So I sat there amongst friends, all gathered around the television, with a not-so-subtle Yuletide atmosphere skipping merrily through the room, whilst we watched Enchanted- the new Disney movie. Idyllic you might think. Not quite. Something was tainting the ambience- it wasn't the company though, it was the Disney. I know I'm supposed to like it, being magically transported back to my carefree child hood and everything- but I just don't,. Short of being submerged in a pool of cold sick its one of my least favourite things and I'll tell you why.
Disney is supposed to provide family entertainment- that's for children and adults. Flawed and predictable plots executed through superficial clichés are okay for kids. But what about those aged 8+? Liking Disney above primary development hardly speaks well for your cognitive abilities. If we were to compare, films in terms of nutrition, a Spielberg is perhaps a lively stir fry, a Tarantino, probably, vibrant sushi. Whereas Disney is more like some stale Monster Munch- tolerated by those who have never had better but looked upon in slight disgust but mainly complete indifference, by the rest.
Anyone who tries to convince you that Disney has sophisticated nuances or fine examples of artistic mastery is simply mad. And I'm not talking about zany or offbeat madness, I mean clinically insane, as in they wake up each morning and literally believe they are a cabbage. Unless you have taken a vast quantity of drugs or are unbelievably stupid there's nothing visible to Disney's merit and pretending otherwise is nothing short of pretentious deception. Its not even cute or adorably funny, you're only laughing because its Disney and you feel you must. Either that or you are a simpleton. Its not big, its not clever and its definitely not original. In fact, the laughter in the room of people I was sat in seemed only to exist through some sort of mutual, unspoken form of consent, that- 'we'll all laugh at the appropriate points in the film'.
Why do we do it to ourselves and more importantly why do we precondition our children when they are vulnerable and young? We simply set them up for the same social car crash in the future. Like 'The Force' in Star Wars, the unknowable force of Disney always seems to manage to sew the brand, merchandise and memories into the reminiscent fabric of our childhoods. An unwelcome guest in the house of our past, society made it a resident and it'll be going nowhere fast. So, it seems we have no choice. We may not like the false-sentiment-filled Disney films but its in our childhoods now and if we resent 'cherished' parts of our childhoods we're going to end up rather miserable- fucked in other words. Better to play it safe then.
Some may claim that I'm rather bah Humbug! I'm not, I'm just prepared to stand up proud and say (in the style of an AA meeting) 'Hi, my name is Adam. And I don't like Disney'. Some may try to say they adore Disney and that it is the most amazing thing ever, verging on inspirational. But the Lady doth protest too much I think. Its exactly those people that desperately clutch at the mere hint of possible innuendo in a Disney film. Its hard, I know, but its possible to face the trauma. The fact is, adults no longer live in a world where Santa is real or where monsters live under the bed. Disney may have applied to our world when we were young but its unrealistic and unconnected to the reality adults face now. You remember enjoying Disney when young (possibly) because we watched it through a different set of eyes. Watching it now, any enjoyment one tries to squeeze from the film is nothing but delusion. You don't escape into a Disney film as an adult, you escape into your childhood memories. Adults see Disney through the mind's eye, children don't they haven't enough of an archive to look at.
Watching Disney as a grown-up is nothing but regression. There's nought interesting in watching an anorexic, beauty pageant-esque, superficial animation prance about -LSD world and ball gowns, all the colours of the neon CGI rainbow, in tow. So let's plunge a knife into the DVD player and snatch our children away from the snapping jaws of the only real childhood monster- Disney.
27.12.07
Fashion: Its all in the look- but at what do we stare?
The Ancient Egyptians built pyramids using slaves and stones, fashion is no different, its' pyramids are built from models and clothes. There is a very obvious hierarchy in the fashion industry. At the very top of the pyramid there are the premier fashion houses- dishing out beautifully served pieces of haute couture. A little bit lower down we find ourselves with a wide array of designer label 'ready to wear' garments with prices that occasionally make the ordinary man, gulp. Then, of course, as we move down into the larger lower pyramid sections, we enter a huge range of inexpensive clothes for the masses.
