Pat wrote: > On Oct 28, 6:23 pm, "Don" wrote: >> "Warm Worm"> wrote >>
>> It does so in part because my derision for them stems from a mainly >>> urban context. >>
>> Thats what I suspected from the very beginning. >> The word is *empathy*, trying to *understand* life from another's >> perspective. >> If I asked you to get rid of your rollerblades or your notebook you >> would think I lost my mind.
If it meant something to you, I'd considered it.
> But you have no compunction about expecting others to get up off >> their rides, and it never occurs to you that peoples lives depend on >> their rides.
Of course it occurs to me. And come up with a good case against blades and books and see what I do. You're also welcomed to dislike them-- hopefully for sane, rational reasons. ;)
> Ya know, now, when I buy laundry soap I get it in the big cardboard >> box because I don't want to pay good money to have someone take the >> empty plastic container, we used to get, away. >> Now I just burn the box along with other burnable trash. >> I wish we could purchase products *without* all the packaging but we >> don't have that choice, so we make decisions that try to lessen our >> footprint and extend our convenience. >> (why can't I, for example, take my used empty plastic laundry >> container back into the store and fill it up and pay only for the >> contents rather than be forced to purchase a new container everytime? >> I mean, its not like the plastic, with its million-year lifespan, is >> gonna wear out or anything.) >> Find me a more convenient way to live my life in the absence of a >> combustion engine powered machine and I'll be glad to listen. >> I speak only for myself. >
> I think you've hit the nail of the head. The reduce/recycle movement > will take off when it makes economic sense.
As opposed to _actual_ sense?
The market will drive it. For example, remember the boxes your > toothpaste used to come in. > They're gone. No more. That's because Walmart (that unAmerican org) > ordered it's suppliers to get rid of it. You didn't want it and they > didn't want to pay to have to make it or to truck it. It was an > economic reason, not an environmental one.
Should doing something for the right reason prevail though?
...I again thought about a particular brand of ice-cream-- Breyers-- that apparently reduced the costs of production (changed the recipe and perhaps manufacturing method), but kept the price essentially the same. They also did a number of "marketing tricks", such as redesigning the package, and changing the wording ("double-churned") in the ostensible interest of attempting to fool the customer... Found this:
formatting link
"Unilever (the multi-national corporation that owns the 'Breyers', Good Humor, and Ben & Jerry's brand names) recently started adding tara gum (made from the seeds of the tara tree) [among other things] to the 'All Natural' varieties of Breyers ice cream."
-- Wikipedia.org
formatting link
If all things produced at a cheaper and cheaper cost (lower quality too?) is _not_ passed down to the consumer in the form of cheaper products or greater savings-- and even if it is-- then what happens when the consumer asks for the older(-style) or better thing?
Is it more expensive for the customer, or less profitable for the company? Should quality-of-life decide, or economic forces that often seem to have little to do with the latter.
So what does this have to do with architecture or urban-planning? Well, it has to do in part with the revival of _true_ quality, value and price/cost, (ie., heritage architecture/design) and of what I feel has been gradually eroded over time and that has less and less to do with anything other than nothing-- even money.
Give it up. People on this forum will rush to tell you "it's obviously what people want" (since they still buy it). Never mind that most people seldom if ever experience quality in much of anything to know the difference.
Ya I know... a little soap-boxy of me... It's just that I had a kind of thought-process yesterday that went along the lines of about wanting old stuff, or heritage, or replications/repro's-- that kind of thing-- and how the gist of the responses are usually that it's too, or very, expensive or no longer feasible or possible... and then wondering why-- I mean, if we're so technologically advanced-- and how could they then do it in the old days, and what happened since then, and so on...
A culture, double-churned, airy, fluffy, syrupy, chemical tracts and tracts of souless emptiness... The profit-motive may eat itself for breakfast, but drag the rest of us down with it. 'The costs of doing business.'
I've said that people are a necessary evil in the pursuit of profit... I sense a paradox, but I can't put my finger on it.
That's the rub, though, isn't it? It's both a cause and an effect.
There was a similar debate in the pre-modernist period about industrial technology and craft, which led to the 'Arts and Crafts Movement' (my personal favorite), that you are retracing in a way.
