effing luddites.

[keryx]

This morning, I've been bombarded by what I'd call luddism if so doing weren't an insult to Luddites and a misappropriation of the term.

First irksome thing: the slow food people. They want to eat only artisanal [read: expensive] foods and have created restaurant guides that allow you to do so. Because mass production of food is eeeeevil. I didn't read very much of their site, so I can't really comment in detail. If they're working to make sure everyone has access to handmade food, they're just kinda tunnelvisiony (handmade food and slowing down is good, but mass produced stuff and speeding up has its uses to, yo); if they're not, though, they're a bunch of wicked yuppsters (an assessment based entirely on their restaurant guide).

Second irksome thing: actually, it's 90% thought-provoking article and only about 10% irksome. The Go Animal newsletter proposes that we think of nutrition beyond edible food. Interesting, right?

Until you get to this quote (from the "Modern American Imbalance" segment): As TV tyrannizes our culture, many Americans show a decreasing interest in the world of ideas; many of us no longer read books or seek out new ideas. That's right. Because TV NEVER CONTAINS A SINGLE NEW IDEA. I hate that smart people can believe stupid things like that; it's a countermedia stereotype of the medium, and it just isn't borne out by the reality of our experience. The media that we curse (TV is always first on the list, but the net follows right behind) are essential to the large-scale distribution of ideas. And seriously, do you think those giant Barnes & Nobles survive just cause people like coffee?

We're entirely too embarrassed by our own technology. Why is that?

Comments

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

I like the Slow Food people. It started with independent farmers in Europe as I recall... the website you linked to says they support "stewardship of the land and ecologically sound food production...the revival of the kitchen and the table as centers of pleasure, culture, and community...the invigoration and proliferation of regional, seasonal culinary traditions; and...living a slower and more harmonious rhythm of life." Sounds good to me.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

There's just something about the tone of what little I read on the website - maybe a likeness to the tone of, say, Adbusters - that connotes a sort of classism. It's hard for me to put my finger on. Nor am I saying the Slow Foods folk are eeeevil; it simply bothers me when people don't even give a nod to the usefulness of the technology/processes they reject.

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

well but I hardly think the mass production folks need their endorsement! :-)

[keryx.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking endorsement but a lack of condemnation, though - for most people above the poverty line (and even many people below it), mass production is a part of our lives that is normal and convenient and cheap. I'd imagine that there's a great deal of usefully mass produced stuff in the lives of most slow foods folk, too.

I'm also easily annoyed by people sending me things that subtlety in the morning. :P

[keryx.livejournal.com]

That'd be "LACK subtlety". ;)

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

though one could argue that in many cases, the cheapness of the mass-produced stuff causes more problems... stripping the nutrients out of white flour; high fructose corn syrup, etc...

[keryx.livejournal.com]

well, you could argue that, but no! you're wrong! twinkies and white bread for everyone! shut up and drink your diet soda. :D

:-)

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

[...makes gagging sound, reaches for the brown rice...]

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about Adbusters, though -- I used to get their mag but they started to annoy me too much. (For one thing, let's mourn the death of the forests on oversized glossy paper!)

[keryx.livejournal.com]

or... reduce your consumption, buy this $250 designer recycling bin! they tend to get a little style-over-substancey. :)

[keryx.livejournal.com]

I see your point on TV. I do think there's a possibility for one's imagination to take new ideas away from even the Everybody Loves Raymond aspect of TV. But having control over what's on would be a infinitely better.

It may just be the media I catch, but there's still an echo of paranoia over the "lack of human contact" implied by the internet in a lot of things. There's a constant undercurrent of this in NPR, for instance.

[missmeridian.livejournal.com]

heh. my incredibly nice and normal cubemate just got into a fight with his new-baby-having brother, who is vegan and is insisting on cloth diapers. and cubemate is all, you know the cleaning products you have to use to clean them are probably worse than normal diapers. and brother says, oh, we'll just use fresh cloth everytime. *awkward silence* and cubemate says, oh, i guess the cost of cloth diapers has gone down since my kids were born. and brother says, well of course we'd spare no expense for our baby!

[keryx.livejournal.com]

That is very, very strange. Is all I can say.

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

hmm, I have known several new-baby-having couples who went into it being almost that naive, but it didn't last long! (On the other hand, the ones who used cloth diapers reported way less diaper rash, so if I ever had a kid -- which I have NO plans to do -- I would probably save the disposables for travel and such.)

Cubemate is all "you know the cleaning products you have to use to clean them are probably worse than normal diapers"? As in, cubemate just made that up and actually has no idea either way?

[missmeridian.livejournal.com]

i think he was assuming that brother would clean/reuse cloth diapers, so the laundry/bleach products+residue on baby's skin might outweigh the landfill of normal diapers, depending on your priorities.

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

yeah, I got that; I'm just thinking that given all the chemicals involved in creating the disposable/non-biodegradable diapers, it probably isn't true. (and it sounds like something he made up on the spot.)