These levels of the pyramid are in no way disconnected, however. Let's not forget they are all part of the same pyramid. The top levels, with famous designers, set the seasons trends and then these styles are imitated to varying degrees of authenticity and quality as you move through the pyramid. So, if there are so many options available, why do many of us strive to acquire items as high up the pyramid as possible? You might argue its for the comfort, quality and look of the clothes up at the top. But it isn't, is it? If this is true, why are many of us willing to pay equally as good money for poor quality fakes? Could it be fashion has more than a skin deep aesthetic meaning?
I'm sure there are a lot of people who aren't bothered about labels- and that's fine- but what about those who are? You see its common knowledge that labels cost money, more money than most. And that's what it comes down to, being able to look as if you are successful and wealthy. Of course the clothes have to look good- but how much of the feel good factor from designer clothing is to do with what they look like and how much is it to do with the message your able to broadcast? We have all felt the empowering feeling that we get from putting on new and expensive (or expensive-looking) clothing. Its a rush. For a brief moment it allows you to feel as if you have entered another world, a beautiful, lavish and exciting world. The appearance and looks may change over the years but the underlying principles are as old as humanity itself- fashion is nothing new.
So when we buy fashion we buy more than just a look, we buy into a feeling and lifestyle that we want a part of. That's a powerful thing to be able to do for a moderate sum of money or keen bargain. Those sunglasses do more than protect your eyes from the light, they unlock the feeling of being empowered, they give you a sense of importance. Its our desire for success in life and the feeling it gives us that drives us to part with more money than we should (possibly), because these products allows us easy access into the domain of achievement and power. Coincidentally, its the same fast track entry that is briefly afforded to cocaine users every time they snort up a line. So is there a difference between cocaine and Coco Chanel? Well I'm having difficulty finding one. They're both expensive. They both make people act irrationally, theft for coke, January Sales for fashion. And they're both pretty fast acting and short lived. As far as I can tell the only difference is that cocaine is illegal.
It might seem like I'm condemning fashion. I'm not, I like a good pair of sunglasses as much as the next person. But I would advise caution to those who become obsessed and covet such things. I'm sure the advertisers are happy to tell you otherwise, but buying that coat, or those shoes isn't going to put a Bentley on the drive or fill your bank account. At the end of it all, you've bought a pretty coat and a feeling. Not a lifestyle.
Hard work, good fortune and being lucky enough to be in the top 1% earners category will allow you a lavish high life and little else. The majority then, by definition, cannot ever truly enter such a world. That doesn't mean to say 'abandon hope all ye who dare to try' but it does mean the ability to be content with what you already have is very important. Its an old philosophy-but no less relevant, if anything, it couldn't apply more. Endlessly chasing a mirage can only ever cause a feeling of failure and hopelessness. You cannot achieve the unattainable.
So when you next see a seductive array of Versace, remember, caveat emptor.
These levels of the pyramid are in no way disconnected, however. Let's not forget they are all part of the same pyramid. The top levels, with famous designers, set the seasons trends and then these styles are imitated to varying degrees of authenticity and quality as you move through the pyramid. So, if there are so many options available, why do many of us strive to acquire items as high up the pyramid as possible? You might argue its for the comfort, quality and look of the clothes up at the top. But it isn't, is it? If this is true, why are many of us willing to pay equally as good money for poor quality fakes? Could it be fashion has more than a skin deep aesthetic meaning?
I'm sure there are a lot of people who aren't bothered about labels- and that's fine- but what about those who are? You see its common knowledge that labels cost money, more money than most. And that's what it comes down to, being able to look as if you are successful and wealthy. Of course the clothes have to look good- but how much of the feel good factor from designer clothing is to do with what they look like and how much is it to do with the message your able to broadcast? We have all felt the empowering feeling that we get from putting on new and expensive (or expensive-looking) clothing. Its a rush. For a brief moment it allows you to feel as if you have entered another world, a beautiful, lavish and exciting world. The appearance and looks may change over the years but the underlying principles are as old as humanity itself- fashion is nothing new.
