a fact of life'. That may very well be... but it doesn't change the
fact that that's not the way it's supposed to be! 

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 guess what I'm saying is that instead of _more_ government, what we need is
a _new type_ of government. 

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. 

The infrastructure that provides us with food, shelter, energy and health care
(to name just a few) would start to get the attention it deserves. 

The crimes we perpetrate upon the environment would be perceived as such, and
corporate profitability would cease to be our justification for our persistence 
in that regard.

As I've already said, I'm not naive enough to think that _I_ will ever live to
see such a system evolve... but I would predict that it ultimately _will_ come
about. How? I've no idea!
 
>>How do you plan
>>to get all those people to stop doing those things that you disaprove of.

I'll get Lieutenant Commander Data to do to them what he did to Lt. Yar :-)

P.S. your .sig is appropriate...

>>Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call
>>itself a government. 


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: sci.environment