[missmeridian.livejournal.com]

i'm not being clear. the _local_ effect of having to personally use all those chemicals in your own home is perceived to be higher than the _global_ effect of millions of people using cheap plastic diapers.

so for a vegan who is all think globally, act locally, wouldn't that pose at least an interesting question? however, since anti-consumerist vegan can afford to just compost the damn things, the whole thing is moot.

i have absolutely no knowledge of which strategy creates more badness, nor do i care to define badness. and this is not the point. the point is that it's, you know, funny what some anti-consumerist people think sometimes.

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

ah sorry, I was thinking of a diaper service (i.e. the chemicals aren't in their own home) so no wonder I didn't get what you meant. [Emily Litella voice] "Never mind!"

[missmeridian.livejournal.com]

also. i watched four tv shows yesterday and 2 made me two different kinds of cry, 1 made me weak in the knees, and 1 made me vaguely nauseated. a rollercoaster of human emotion, for free. i _hate_ the tv=worthless peeps.

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

hee hee... I get vague nausea from TV too, but ideas? not so much. (but on the serious side, what shows did you watch? cuz obviously I could use some recomm's)

[missmeridian.livejournal.com]

oh - my favourtie subject.

i recommend:
"joan of arcadia" is a truly beautiful, thoughtful show that will make you cry and giggle and rage and all. it's clever and risky without being mean and risque, which is apparently what defines "premium tv" [hbo].

"gilmore girls" is also all good time, but somewhat spotty these days. "veronica mars" and "smallville" are all good fun that you don't have to think about. and they are usually not offensive, and occasionally thoughtful.

"lost" is an up-and-coming fave - somewhat the new "x-files", but with a giant cast and an invisible dinosaur (i think).

"jack & bobby" is emotionally manipulative. but has cute boy, and i usually am ironing sunday night, so eh. along the same lines, "dr. vegas" is an idiotic show featuring pretty pretty rob lowe.

i'm still on the fence about "desperate housewives". it's a trainwreck, but a fairly well put together trainwreck.

also see televisionwithoutpity.com if you just want to read about tv instead of going the extra mile and subjecting yourself to it.

do you netflix? because you should really see:
season 1 of "twin peaks" (old, i know, but clinches the "good tv" canon)
all of "little house on the prairie" (seasons 1-4 available now!)
seasons 1-4 of "buffy the vampire slayer" (just... because. equal parts brilliant, silly, tragic, and ass-kicking)
seasons 1-2 of "alias" (will make you crave pleather)
seasons 1-2 of "the west wing" (will make you proud to be an american, and want to quit your job and move to dc [if you haven't already] and become a political operative)
seasons 1-4 of "dawson's creek" (only if you have some unresolved angst re: that boy in high school who was your best friend, and you had a crush on him, and then you hooked up and everything went straight to hell)

no, really. go now. i'll wait.

and just so you don't think i'm completely brainless, i'm currently watching "i, claudius" (which has way more kinky sex than i remember from my childhood, when i watched it with my parents on pbs)

thanks!!

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

ah, I *love* Netflix. We own the Buffy DVDs (only 1-4? Have to admit Tara's "Family" ep. in S5 was one of the TV moments that will get *me* teary-eyed!)

Re: thanks!!

[missmeridian.livejournal.com]

oh, i love all the buffy, but i thought you were a beginner and didn't want to overwhelm you! i consider 1-4 the absolute leat requirement.

[firecat]

On the "Go Animal newsletter": I lost interest as soon as it said "Early hominids were purely vegetarian." So are cows, and your point is? And I agree with your distaste for the quote you mentioned. I really dislike blanket, unsupported statements like that. Twenty years ago I was told at a publishing conference that only 5 percent of Americans ever went into a bookstore; I don't remember where I read this, but my understanding is that more people are reading books now than before.

I agree that there's more to life than food, and I think trying to express that message in an article about food spoils the message.

I like that the slow food movement exists, but there are just too many humans on the planet for handmade food to be anything but a luxury for a few.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

So are cows, and your point is? I will grant the Go Animal guy that he kinda did say that (or at least has before). Though all he says must be taken with a grain of salt; this is a guy who looked at all the boring stuff we do to exercise and... started a gym, with different equipment. Freaking brilliant. ;)

I'll have to look up book sales figures or something, bc I understood the same as you - the people are reading more books, not less.

[snidegrrl.livejournal.com]

On TV: All things in moderation. For me getting TV out of the house was the ONLY way to moderate it to a reasonable level.

I don't know. I am kind of a staunch "Kill Your Television" person until someone sits me down in front of fucking Dawson's Creek reruns and them I'm a drooling tool. ;)

But seriously: here is my thing about TV, and just about everything else out there. I believe my life needs a balance of "active" vs. "passive" things. Or maybe the right words are "created" vs. "consumed". I don't know where I got this cockamamie theory, but there it is.