So when we buy fashion we buy more than just a look, we buy into a feeling and lifestyle that we want a part of. That's a powerful thing to be able to do for a moderate sum of money or keen bargain. Those sunglasses do more than protect your eyes from the light, they unlock the feeling of being empowered, they give you a sense of importance. Its our desire for success in life and the feeling it gives us that drives us to part with more money than we should (possibly), because these products allows us easy access into the domain of achievement and power. Coincidentally, its the same fast track entry that is briefly afforded to cocaine users every time they snort up a line. So is there a difference between cocaine and Coco Chanel? Well I'm having difficulty finding one. They're both expensive. They both make people act irrationally, theft for coke, January Sales for fashion. And they're both pretty fast acting and short lived. As far as I can tell the only difference is that cocaine is illegal.
It might seem like I'm condemning fashion. I'm not, I like a good pair of sunglasses as much as the next person. But I would advise caution to those who become obsessed and covet such things. I'm sure the advertisers are happy to tell you otherwise, but buying that coat, or those shoes isn't going to put a Bentley on the drive or fill your bank account. At the end of it all, you've bought a pretty coat and a feeling. Not a lifestyle.
Hard work, good fortune and being lucky enough to be in the top 1% earners category will allow you a lavish high life and little else. The majority then, by definition, cannot ever truly enter such a world. That doesn't mean to say 'abandon hope all ye who dare to try' but it does mean the ability to be content with what you already have is very important. Its an old philosophy-but no less relevant, if anything, it couldn't apply more. Endlessly chasing a mirage can only ever cause a feeling of failure and hopelessness. You cannot achieve the unattainable.
So when you next see a seductive array of Versace, remember, caveat emptor.
26.12.07
Reasonability, Fox Hunting and Animal Rights Activists.
I'm not a bastard. Gross cruelty to any creature purely for pleasure is not something I condone. But there's a distinction between animal welfare and animal rights. And there's the issue of cuteness clouding common sense and intelligence.
So many of the issues regarding 'X' vs 'Animal Rights Groups' are a matter of subjectivity, hypocrisy or both. Let's take the stance of PETA ( People for Ethical Treatment of Animals). I, myself, am a member of this organisation and believe vehemently in some of the animal welfare issues they campaign for. But there's the vegan ideology they propagate that I find simply, well, flawed.
In any 'to meat, or not to meat' debate, at some point someone will shout 'You may not kill or use animals but you use vegetables- and they're alive. Isn't that just as bad?'. To which a response of 'They don't feel pain or know anything' is given. On the surface this reply seems to deal with an apparently ridiculous comparison using plants. But is it really that ridiculous?
What this typical defence seems to imply is that there's no pain, so its not cruel, therefore it's okay to kill plants for food. There are two problems that make the argument hard to swallow. Firstly, it states that if no discomfort or knowledge of fate is experienced, its okay to kill and eat it. And secondly, it is acknowledged that although the plant is a form of life, it's structure and development means its fine to kill it.
So after looking closely, we are left with two principles that are potentially quite sinister. Can we then, applying the principles, kill a person or animal as long as they don't feel discomfort or know anything about it? Can we kill any life form we want, as long as it doesn't have a central nervous system or is not very developed? These questions would likely be denied by any vegan or vegetarian and they would tell you that these principles cannot apply to humans in such a way. You can't just kill a person if they don't feel it! And someone with brain damage cannot have their life ended! People have rights and are protected from such exploitation.
And that brings me to the crux of the matter- where do we draw the line between life forms such as humans, animals and plants? The only difference between a vegan and a meat eater is where the line for absolute rights is drawn. And the best place for rights absolute to be stopped is exactly between humans and the rest of the animal and plant kingdom. Why? Its simple. We are one species and from a self preservationist and care for the human race- the most important race from our point of view- drawing the line there is the most rational choice.
