Now that I have so much time on my hands and need something to keep me occupied other than huffing various paint and glue products, I have decided it’s time to get back to writing, or more accurately, my ridiculous form of it. Yet, be warned, I have really no idea where this blog entry is headed. Hell, for all I know it may well end up in the garbage can along with all those empty tubes of glue and cans of “Four Loko.”
So here I am back at my word processor to give it another go, but I find myself, again, really without topic. Thus, I assure you the title of this particular entry will be written long after I have completed my rambling, nonsensical treatise. I have been a little out of the political scene recently, though I did vote in the “historical” midterms, choosing my candidates and issues rather carefully after some deep meditation and an extended shroom trip (which in retrospect may be the reason why I voted for a write in referendum concerning the legalization of hoarding vast herds of cats), but other than that I really don’t know what to add at this time in regards to any deep political commentary. However, when all else fails I will resort to my old standby of criticisms. For there are plenty of things to criticize or poke fun at out there, not just in the political spectrum, but also in terms of media, pop culture, opinion and Charlie Sheen.
Yes, it’s that time of the year again friends. No, I don’t mean the holidays. No, I mean it’s time for NBC’s annual annoying-ass “Green Week” extravaganza. As usual, just like every year, the famed NBC peacock is ripped of his classic colorful plumage and given the hues of a leprechaun. In addition, all your favorite NBC “stars” are out in their new Prius-praising “More You Know” segments, while, more often than not, after their shoot, they are jumping in their Hummer or SUV to help them navigate the difficult road conditions and terrain of West Hollywood, LA, New York, or Malibu.
As if these public service announcements weren’t annoying enough as they interrupt NBC’s mediocre at best primetime lineup, they continue on all shows throughout the lame NBC conglomerate of channels. This includes NBC proper, MSNBS and, of course, The Weather Channel. Yet, to quote Billy Mays, “Wait, there’s more!” Throughout the NBC aggregate, tiny, little catch phrases are featured with profoundly inspired slogans such as, “Green is Universal,” and “Green is Progress.” I don’t know about you, but just hearing them gives me a tingle up MY leg.
Yet, like the vast majority of those at NBC, with a few notable exceptions, these slogans are complete B.S. The former saying is not so much a call for more environmental awareness, or a push towards conservation and eco-friendly technologies, but rather, because NBC owns Universal, it seems to be NBC just patting themselves on the back while relishing in the supposed efforts that they have made. The latter saying is just plain silly, for though it can be said that with proper technologies, perhaps mankind’s effect on the planet could be minimized allowing the planet to become “more green,” it will never be as green as it once was before the influence of industrial pollutants. Giving that, if what I said is accurate, perhaps “Green is Retrogression” would be more accurate, or simply assign the title “eco-conservatism” to the idea. However, good luck getting anyone at NBC to say that accursed word. (Note the cheap shot.)
In reality, of course I know what they mean, but still I find all this green posturing, even evident in the peacock himself, to be extremely irritating. Certainly, we find that all this eco-posturing is big business as it is represented in products whose manufactures arbitrarily slap a “green,” “all natural,” or “organic” label on them despite the presence of things like arsenic and cadmium. Just because something is “all natural” doesn’t make it fit for ecology as a whole or, indeed, human interaction. Just because a poison dart frog may be “all natural,” I wouldn’t recommend sticking one in a blender with ice and vodka for a refreshing summer drink. Yet, many products and services offered commercially and by the government use these same tactics to entice people to subscribe or partake. It is not uncommon to hear consumer groups occasionally coming out against such eco-scams.
Now certainly, I am not an eco-hater or against any form of conservationism. Quite the contrary. Coming from a fishing family myself, I take a keen interest in preserving species and habitat, so as to help the fishing industry become profitable for both man and bear for years to come. Furthermore, just in case one would accuse me of being an egoist, other than these reasons and examples, I have also changed habits in my personal life to reduce my eco-footprint. I say this not to give myself an “atta-boy,” but rather to just clarify my own feelings on environmental conservation.
Thus, these feelings are completely divorced from the impression I get towards the eco-movement as a whole. It’s used mainly as a political ploy and the movement is completely guilt driven. In it villains are created, often times needlessly by hypersensitive eco-narcissists, which brand you, me, business and government as an enemy selfishly pushing the world towards destruction. In this process is lost each effort made by any individual or group towards conservation. Such efforts are mysteriously never mentioned by those same self-described “advanced” eco-sensitive narcissists, who frequently appear on TV to chastise us or, because of some being jobless since even before the economic meltdown, have nothing better to do than to ride bikes to rallies or protests, wave signs and commit acts of eco-terrorism. Course, with these acts of domestic terrorism they frequently contradict their own message. (In one inspired local instance, a group of eco-terrorists burned down a house which was built in forested area because the house and yard destroyed natural habit. Unfortunately, by this very act they actually burned to the ground several acres of natural forest themselves.) No affirmation for any progress is ever heard from such people, only condemnation.
Thereby comes the annoyance factor at those who scream at government and business, wanting a technology now that doesn’t yet exist or is not efficient enough to be financially viable for any company. Yes, there are those who specialize in pursuing this technology, but they tend to be fringe companies or offshoots of various industry giants. Though at times I wonder if these offshoots just exist as an equivalent to a “green” label on a household cleanser. Yet, despite any effort they make, or no matter how many scientists a particular company may put on a particular eco-project, still it’s some of businesses fault that we are supposedly lagging in eco-technologies.
Can we really expect business to be our savior when it comes to ecology? I argue we can’t. Business is there to make money first and foremost. So if a market is there and profits are being made then there is no reason to engage in things that will compromise the company or make a share holder want do a swan dive off a busy freeway overpass. Does this mean that business may never find a viable, eco-friendly technology? Not at all, just it may not come from one of the business giants. It could through research and development, but the only reasons to engage in that are, by some government mandate, a PR ploy, in which case may not be efficient enough to be producing these new technologies, or to bring the company’s profits into the future, to where all businesses wish to be, at the forefront of such technological advancements to maximize the profits from the opportunities such advancement presents.
In business this is how success is measured, by the amount of capital. It would be nice to say that all businessmen and the heads of successful companies are planning on being martyrs for the good of the world, but they aren’t. The ultimate goal is to accumulate capital, so for them to spend billions of dollars on saving the planet and risking it for that reason alone isn’t really realistic. Yet, what is, is that some fringe company or company legitimately engaged in research and development, hoping to find another capital building enterprise, will stumble upon or improve technology, which will both make it economically viable and eco-friendly.
Technology, as well as the eco-movement, seems to be a form of social evolution. It naturally develops, is fine tuned, profited from and transforms, usually transcending its previous form. I feel from this “natural” process new technologies will emerge, or technologies that already exist will become increasingly efficient, made available to the populace becoming the new cash livestock industry of the future all based on public demand, cost, and ease of acquisition for the common man. Or woman for you feminists.
