PDA

View Full Version : Greensumption



Rajiv
12-15-07, 01:28 PM
Concerned about global environmental breakdown? Worry no more! Now we can $hop against climate change!




<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ft5SSIfmeKU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ft5SSIfmeKU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Tulpen
12-15-07, 04:08 PM
Thank for posting that.

metalman
12-15-07, 06:36 PM
this is awesome! put it up on front page goddammit!

DemonD
12-16-07, 01:52 AM
save the silkworms!

Tim T
12-16-07, 04:07 AM
Am I the only one who thinks this video is creepy? I can't say for sure why I find it creepy. Perhaps it is her way of speaking to the audience as if we are five years old, or perhaps her suggestion that science will always fix everything. Or perhaps because this shows to me that we are on the cusp of finally addressing climate change but only now that the scientific solution does not threaten our lifestyles and growth.

With all our cleverness we must still rely on luck and the good fortune that there will not only be solutions but solutions that both arrive on time and address global threats in a market friendly manner. What happens in the future if the solution to a potential world crisis is not economic friendly? Do we just chance it? This obsession with growth is unsustainable. But growth obsession is necessary to keep the global monetary system functioning, is it not? With fiat currency and fractional reserve banking we must continually increase money or debt, it seems wealth without growth is not possible and rational decision making outside economics (regarding environmental and population planning for instance) are compromised by the economic necessity to grow.

Under a different world monetary system, i wonder, could wealth be achieved by companies and nations with static growth? Could profits be made, employees paid, and products consumed at roughly the same amount each year with society having a good standard of living. Assuming different monetary system (and perhaps people and govnt. philosophy) could a static economy work and by work I mean the people find themselves well fed, happy, and able to save for the future or is this some kind of mathematical impossibility?

art
12-16-07, 09:57 AM
I think you may have found it creepy because you didn't notice that she was being sarcastic. Watch it again as a parody and you'll see it is funny.

Green smiley -> :D

Rajiv
12-16-07, 10:19 AM
The video was a satire.

Some of the issues talked about are discussed at the
IFG Teach-In:
Confronting the Global "Triple Crisis"
"Climate Change, Peak Oil, Global Resource Depletion & Extinction" (http://ifg.org/programs/Energy/TripleCrisis/index.htm)

another site for some some questions and answers about the other issues you talk about is http://www.appropriate-economics.org/ It has a wonderful electronic library (http://www.complementarycurrency.org/materials.php) You might find the introduction to their philosphy (http://www.appropriate-economics.org/introduction.html) insightful


Since the publication of “Small is Beautiful” by E.F. Schumacher in 1973, his presentation of the need for an intermediate and appropriate technology has grown to become a significant movement in development worldwide. Although his calls for an appropriate application of economics in development were equally revolutionary and realistic, only rarely have we seen them put into practice. Many microfinance programs still rely on external loans from big banks at high rates of interest rather than developing the capital from within through a program which encourages borrowers to also save their money. Many economic and technological development programs follow models of economic development that are inappropriate to their particular situation.

Some economists have begun to realize that resources are not being allocated properly. Herman Daly and Joseph Stiglitz, both former heads of the World Bank, have outlined[1] the destructive effects of the present economic system on cultures and environments around the world. Many join them in criticizing the negative impacts of economic globalization and the subjugation of third world economies to the global marketplace. Other renowned economists such as J.K. Galbraith along with philosophers Fritjof Capra and E.F. Schumacher show great concern for the impacts of economics on people, environment and culture. Meanwhile, all major religions have expressed their concern, in the strongest terms, about the effects of an interest-based economic system on a harmonious way of life, calling for the inclusion of values and ethics in economics, and their opposition to the charging of interest and usury in moneylending. It sounds good, but how do we put it into practice?

We have heard it many times already that some 1.3 billion people live on less than 1 US dollar a day, and many survive on no monetary income at all. This over-simplification of the issue of monetary poverty obscures many important questions. How do people get what they need without money? Can we get what we need without having to first have money? Is the lack of day-to-day pocket money the real problem, or is it a lack of access to capital, a lack caused by dependence on external money and the charging of interest on access to it which limits its supply? Are mega-projects the only way to bring large amounts of capital into a low-income country? Is displaying the poverty and weakness of a country the only way to gain the charity of a richer country? Are agriculture and natural resources exports the only way for a low-income country to earn foreign investment and capital?
.
.
.