We, however, by reserving rights for ourselves, do not leave animals open to abuse and suffering. The issue of animal welfare is equally as important and should be upheld just as much as human rights. We should be compassionate to the creatures we eat in order to sustain ourselves. It should be a duty, borne from respect and gratitude to the animal, that they are kept in natural environments in proper conditions and not cruelly exploited. But 'compassion' does not mean never killing them for food. The bottom line is our species eats and uses other species, the element of empathy and compassion should be shown through humane husbandry not humanisation of animals (or plants).
So in an issue like fox hunting, where does the compassion come in? Well in some cases, where it is done badly and without any reason but for pleasure, it doesn't. But in the majority of cases where skilled hunters are involved, the compassion is manifested in not one but two ways. Firstly, a swift end for the fox so as to make the necessary experience a brief as possible. And secondly, the control of fox populations help stop the livestock of farmers from being attacked and frightened. I know from first hand how seemingly callous the natural actions of a fox amongst poultry can be.
One thing I shall not do is try to convince you that the fox doesn't briefly suffer during a hunt or that the cow, if made aware, would agree to it's fate. But suffering and discomfort are best minimised through maintenance of animal welfare; abolition of meat eating or population control is by no means sufficiently justified by some unpleasantness. In short, life is not all cotton wool and candy sticks and trying to convince ourselves otherwise is just plain daft. We should ameliorate what we can and accept what we must.
So many of the issues regarding 'X' vs 'Animal Rights Groups' are a matter of subjectivity, hypocrisy or both. Let's take the stance of PETA ( People for Ethical Treatment of Animals). I, myself, am a member of this organisation and believe vehemently in some of the animal welfare issues they campaign for. But there's the vegan ideology they propagate that I find simply, well, flawed.
In any 'to meat, or not to meat' debate, at some point someone will shout 'You may not kill or use animals but you use vegetables- and they're alive. Isn't that just as bad?'. To which a response of 'They don't feel pain or know anything' is given. On the surface this reply seems to deal with an apparently ridiculous comparison using plants. But is it really that ridiculous?
What this typical defence seems to imply is that there's no pain, so its not cruel, therefore it's okay to kill plants for food. There are two problems that make the argument hard to swallow. Firstly, it states that if no discomfort or knowledge of fate is experienced, its okay to kill and eat it. And secondly, it is acknowledged that although the plant is a form of life, it's structure and development means its fine to kill it.
So after looking closely, we are left with two principles that are potentially quite sinister. Can we then, applying the principles, kill a person or animal as long as they don't feel discomfort or know anything about it? Can we kill any life form we want, as long as it doesn't have a central nervous system or is not very developed? These questions would likely be denied by any vegan or vegetarian and they would tell you that these principles cannot apply to humans in such a way. You can't just kill a person if they don't feel it! And someone with brain damage cannot have their life ended! People have rights and are protected from such exploitation.
And that brings me to the crux of the matter- where do we draw the line between life forms such as humans, animals and plants? The only difference between a vegan and a meat eater is where the line for absolute rights is drawn. And the best place for rights absolute to be stopped is exactly between humans and the rest of the animal and plant kingdom. Why? Its simple. We are one species and from a self preservationist and care for the human race- the most important race from our point of view- drawing the line there is the most rational choice.
We, however, by reserving rights for ourselves, do not leave animals open to abuse and suffering. The issue of animal welfare is equally as important and should be upheld just as much as human rights. We should be compassionate to the creatures we eat in order to sustain ourselves. It should be a duty, borne from respect and gratitude to the animal, that they are kept in natural environments in proper conditions and not cruelly exploited. But 'compassion' does not mean never killing them for food. The bottom line is our species eats and uses other species, the element of empathy and compassion should be shown through humane husbandry not humanisation of animals (or plants).
So in an issue like fox hunting, where does the compassion come in? Well in some cases, where it is done badly and without any reason but for pleasure, it doesn't. But in the majority of cases where skilled hunters are involved, the compassion is manifested in not one but two ways. Firstly, a swift end for the fox so as to make the necessary experience a brief as possible. And secondly, the control of fox populations help stop the livestock of farmers from being attacked and frightened. I know from first hand how seemingly callous the natural actions of a fox amongst poultry can be.
