I have been reading a lot about technology, and theories about the downside of technology, anarcho-primitivism was one train of thought I was following for a while. Also read "The Good Life" by Helen and Scott Nearing about their homesteading experience. For a long time I have been struggling with a visceral dislike for modern technology, that I could not justify or reason out. I dislike complications, noise, things I can't fix myself, disposable goods and the incredible waste brought on by obscelesence. Gadgets replacing tools for minimal gains in convenience. For example, toasters. Why do we need toasters? First of all, how important is toast to our enjoyment of food anyways? Sure, crispy bread is nice at breakfast, but do we really need it? And how much of our desire for it was manufactured by the manufacturers of toasters? Second, you can make toast in a pan, or one of those grate things that holds the toast over a heat source. Not that hard. Yet we have an entire seperate appliance for the preparation of this one food. An appliance is a tangle of complicated electronics encased in a shell of plastic. It's a complicated device, hence some aspect of it is bound to eventually break, and generally the owner of the appliance will not have the knowledge to fix it. Maybe in the early days of toasters, one would have it repaired. Nowadays, it would generally go in the trash and off to the closest department store to buy a new one. This...disgusts me. And the toaster is just one example of the unnecessarily complicated, wasteful crap we have in our lives. Minimal gains in convenience in exchange for massive waste. I much prefer tools. What follows is a list of appliances followed in parenthese by the tools that could be used instead. Microwaves (stove). Stove (wood stove). Coffee maker (french press). Food processer (knife). Electric mixer (spoon). Dish washer (sink). Drier (clothesline). Car (bike). Etc.
I don't hate technology in general. How could anyone? If one defines technology as human innovation, obviously that's something that will always be around, and we should be happy about. There needs to be a distinction between bad technology and good technology. Bad technology = Unnecesarily complicated. If something can be done with a simple tool, why create a complicated machine to do the same thing? Complication leads to a greater chance of breakage/obselescence (hence waste). It also leads to a loss of independence since complicated things require specialists to fix them. And a loss of the skills/personal involvement of doing something with a tool. It's the lack of decision making that bothers me. No one looks at technology and says "this will actually improve our lives," "this will hurt us in the long run," "the trade off between convenience and waste is not worth it." I suppose the decisions are being made by the market, but as usual without factoring in all kinds of hidden costs.
First of all, resources are precious. Oil for plastics, metals, etc. They are not infinite. Are they really being priced taking into account that we only have so much of this stuff? If they were, would we be able to buy toasters for $20 that are made to break within 2 years? If we had looked at fossil fuels back when we first discovered their potential, and said to ourselves - "wow, this stuff is amazing, but we only have so much of it so let's put it to the best possible use" - maybe we would have used it a lot slower, for more important things, and not burned through it making appliances we don't really need. Maybe we would not have become so incredibly dependent on it. I think now, as it becomes clear to more and more people that we will run out, those thoughts will occur.
Second, waste is awful. This is an a priori position. Maybe it's my Yankee sensibilities. I don't know. I just feel that waste is ugly and morally wrong. Waste not, want not. If you make something, make it as well as you possibly can so it lasts as long as it possibly can. If something wears out, take it apart and use whatever you can for other things. And make it as simple as possible so it is easy to reuse. A toaster is hard to reuse - all those resources broken into tiny bits and all mixed together. A metal pan would be easy to reuse - melt down and make something else.
Third, pollution and trash are awful. Because they're bad for our environment, aka - that which we depend on for our very existence, the thing that provides the things that allow us to exist. I keep my body clean, I keep my house clean, I also want to keep my town, state, country, world clean. Why? Health I guess. Ultimately of my own body. If my body, house, town, state, country, world, is dirty, my chances of ill health are greater.
Fourth - and this is admittedly a bit more personal and esoteric - when we cease doing something by hand, or with tools, we lose something. The skill of making things. The pleasure of making things. The meditative process of being absorbed in creating something. The beauty of a handmade thing, the inherent inexplicable beauty of a thing in which the human input is visible in the product. The preciousness of those objects. The knowledge of the natural origin of an object, and the steps required to make it.
