NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/environm/14385

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-08 | 10.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!gatech!swrinde!emory!ncratl!mwilson
From: [e-mail] (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Off thoughts. Sheep!?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:37:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Lines: 203

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Christie) writes:

|>>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.

A lot of things in this world don't make sense to me.
I probably over reacted to your post and for that I apologize.
What got me going was that many people who have in the past expressed similar
sentiments about waste have then gone on to describe the type of government
programs that they want that would force people to stop behaving in what they
believe are wastefull manners.

I reacted to your post as if you were one of these people, you are not.
My mistake, again I am sorry.

|>>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).

|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.

Social constructs continue to evolve.  You and I bitching at each other are
just another input into this evolution.

|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.

It is one thing to say that you may not manufacture a nuclear bomb in your
basement,  (It presents a real and present threat to your neighbors) it is
another thing entirely for government to say that you may not manufacture
pink lawn flamingos.  If individuals decide that they no longer want to
waste their money on such things, then they will no longer be made, but
it is wrong for government to step in and say so.  Down that road lies
totalitarianism.

|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.

As long as it is voluntary I have no disagreement with you.

|>>|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.

I understood your use of widget alright.  What I objected to was your image
of Herbie selling something that nobody wanted.  For every seller there is
a buyer, if you studied economics you must be aware of this relationship.
No if the buyer does not want the widget, then why did he buy it?  Was
some form of force used?

|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?

I agree that some of those things may be unneeded, but I believe you are
mistaken when you say they are unwanted.  They may be unwanted by you
but somebody wants them.  The packaging material was wanted by the
packager, if he had not wanted them, he would have bought something else.
Other consumers may have wanted the selected packing material, for
convenience if nothing else.  To say that these things are unwanted is
mighty presumptuos of you.  To even say that they are unneeded is a leap
of faith.

|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!

For their to have been a profit, there needs to have been a buyer.  IE the
material was wanted.

|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.

I understood your reference, I was taking issue with it.

|>>|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.

But you have supported some form of societal control over who may manufacture
what.  That sounds like more government to me.
I refer to line (approx) 45 of this post.

|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!

As long as there is some form of government, there will be people who try to
influence government for their own gain.  The more powerfull the government
is, the more people will want to influence it.  (They're rewards from being
successful will be that much greater, they're penalties if someone else
influences first will also be that much greater)
The shoulder shruggers are right, that's life.  Until you manage to invent
a better class of humans, we will just have to live with it.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "that's not the way it's supposed to be"
How do you know how things are "supposed to be".  Are you supposing that there
is some form of master plan for the universe and that we humans aren't
following it correctly.
How do you know that your vision of the master plan is any more correct
than mine?

|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.

Are you saying that having business's make their decisions based on profit
is wrong?  Businesses try to make what people want, those who don't, don't
make profits and go out of business.  I don't feel that there is anything
wrong with this.

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

And now we come to the crux of the matter.
You are putting the cart before the horse.  Before there can be a new form
of government, you are going to have convince the people that this new
form of government is neccessary.  Otherwise you end up with a group of
fanatics telling everyone else how to live their lives.  This is what
I refer to as totalitarianism.

|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.

I don't know if this is possible.  Every decision made by government effects
the market place.  If you are saying you want a less powerfull and intrusive
government, I agree with you whole heartedly.

|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.

COnvince the people of this, and these things will come about.
What do you propose to do with the people who do not agree with you?
There will always be some malcontents.

|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!

Society is evolving all the time.  By influencing individuals you influence
this evolution.

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

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

Thanks, I can use all the compliments I can get.
--
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
[e-mail]