One thing I shall not do is try to convince you that the fox doesn't briefly suffer during a hunt or that the cow, if made aware, would agree to it's fate. But suffering and discomfort are best minimised through maintenance of animal welfare; abolition of meat eating or population control is by no means sufficiently justified by some unpleasantness. In short, life is not all cotton wool and candy sticks and trying to convince ourselves otherwise is just plain daft. We should ameliorate what we can and accept what we must.
25.12.07
Starbucks Exposed
Starbucks is a hugely popular coffee chain that serves up millions of hot and tasty beverages each day. For many its the first caffeine hit of the day before work. For others its a great place to socialise with friends. But for me it's hell.
Why? You might ask. Well, as a concept it seems great but reality tells a different story.
Lets go step by step through the whole ordeal. First, you've go to find one. But that's no longer a problem, you can be assured that, like a rat, you're never more than 1o feet from a Starbucks. These outlets pop up everywhere and are like acne in cities. So now you've found one, you go in, pick out your food while in line and wait to order your coffee. This is when things start to hot up- quite literally, I've waited for what seems like hours in Saharan temperatures- all for the filtrate of some crushed berries. I've been subjected to such torture, that I've literally questioned my own existence and become delirious, having visions of motivated staff, whilst in line.
Eventually you get to the counter to order the coffee. Having examined the Biblically sized board of choice I decide to go for the 'light' option. And every time I discreetly order a 'Skinny, Light, Double Mocha, no shots, no cream, no coffee, coffee Frappucino' I'm certain to have gotten the only member of staff born with a Megaphone for a voice box. So once you have had the fact your having the 'healthy' option, bellowed and made common knowledge to anyone within a five mile radius, you have the pleasure of financing your beverage of shame.
All I've bought is a drink and sandwich (fuck the 'Skinny Carrot Cake' I can only take so much humiliation in one day). The assistant then asks if you're 'eating in' which, quite frankly, is the equivalent of asking someone buying a Ford Mondeo if they would like to pay the price of a Ferrari for it. But, I've come here for a relaxing coffee and I'll be damned if I'm going to consume it in the street. So I say I'm 'eating in' as if it's somehow a novelty. The assistant then presses the '+250%' button on the till and quietly breaks the small ransom price to you. I still haven't figured out how they can charge so much for 1 square foot of seat. I'm of the opinion that for that price I should be able to walk out with the seat and table I used as well as another bonus item of furnishing.
Standing in queue does have some advantage, however. You can size up the competition. You see, I enter Starbucks with one objective, after the coffee- to get the soft sofa seat for myself and no one else, after all, for what I've paid, I'm definitely not going to settle for a wooden chair. Oh no! the sofas are for the go-getter in life and I'll have nothing less. It becomes a mind game. Will the woman with a child be prepared to use her 18 month old baby to reserve the sofa? Will the wheelchair user in front of me have sufficient speed and agility to claim the sofa as his? It truly is survival of the fittest. And I'm not above anything to secure myself prime position.
Why do it then? Well for that you have to go and try the little Grandé pot of heaven that Starbucks consistently provide. The pleasant sugary caffeine rush is fantastic and it tastes great. And after you have worked so hard and overcome so much for one simple drink, you feel like you have truly achieved something for yourself. I guess an addict will put up with a lot and coffee drinkers are no different.
Why? You might ask. Well, as a concept it seems great but reality tells a different story.
Lets go step by step through the whole ordeal. First, you've go to find one. But that's no longer a problem, you can be assured that, like a rat, you're never more than 1o feet from a Starbucks. These outlets pop up everywhere and are like acne in cities. So now you've found one, you go in, pick out your food while in line and wait to order your coffee. This is when things start to hot up- quite literally, I've waited for what seems like hours in Saharan temperatures- all for the filtrate of some crushed berries. I've been subjected to such torture, that I've literally questioned my own existence and become delirious, having visions of motivated staff, whilst in line.