I wish there were some way to build better decisions regarding technology into our economic system. Perhaps predictions as to how much of a resource we have, and pricing said resources accordingly. I don't know why natural resources are not publicly owned. How can anyone, other than all of us, own a natural resource? Then we could control the use of the resource based on its' abundance, rate of renewability, etc. and charge private interests for the use of the resource accordingly. We could also find a way to make trash and pollution part of the private equation. I think that's a major problem of the private market - they use precious, finite natural resources as if they are free and infinite, and bear no responsibility or cost for damage to the natural environment. The only way to factor in these costs, I suppose, is through government intervention, which private interests fight tooth and nail with the wealth and power they have accumulated through said abuse of natural resources and environment. This also ties into the concept of scale, hence bringing us full circle to the "buy local" issue again. Only big companies can manufacture this complicated crap. Only big companies are capable of large scale resource depletion and environmental degradation. Only big companies can use their wealth to manipulate our governments into continuing to allow them to do this. So perhaps another approach to remedying the problem of bad technology, would be dealing with the issue of scale...thoughts for another post.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
In Defense of Buy Local
This editorial was written in response to an article entitled "The Buy Local Swindle" which can be read at http://younghipandconservative.blogspot.com/2009/07/buy-local-swindle.html (as well as his response to my response).
I am writing in response to Michael Hartwell's June 30 guest editorial entitled "The Buy Local Swindle." I disagree with Mr. Hartwell on a number of points.
First, I think Mr. Hartwell misrepresents the message of the Buy Local campaign. He seems to be saying that "Buy Local" means buy only things made in Portland from Portland businesses. I am not involved in the Buy Local campaign, but a moment of logical reflection and a perusal of the Buy Local website quickly proves him wrong. In fact, the message of the Buy Local campaign is try to buy from smaller local businesses wherever you are. Buy Local is essentially a campaign that favors small businesses over large chain businesses. It does not discourage people from buying products from other regions and countries. It simply encourages people to buy those products from local businesses (such as Italian food from Micucci's). Finally, it does not discourage people from buying successful and popular products (such as the music of the Beatles), but again, encourages that those products be bought from local businesses.
The basis of Mr. Hartwell's criticism of the Buy Local campaign, aside from the above misrepresentations, is classical economic theory. Classic market economics holds that specializing and trading is more efficient than each region producing their own products for local economies and leads to greater overall wealth. There is also the factor of size, since larger companies have greater bargaining power to buy in bulk, and to roam further in search of cheaper resources and labor, allowing them to pass on lower prices to consumers. All of this is true, and it is a very elegant system for producing greater overall wealth.
The problem with the theory is twofold. First, the above definition of "wealth" encompasses only monetary wealth, and leaves out a number of things that are very important to human well being that the market theory actually diminishes. The market theory carried to its logical conclusion results in fewer and larger companies, a high degree of specialization of individuals, a high degree of specialization by region and country, the concentration of power, entrepreneurship and creativity at the top of those large companies, and homogenization of stores and products. Very efficient, resulting in lower prices and higher overall wealth, but not very fulfilling to the human needs of creativity, individuality, free will and culture. We can see this theory in action by looking at any of the large box stores. Big, drawing resources from whichever country produces it cheapest, each person within the company performing a narrow and specialized role, very few of those people having the opportunity to practice entrepreneurship or creativity, and products and stores that are the same whether in Maine or Minnesota. When these stores nudge out our local businesses, we lose the character of our towns and regions, the opportunity to be entrepreneurs and creators, and the more even distribution of wealth and power that comes with more small businesses. We gain a higher overall GDP, and of course cheaper products. I'm not an economist, but that sounds like a bad trade to me.
Second, there are no guarantees within the market system of how the greater overall wealth gained will be distributed. In fact, there is an inherent tendency for the greater wealth to be distributed unevenly so that most of the wealth goes to a few, while the majority are actually worse off. As companies get bigger and fewer, there are less and less owners, and more and more workers, thereby concentrating power at the top of these companies. The more power and money that is concentrated in the hands of the few owners of these companies, the more power these companies have to influence our government to make policy that further benefits them, further concentrating power, ad nauseam. There are many examples of this in American politics, but that would be another editorial altogether.
Obviously there's a problem with the classical market theory. Either it is a very elegant system that simply does not give us a result that fits human needs, or it is a system that needs to take more factors into account to produce a result that leads to greater human well being. I am not sure what the answer is, but what the Buy Local campaign is doing is essentially the latter. Buy Local is advertising to consumers a hidden benefit of buying from small local businesses, and a hidden cost of buying from big chains. It is taking a cost that has been "externalized," to use the language of economists, (i.e. the cost of losing our local character, independence and creativity) and internalizing it, so that when people go to a big chain, they might realize that the price they're paying is actually higher if they take into account the loss of those values. On the flip side, it is internalizing a benefit, so that when people go to a local store they might realize they are actually getting more for their money by helping to preserve those values. It is a little unusual in that it is not the businesses themselves doing the advertising, but a non-profit seeking a societal goal that happens to benefit these businesses. Nonetheless, it is in essence advertising, and as such fits perfectly within Mr. Hartwell's market system.
