Ben McLeish's presentation at London's Zeitgeist Day 2010 starts by showing how technology has developed exponentially and much of the development has been to the benefit of the human race. The main setbacks are clearly war - ie the use of the most advanced technology we have in killing other people and planned obsolescence - the need to build things that break so that we can maintain the cycle of consumption and keep people in work.
Remove these (and other) aberrations and we can work towards a global, sustainable society, where innovation and development is used to improve our lot physically, not in the pursuit of profit.
Showing posts with label cycle of consumption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cycle of consumption. Show all posts
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Cycle of consumption
As I write the Christmas lights are being put up in Barking town centre. It's a cliché to say they go up earlier every year (though I do think it was 'only' a month before Christmas last year) and I daresay the words "bah humbug" will be dusted off, but this 'Disneytide' is just a rather pathetic attempt to stimulate the cycle of consumption.
Commercial enterprises are trying to "make money", but they can't. Only banks make money - the rest of us just pass it around. All the shops trying to get money off you this 'Disneytide' are going to give a fair proportion of it to their staff as wages, so that they can go off and give it to another enterprise who will give it to their staff and so on.
I'm not being a Puritan - people should enjoy Christmas, but just step back and think what it is you really want for yourself, your fellow human beings and - crucially - the planet. There will be people who wake up hungry and die before the next time they should be going to sleep again. What is it we're trying to achieve?
Commercial enterprises are trying to "make money", but they can't. Only banks make money - the rest of us just pass it around. All the shops trying to get money off you this 'Disneytide' are going to give a fair proportion of it to their staff as wages, so that they can go off and give it to another enterprise who will give it to their staff and so on.
I'm not being a Puritan - people should enjoy Christmas, but just step back and think what it is you really want for yourself, your fellow human beings and - crucially - the planet. There will be people who wake up hungry and die before the next time they should be going to sleep again. What is it we're trying to achieve?
Saturday, 22 August 2009
Logic Busters
I have been inspired by TV's Benefit Busters to write to the Radio Times:
"It was good to see the more positive outlook that the course they were on helped the single mums featured on 'Benefit Busters' to develop, but I don't see what was gained over all by them getting jobs in a pound shop. I'm not demeaning their achievements as individuals, but society needs to be working towards improving the human lot - our survival and success as a species. There being jobs in a pound shop requires that people buy the poor quality goods sold in them. This in turn keeps others in work making the poor quality goods, but nobody really wants or needs these goods - they're just made, bought and sold to keep people in work in a rather ridiculous cycle of consumption - a job creation scheme generating landfill.
I don't know whether these particular mums were making a good job of raising their children, but investment in raising well nourished, educated, socialised, and otherwise cared for children, is good for the children's - and society's - future. Tax money well spent. Perversely, though, the government instead cajoles single mums to work in pointless jobs, selling pointless products - rubbish. Perhaps worse: The trainer emphasised that fast food chains often take on staff and the mums should be prepared to take those jobs. So: the government is paying a private company to train people to get jobs in fast food outlets whose viability depends on people buying the fast food, and presumably eating it, whilst that same government spends tax payers' money trying to persuade people not to eat junk food?
The trainer pointed out the social stigma of being on benefits - even though in effect the beneficiaries are being paid to raise children. The stigma should be attached to making, buying and and selling rubbish that's bad for us and bad for our planet."
Let's just spell this out. If you go and buy some rubbish in a pound shop you are helping keep people of benefits by generating a demand for goods that are probably destined to be landfill. If you don't buy fast food, you are not helping to create jobs in that trade, and therefore more people are on benefits. But the government doesn't want you to eat junk food, because it is bad for you.
To keep my letter short I omitted the irony of single mums going out to work to earn enough money to pay someone else to look after their children. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to stop people getting fulfilment from their lives through work, but what fulfilment is there in working in a pound shop or a fast food shop? It only feels better because of the stigma attached to being on benefits, but who attached this stigma?
"It was good to see the more positive outlook that the course they were on helped the single mums featured on 'Benefit Busters' to develop, but I don't see what was gained over all by them getting jobs in a pound shop. I'm not demeaning their achievements as individuals, but society needs to be working towards improving the human lot - our survival and success as a species. There being jobs in a pound shop requires that people buy the poor quality goods sold in them. This in turn keeps others in work making the poor quality goods, but nobody really wants or needs these goods - they're just made, bought and sold to keep people in work in a rather ridiculous cycle of consumption - a job creation scheme generating landfill.
I don't know whether these particular mums were making a good job of raising their children, but investment in raising well nourished, educated, socialised, and otherwise cared for children, is good for the children's - and society's - future. Tax money well spent. Perversely, though, the government instead cajoles single mums to work in pointless jobs, selling pointless products - rubbish. Perhaps worse: The trainer emphasised that fast food chains often take on staff and the mums should be prepared to take those jobs. So: the government is paying a private company to train people to get jobs in fast food outlets whose viability depends on people buying the fast food, and presumably eating it, whilst that same government spends tax payers' money trying to persuade people not to eat junk food?
The trainer pointed out the social stigma of being on benefits - even though in effect the beneficiaries are being paid to raise children. The stigma should be attached to making, buying and and selling rubbish that's bad for us and bad for our planet."
Let's just spell this out. If you go and buy some rubbish in a pound shop you are helping keep people of benefits by generating a demand for goods that are probably destined to be landfill. If you don't buy fast food, you are not helping to create jobs in that trade, and therefore more people are on benefits. But the government doesn't want you to eat junk food, because it is bad for you.
To keep my letter short I omitted the irony of single mums going out to work to earn enough money to pay someone else to look after their children. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to stop people getting fulfilment from their lives through work, but what fulfilment is there in working in a pound shop or a fast food shop? It only feels better because of the stigma attached to being on benefits, but who attached this stigma?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)