Eventually you get to the counter to order the coffee. Having examined the Biblically sized board of choice I decide to go for the 'light' option. And every time I discreetly order a 'Skinny, Light, Double Mocha, no shots, no cream, no coffee, coffee Frappucino' I'm certain to have gotten the only member of staff born with a Megaphone for a voice box. So once you have had the fact your having the 'healthy' option, bellowed and made common knowledge to anyone within a five mile radius, you have the pleasure of financing your beverage of shame.
All I've bought is a drink and sandwich (fuck the 'Skinny Carrot Cake' I can only take so much humiliation in one day). The assistant then asks if you're 'eating in' which, quite frankly, is the equivalent of asking someone buying a Ford Mondeo if they would like to pay the price of a Ferrari for it. But, I've come here for a relaxing coffee and I'll be damned if I'm going to consume it in the street. So I say I'm 'eating in' as if it's somehow a novelty. The assistant then presses the '+250%' button on the till and quietly breaks the small ransom price to you. I still haven't figured out how they can charge so much for 1 square foot of seat. I'm of the opinion that for that price I should be able to walk out with the seat and table I used as well as another bonus item of furnishing.
Standing in queue does have some advantage, however. You can size up the competition. You see, I enter Starbucks with one objective, after the coffee- to get the soft sofa seat for myself and no one else, after all, for what I've paid, I'm definitely not going to settle for a wooden chair. Oh no! the sofas are for the go-getter in life and I'll have nothing less. It becomes a mind game. Will the woman with a child be prepared to use her 18 month old baby to reserve the sofa? Will the wheelchair user in front of me have sufficient speed and agility to claim the sofa as his? It truly is survival of the fittest. And I'm not above anything to secure myself prime position.
Why do it then? Well for that you have to go and try the little Grandé pot of heaven that Starbucks consistently provide. The pleasant sugary caffeine rush is fantastic and it tastes great. And after you have worked so hard and overcome so much for one simple drink, you feel like you have truly achieved something for yourself. I guess an addict will put up with a lot and coffee drinkers are no different.
Global Warmers and their Congregation.
It's the 25th of December and an important day for many! Today Jesus was, of course, born but more importantly- it's the date of birth for my new Blog- 'Acid'.
I decided to go with the name 'Acid' because, often, my distinct inability to 'bite my lip' or run what I'm about to say through a Labour government linguistic sanitiser, can make what I say seem a tad cutting. I am, however, never purposefully insulting, if anyone gets offended by me it'll be there over sensitivity and liberal views. Unfortunately, there are so many do-gooder, self-righteous, environ-mentalists about currently. To many it would seem that if you don't buy organic, support Fairtrade or wear hemp you are the equivalent of a modern day Nazi. And for this you shall be punished!
These people parade about (on public transport or bicycles to reduce EVILGAs emissions) with a warm glow inside because they're 'doing their bit' to prevent climate change and save all our souls from impending doom. We are all told that we must reduce CO2 emissions or the ice caps will melt, huge areas of land will disappear and 3rd world countries will suffer terribly. We are made to feel ashamed of Man's destructive, 'unnatural' impact and presence on Mother Earth. All the while, however, little mention is made of the effect of cow farts.
We are fortunate then that organisations such as Greenpeace and the Carbon Trust are at hand to offer us salvation and provide practices and scripture, that we may be saved. Our children are educated and told that the low carbon path is the only One True Way to avert disaster. We can profess our beliefs at gatherings like Live Earth. We can offset our sins by donating to environmental services. And those who dare to speak out against the cause are outcast, silenced or harassed.
In a society that is supposedly wary of science borne out of religion, I'm surprised that we aren't a little more questioning of this 'Inconvenient Truth' and the hugely profitable franchise that goes along with it. So before people go pointing fingers at oil companies and industry for destroying the earth and getting rich off it, maybe they should have a proper look at who truly has their hand in the cookie jar.
Another issue to look at is the buzz phrase 'Preventing Climate Change'. The fact of the matter is this, the climate has always changed and always will. It is sheer arrogance to think that we can have total mastery of the planet. But lets for a second entertain the idea that humanity has somehow shoved the temperatures way above what they have been as far back in the past as we can measure. As a result of these temperature changes we wont be faced with the end of the earth, it will simply change. And changes may cause floods and create different climates. And these prospects cause fear amongst people. But what's new there? Big changes have always made people scared or anxious. Some were terrified that the vote for women would cause the whole country to collapse- so they put it off for a while, but the inevitable came about and Hey! it wasn't that bad after all.