Just because the market system is an elegant and logical way to create greater overall wealth does not mean we have to check our brains in and follow that system wherever it may lead. People have the power and the right to step back and think about what they truly value, and demand that the systems we use serve those values. Mr. Hartwell would have us sacrifice those values to the system. Buy Local simply asks that the system serves the values.
I am writing in response to Michael Hartwell's June 30 guest editorial entitled "The Buy Local Swindle." I disagree with Mr. Hartwell on a number of points.
First, I think Mr. Hartwell misrepresents the message of the Buy Local campaign. He seems to be saying that "Buy Local" means buy only things made in Portland from Portland businesses. I am not involved in the Buy Local campaign, but a moment of logical reflection and a perusal of the Buy Local website quickly proves him wrong. In fact, the message of the Buy Local campaign is try to buy from smaller local businesses wherever you are. Buy Local is essentially a campaign that favors small businesses over large chain businesses. It does not discourage people from buying products from other regions and countries. It simply encourages people to buy those products from local businesses (such as Italian food from Micucci's). Finally, it does not discourage people from buying successful and popular products (such as the music of the Beatles), but again, encourages that those products be bought from local businesses.
The basis of Mr. Hartwell's criticism of the Buy Local campaign, aside from the above misrepresentations, is classical economic theory. Classic market economics holds that specializing and trading is more efficient than each region producing their own products for local economies and leads to greater overall wealth. There is also the factor of size, since larger companies have greater bargaining power to buy in bulk, and to roam further in search of cheaper resources and labor, allowing them to pass on lower prices to consumers. All of this is true, and it is a very elegant system for producing greater overall wealth.
The problem with the theory is twofold. First, the above definition of "wealth" encompasses only monetary wealth, and leaves out a number of things that are very important to human well being that the market theory actually diminishes. The market theory carried to its logical conclusion results in fewer and larger companies, a high degree of specialization of individuals, a high degree of specialization by region and country, the concentration of power, entrepreneurship and creativity at the top of those large companies, and homogenization of stores and products. Very efficient, resulting in lower prices and higher overall wealth, but not very fulfilling to the human needs of creativity, individuality, free will and culture. We can see this theory in action by looking at any of the large box stores. Big, drawing resources from whichever country produces it cheapest, each person within the company performing a narrow and specialized role, very few of those people having the opportunity to practice entrepreneurship or creativity, and products and stores that are the same whether in Maine or Minnesota. When these stores nudge out our local businesses, we lose the character of our towns and regions, the opportunity to be entrepreneurs and creators, and the more even distribution of wealth and power that comes with more small businesses. We gain a higher overall GDP, and of course cheaper products. I'm not an economist, but that sounds like a bad trade to me.
Second, there are no guarantees within the market system of how the greater overall wealth gained will be distributed. In fact, there is an inherent tendency for the greater wealth to be distributed unevenly so that most of the wealth goes to a few, while the majority are actually worse off. As companies get bigger and fewer, there are less and less owners, and more and more workers, thereby concentrating power at the top of these companies. The more power and money that is concentrated in the hands of the few owners of these companies, the more power these companies have to influence our government to make policy that further benefits them, further concentrating power, ad nauseam. There are many examples of this in American politics, but that would be another editorial altogether.
Obviously there's a problem with the classical market theory. Either it is a very elegant system that simply does not give us a result that fits human needs, or it is a system that needs to take more factors into account to produce a result that leads to greater human well being. I am not sure what the answer is, but what the Buy Local campaign is doing is essentially the latter. Buy Local is advertising to consumers a hidden benefit of buying from small local businesses, and a hidden cost of buying from big chains. It is taking a cost that has been "externalized," to use the language of economists, (i.e. the cost of losing our local character, independence and creativity) and internalizing it, so that when people go to a big chain, they might realize that the price they're paying is actually higher if they take into account the loss of those values. On the flip side, it is internalizing a benefit, so that when people go to a local store they might realize they are actually getting more for their money by helping to preserve those values. It is a little unusual in that it is not the businesses themselves doing the advertising, but a non-profit seeking a societal goal that happens to benefit these businesses. Nonetheless, it is in essence advertising, and as such fits perfectly within Mr. Hartwell's market system.
Just because the market system is an elegant and logical way to create greater overall wealth does not mean we have to check our brains in and follow that system wherever it may lead. People have the power and the right to step back and think about what they truly value, and demand that the systems we use serve those values. Mr. Hartwell would have us sacrifice those values to the system. Buy Local simply asks that the system serves the values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)