We live in a world of excess and overload, particularly here in the US. We have the bounties of nature converted into objects, pollutants and identities that we use to create images for ourselves and our culture. The excess that we live in is not only the excess of production, but the excess of want. Of course, objects and pollutants wouldn't be produced if we absolutely did not want them to be produced. We would not condone ecological degradation if masses of people thought it wasn't right. This cycle of production and want is self-propagating and self-propelling, and it is pointless to think about what comes first - our desire for the lifestyles that cause ecological harm and social injustice, or the ability of others to convince us that these very lifestyles are meaningful and needed. Yet, as Rock, Paper, Sanity mentioned in her post yesterday, we construct our personal identities around consumption given the stimuli (ads) provided by those who wish for us to consume their produce. What this tells me is that we are affected by these stimuli, and we have been socially trained to be affected. This social learning defines the acceptability of actions and behaviour, but it is plain to see that these very behaviours have proven disastrous for nature. I am also confident in saying that for those who are the producers, the motives move nowhere beyond those of personal profit. What we are left with is cluttered closets, minds with attention deficit and rivers full of contaminants. We are left with overload.
Overload allows us very little time to think and reflect and listen. We don't have the time to adequately consider the gravity of our choices, and it seems to me that those profiting would have it no other way. Overload leaves us little time to fully engage in what it is we are doing. As soon as you sit down to read a book, your Blackberry rings with the coming of an email. Since we are responsive only to socially accepted stimuli, overload can allow us to not fully question what we experience. Therefore, we can allow ourselves not to be affected by these experiences. Overload consequently can lead to a sheltering of mind and spirit that reinforces current norms. Yet most if not all of the meaningful work that needs to be done in the world lies beyond the realm of these norms. How might we be compelled to act if we aren't affected? I propose that we be affected differently. I propose that we open ourselves up to be affected by things that haven't affected us until now. I hope that we can be affected in ways that make us question norms rather than accept them; the advertising Rock, Paper, Sanity talks about in no way affects us in ways that make us question. What is accepted has always changed over time, and it is now time that we take responsibility ourselves to change the accepted.
Showing posts with label social learning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social learning. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Objects and materials: On cost and value (quasi-guest blogger #14 Marco Ceze)
Back to how we perceive the physical objects that we choose to interact with and buy. Marco called me today about some thoughts, and this post reflects his thoughts, with a sprinkling of mine. Actually, Marco and I had a wonderful conversation a couple of weeks ago that led to the Objects and materials series of posts. This post is (kind of) about costs and benefits/value, but as you can probably tell, I am in no way a proponent of cost-benefit analysis, particularly when carried out using neoclassical and utilitarian approaches. I tend to align with the thoughts of someone like Doug Kysar...but then again, make a convincing argument and I'll side with you =)
Life in today's world is full of trade-offs and making choices with a dearth of information. We never know fully the impacts of our choices given a complicated world. Under these circumstances, it is somewhat natural to think about the benefits or value of doing something compared to the costs. (When I say "costs" I am talking about the price you'll face at a store.) This is probably the simplest way to boil down tons of considerations, making choices potentially more tractable. (I do not necessarily advocate this) Furthermore, many people especially in the West tend to think about the short to near term, and so the benefits of making a particular choice need to be realised sooner rather than later.
Let's focus on the glass versus plastic debate. Imagine you are going to throw a party. Of course, a plastic cup costs you much less than one made of glass, especially when you go to a party store and buy a hundred of them. The value that those plastic cups provides you and the people coming to the party is immediate, as would the value of using glass cups - everyone will drink and enjoy themselves (but hopefully have a DD to take them home). The cost of a hundred glass cups, of course, would be much higher than the cost of a hundred plastic cups. Glass cups, however, will more likely be reused, because we don't think of glass cups as "disposable." (Glass bottles on the other hand would be considered "disposable" by most.) But there is constant uncertainty about the future? What are you going to do with all of these glass cups? Your lease is ending in three months and then you're going to have to move all of these cups, or donate them! What a hassle...A glass cup over its lifetime will probably provide much more value than a plastic cup, making its cost-to-value ratio smaller than that for a plastic cup. However, the issue is the lifetime. As soon as a benefit or value is realised, many times we don't think it worth keeping something to see added benefits, and who knows what those benefits may look like. Throwing plastic cups away is generally much easier than continually washing glass cups. This is also the point where the social learning about materials seems to kick in, and lend its hand in this cost-to-value valuation. Since the monetary cost is less (and we know that by looking at the price tag), and the benefits and values have been realised immediately and future benefits are uncertain and since the material is "disposable," people will likely choose plastic SOLO cups over nice glass cups. Hmmm...does this make sense?
Life in today's world is full of trade-offs and making choices with a dearth of information. We never know fully the impacts of our choices given a complicated world. Under these circumstances, it is somewhat natural to think about the benefits or value of doing something compared to the costs. (When I say "costs" I am talking about the price you'll face at a store.) This is probably the simplest way to boil down tons of considerations, making choices potentially more tractable. (I do not necessarily advocate this) Furthermore, many people especially in the West tend to think about the short to near term, and so the benefits of making a particular choice need to be realised sooner rather than later.
Let's focus on the glass versus plastic debate. Imagine you are going to throw a party. Of course, a plastic cup costs you much less than one made of glass, especially when you go to a party store and buy a hundred of them. The value that those plastic cups provides you and the people coming to the party is immediate, as would the value of using glass cups - everyone will drink and enjoy themselves (but hopefully have a DD to take them home). The cost of a hundred glass cups, of course, would be much higher than the cost of a hundred plastic cups. Glass cups, however, will more likely be reused, because we don't think of glass cups as "disposable." (Glass bottles on the other hand would be considered "disposable" by most.) But there is constant uncertainty about the future? What are you going to do with all of these glass cups? Your lease is ending in three months and then you're going to have to move all of these cups, or donate them! What a hassle...A glass cup over its lifetime will probably provide much more value than a plastic cup, making its cost-to-value ratio smaller than that for a plastic cup. However, the issue is the lifetime. As soon as a benefit or value is realised, many times we don't think it worth keeping something to see added benefits, and who knows what those benefits may look like. Throwing plastic cups away is generally much easier than continually washing glass cups. This is also the point where the social learning about materials seems to kick in, and lend its hand in this cost-to-value valuation. Since the monetary cost is less (and we know that by looking at the price tag), and the benefits and values have been realised immediately and future benefits are uncertain and since the material is "disposable," people will likely choose plastic SOLO cups over nice glass cups. Hmmm...does this make sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)