Also Principles of Complementary Currency Systems (http://www.appropriate-economics.org/materials/principles_of_ccs/index.html)


Despite the rapid spread of democracy, and the corresponding political enfranchisement granted to more individuals than at any time in history, these gains are being undermined as the world descends into two camps, those who are economically enfranchised, and those who are not.

Economic instability has been a permanent feature of the global economic system in which we all live. Rather than deal with these problems before proceeding with the process of globalization, the very visible hands that control the global economy continue their breakneck pace of opening up domestic markets, and societies, to market penetration.

The democratic political systems that humans have created for the betterment of society have not yet been extended to the economic system. There is growing unease among a very large sector of society the world over that globalization is forcing us to live in an economy, rather than live in a society.
,.
.
.

Verrocchio
12-16-07, 08:29 PM
Seven Prius cars, one for each member of the family? Satire, Tim T, it's satire. The purpose is to draw attention to the False Solutions put about by advertisers and politicians. The FS may or may not be intentional, but they serve to cloud understanding of the impending collision between current consumption patterns and environmental sustainability.

Verrocchio
12-16-07, 08:34 PM
Just a bit more on this topic. While on a World Bank consulting gig in Gansu Province, PRC, in 1990, my interpreter felt well enough acquainted to confide in me that his fondest desire was to own his own car. As tactfully as I was able, I told him that I thought that when that day came, the transportation infrastructure would be swamped and the pollution would be tremendous. It seemed to me then that a future world where everyone would enjoy the standard of living of the West would be unsustainable -- and ultimately not enjoyable at all.

brucec42
12-17-07, 12:12 PM
I think you may have found it creepy because you didn't notice that she was being sarcastic. Watch it again as a parody and you'll see it is funny.

Green smiley -> :D

I gotta say this about the parodies here. While I appreciate the effort to educate and entertain, I've also fallen victim to this sort of misunderstanding when reading one of the parodies here before, assuming it wasn't a parody because it was a) not very funny and b) not particularly clever.

In this case, If you're going to parody something, parody it. Don't mix in your own contrasting message with that which you are parodying. (I assume that's what the white haired guy is there for...or is it somehow uncool to be efficient?) And it wouldn't hurt for them to be more clever and funny, either. This video was a mismash, but even I could tell it was a parody. But don't expect them to have much impact on how people see these issues if they aren't hard hitting and clever.

brucec42
12-17-07, 12:30 PM
As I left Orlando this morning at 5am to find a sea of vehicles, nearly bumper to bumper, already out on the interstate, it occured to me that the problem isn't just the fuel efficiency of particular vehicles, or the technology used. It's the idea that persists that fuel should be so cheap that you can literally burn it as if its cost (economic and pollution) were of no matter at all.

Oceans of commuters out at 5am trying to be early enough to beat the REAL rush hour of thousands more commuters driving in from 20-40 miles away tells me that something is out of balance. Seems we are all in motion nearly all the time. And I mean long distances. Is where we live so bad so many of us have to always be headed somewhere ELSE? Maybe just a little planning would solve the environmental and economic problems of fossil fuels.

Our way of seeing transportation, work, and housing is old fashioned. I find it ironic that we have employees of call centers drive 20 or more miles from their relativley affordable and uncongested and safe suburbs to a central building near a major crowded interstate where all they do is sit at a computer screen and use a headset to talk on the phone in a cubicle. Are customers showing up at the building for help? No. Then why are we continuing to crowd into urban areas as if we still rely on bicycle messengers to conduct business?

No, we can't all work from home. But do we really need to have 1500 employees all crowd together into one building in the center of a city, when 99% of the people at that building you have zero contact with?

Hypatia1
12-18-07, 10:22 AM
.....No, we can't all work from home. But do we really need to have 1500 employees all crowd together into one building in the center of a city, when 99% of the people at that building you have zero contact with?

I hear you. There is very little work I do that can't be done at home, but our boss *likes* to have us in the office 50 hours a week. We had a one-day-a-week fork from home policy, that went on hiatus at the beginning of summer because of all the vacations. Well, summer never ended around here....

Let's hear it for short sighted American management!!!