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:
-- Wikipedia.org
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.