Like some on the blog-in-question, I was one of those who did so immediately when it happened. I didn't even have to buy it or eat a bite though. I simply noticed the design-change, and then took a look at the ingredients. That was enough to put it back. (The thought had crossed my mind to open it and leave it melt somewhere in the store in protest.) I was annoyed when-- and how-- they changed it. It seemed deceptive or dishonest. (Is that a competitive market-strategy, Don?) If memory serves, I think they also changed Haagen Dazs' ingredients, as well as B&J's (or perhaps the owners of both companies).
Some of you may recall my home-made online coffee ice cream pics... Well, I don't have time to do that all the time, and don't think I should have to.
But this is only one small example, Michael, for the the purpose of illustration. There are many such examples... For another; just last night when I bought my toothbrush... They keep morphing and I'm unable to find the one I just replaced... They keep morphing on the shelf; and the Queen's label is not on my Pears soap box anymore (and also an apparent change in the ingredients and company to boot)
I can't keep changing what I buy all the time. It's getting ridiculous, bewildering, disorienting, frustrating. Life is complicated enough without having an amusement-park-in-outer-space for a market. Change and choice for the sake of themselves or competition defeats its own purpose: People. I've said it before and I'll say it again; People over markets-- always. If 'community' is now the raison d'etre trend of the corporations, that should be interesting. In any case, I want to be consulted.
Well, there's food, junk food, and then there's "Frankenfood".
To be living with/within a system that gets sufficiently out of whack (and I'm "beginning" to see it all around me) is like using anything that's already in a serious state of disrepair. It's just plain dangerous and wreckless. Try that with your car, power tools or guns and see how far you go, or how long you last. Ideally, you don't wait until something fixes itself. You recognize problems if there are any and then you fix them, replace them, or they potentially kill or replace you (maybe not literally, just gradually, spiritually) and others you might love.
I'm talking about having a little inconvenience for the sake of a greater good. Like doing without a little extra warmth in the home and having to work in the living room if it meant greater energy savings.
I'm also not suggesting you trade in your truck just yet either. :)
Breyers=92 All Natural Ice Cream Goes Green! New Line of Organic Ice Crea= m=20 to Hit Supermarkets Nationwide
Green Bay, WI (Aug. 28, 2006) =97 This September, the company with a=20 heritage for making ice cream with all-natural ingredients is going=20 organic with the introduction of Breyers=AE All Natural Organic Ice Cream= =2E
The new line of Breyers USDA-certified organic ice cream has been=20 developed in response to consumers=92 growing interest in organic foods. According to the Organic =
Trade Association, organic foods are becoming an increasingly popular trend in the U.S., with=20 organic food sales nearly tripling since 1997, growing between 17 and 21 percent each year. In the same=20 period the organic ice cream segment has grown nearly 55 percent.
=93We know people want natural and organic food options in more than just= =20 the produce section of the grocery store,=94 says Dan Hammer, vice president of marketing for=20 Unilever Ice Cream. =93The introduction of Breyers Organic Ice Cream demonstrates our continued=20 commitment to offer our customers the widest variety of options to fit their ever-changing needs =
and lifestyles.=94 Breyers Organic Ice Cream will be offered in Vanilla Bean, Chocolate,=20 Coffee and Vanilla Fudge Swirl flavors. The products will be available nationwide beginning this=20 September and can be found in either the freezer section or organic freezer section at=20 supermarkets. A one-quart container sells for a suggested retail price of $4.99-$5.99.
Another option for people with specific health interests is Breyers=20 Lactose Free Vanilla ice cream, which is also available in supermarkets nationwide. Breyers created the=20 Lactose Free Vanilla ice cream as a product offering for the 30 to 50 million consumers=20 nationwide who are lactose intolerant2 and it has become one of Breyers most complimented product in the line.=20 Breyers Lactose Free Vanilla ice cream sells for the suggested retail price of $5.29 for a 56 =
oz container.
About Unilever Ice Cream Unilever North American Ice Cream, headquartered in Green Bay, Wis., is=20 the largest manufacturer and marketer of branded packaged ice cream and frozen novelties in the=20 United States, where the company operates nine manufacturing facilities and employs approximately =
3,400 people. Its wellknown brands include Breyers=AE Ice Cream, Ben & Jerry=92s=AE, Popsicle=AE, Goo= d=20 Humor=AE, and Klondike=AE.
Organic Trade Association:
formatting link
National Institute of Diabetes, and Digestive and Kidney Diseases:=20
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.