The climate will always change and if its not one thing causing it, it'll be another. So instead of self flagellating ourselves for progress why not adapt through necessity? Lets cooperate to prepare and anticipate for change. Surely the most dangerous thing to do is invest all our resources in trying to halt change, it's not only arrogant but dangerous. The real way to 'evolve' is not to make futile attempts to halt nature, but to accept, understand and realise that solutions to inevitable change are never to stop it. Humanity is just as natural as anything else on this planet to think otherwise is stupidity.
Change is not evil, it just is, adaptation not abhorrence is the real way forward. Let's not get caught up in a new religion because that, if anything, will be our undoing. Be wary of 'stick-in-the-mud wolves' in 'liberal and modern sheep's clothing'.
I decided to go with the name 'Acid' because, often, my distinct inability to 'bite my lip' or run what I'm about to say through a Labour government linguistic sanitiser, can make what I say seem a tad cutting. I am, however, never purposefully insulting, if anyone gets offended by me it'll be there over sensitivity and liberal views. Unfortunately, there are so many do-gooder, self-righteous, environ-mentalists about currently. To many it would seem that if you don't buy organic, support Fairtrade or wear hemp you are the equivalent of a modern day Nazi. And for this you shall be punished!
These people parade about (on public transport or bicycles to reduce EVILGAs emissions) with a warm glow inside because they're 'doing their bit' to prevent climate change and save all our souls from impending doom. We are all told that we must reduce CO2 emissions or the ice caps will melt, huge areas of land will disappear and 3rd world countries will suffer terribly. We are made to feel ashamed of Man's destructive, 'unnatural' impact and presence on Mother Earth. All the while, however, little mention is made of the effect of cow farts.
We are fortunate then that organisations such as Greenpeace and the Carbon Trust are at hand to offer us salvation and provide practices and scripture, that we may be saved. Our children are educated and told that the low carbon path is the only One True Way to avert disaster. We can profess our beliefs at gatherings like Live Earth. We can offset our sins by donating to environmental services. And those who dare to speak out against the cause are outcast, silenced or harassed.
In a society that is supposedly wary of science borne out of religion, I'm surprised that we aren't a little more questioning of this 'Inconvenient Truth' and the hugely profitable franchise that goes along with it. So before people go pointing fingers at oil companies and industry for destroying the earth and getting rich off it, maybe they should have a proper look at who truly has their hand in the cookie jar.
Another issue to look at is the buzz phrase 'Preventing Climate Change'. The fact of the matter is this, the climate has always changed and always will. It is sheer arrogance to think that we can have total mastery of the planet. But lets for a second entertain the idea that humanity has somehow shoved the temperatures way above what they have been as far back in the past as we can measure. As a result of these temperature changes we wont be faced with the end of the earth, it will simply change. And changes may cause floods and create different climates. And these prospects cause fear amongst people. But what's new there? Big changes have always made people scared or anxious. Some were terrified that the vote for women would cause the whole country to collapse- so they put it off for a while, but the inevitable came about and Hey! it wasn't that bad after all.
The climate will always change and if its not one thing causing it, it'll be another. So instead of self flagellating ourselves for progress why not adapt through necessity? Lets cooperate to prepare and anticipate for change. Surely the most dangerous thing to do is invest all our resources in trying to halt change, it's not only arrogant but dangerous. The real way to 'evolve' is not to make futile attempts to halt nature, but to accept, understand and realise that solutions to inevitable change are never to stop it. Humanity is just as natural as anything else on this planet to think otherwise is stupidity.
Change is not evil, it just is, adaptation not abhorrence is the real way forward. Let's not get caught up in a new religion because that, if anything, will be our undoing. Be wary of 'stick-in-the-mud wolves' in 'liberal and modern sheep's clothing'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)