|
|
|
August 07, 2009
You are unsustainable!
What is health? And why does it keep changing? The reason I'm asking is because I was at a local "health food" store (which sells extremely expensive organic produce along with their extremely expensive health food), and I noticed a display rack full of expensive plastic drinking bottles, which was emblazoned with an important and proud announcement that the store no longer sells bottled water. Along with this were some propagandistic moral denouncements of bottled water as being very "bad." (This reflects a major national movement against bottled water, which includes a campaign in many cities to ban it.) Never mind the health nuts from the past who berated unhealthy, chemically treated tap water. The new edict from somewhere in Health Land is that bottled water is less healthy than tap water because it is bad for the environment. Whose health is this? The customer's? Or the environment's? It struck me that the store (which is, after all, a business, and is presumably there to make money) is shooting itself in the foot, because people who want to buy a bottle of water will buy it from another store. One of the arguments the store made was that bottled water is not "sustainable." This does not mean so much that the water is being used up or the plastic is being used up, but that fuel is being used up trucking it around. Yet the store was filled with inventory that had to come there by truck, and they still sell numerous soft drinks, in both plastic and glass bottles. By what standard are soft drinks sustainable while bottled water is not? Besides (I thought) aren't soft drinks unhealthy? At least, surely they're more unhealthy than water. And this is a health food store. What gives? My concern is that if this idea spreads (which it is), governments will end up treating bottled water like deadly trans fats, wiping out yet another industry ($15 billion a year) that doesn't need to be wiped out. Moreover, when this trend is coupled with the anti-soft drink campaign (already underway in cities), I could imagine a future where there are no beverages for sale except coffee, beer, and wine. Public drinking fountains, you say? They have so much bacteria that they're called "the germiest places in America." Putting aside such health concerns, I think the long term idea behind sustainability might be to make us all ride bicycles, carry thermoses, replace lawns and gardens with "native species," eat only locally grown food, and live like the Amish. What I want to know is why people who use the word "sustainability" do not seem to be concerned in the slightest with the economy. Do they believe a healthy and thriving economy is unsustainable? And might they think that it's therefore a good idea to ruin the economy in the name of sustainability? Shouldn't we keep such people away from the economy? posted by Eric on 08.07.09 at 01:30 PM
Comments
No matter what the fashion in water, we'll never be relieved of the aptly named baby boom nursing on their bottles. Brett · August 7, 2009 03:20 PM I think you've correctly described the long-term goals and aims of the sustainability crowd. But coffee will also be ruled out either because of the caffeine or because of the nature of the places where it is grown, or, well, you get the idea. Tea might be o.k., though. Their actual model may not be the Amish--they may be satisfied to have us all live like Chinese peasants of 100 years ago--all while the Chinese are using their coal-fired power plants to pollute their way to prosperity at our expense. The other day I e-mailed a friend of mine who considers herself a devotee of Michael Pollan's writings a link to this article and noted that the author seemed to think that pushing all agriculture towards so-called sustainable practices would be unsustainable in the long run because it would result in much more scarcity and dramatically increase the cost of food. (Plus there's the little matter of increased soil runoff and erosion from farms that refuse to use herbicides.) Naturally, I haven't received any sort of response. Kurt · August 7, 2009 04:21 PM Do they believe a healthy and thriving economy is unsustainable? Yes. Closely read all global warmmongering, they always have a part about "cutting back" along with the "sustainability" part. Take the current Dem proposals to "wean us from middle east oil". The inherent result of all such schemes is to lower your standard of living. Less energy use=lowered standard of living. More energy use=increased standard of living. That's just fact. Less energy mens you aren't traveling as much or as far, you aren't "lighting a candle" so you're stuck cursing the dark, it costs more to deliver food and to prepare food, so you aren't going out to eat as much. That's their goal, everything else is just the way they're trying to sell it. The Earth was better off without us. They're trying to reduce our "footprint". Veeshir · August 7, 2009 04:29 PM And of course, they can point to the economy after they've wrecked it and then say, "See, we told you it was unsustainable!" Americans who want a thriving economy are being systematically conditioned to see themselves as "greedy." Eric Scheie · August 7, 2009 07:06 PM I remember back around 2001 or so when the Republican governor of Virginia forced through a lowering of the car registration fees, based on car value. The Dems in the legislature argued against the loss of revenue. Turns out the lower fees resulted in better revenue since people replaced their old clunkers with better cars. The Dems complained at the lost revenue from the new cars due to the lower taxes not understanding the newer cars were bought as a a result of lower registration fees. The Dems seem to be unable to understand that if you get off a man's back, he gets more work done and doesn't resent paying his fair share. JKB · August 8, 2009 11:19 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2009
July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Health Care Crisis?
• Obamageddon Is Fascism • Ignorance is bliss! But see (hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4).... • Oregon Has A Health Plan • With the government in charge, who will prevent overprevention? • missing the good old dots • A Middle Of The Night Visit From Thugs • Hilarity at Daily Kos • Manufactured Dissent • Super duper diaper lesson
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I still don't understand why the same people who hate conservatives -- because we allegedly want to take away their freedoms -- are so hot to surrender their freedom of action to the do-gooder bullies.
I don't envision a future where only coffee, beer and wine are sold. Coffee must be banned unless it's fair trade! And it's dangerous to pregnant women! Ban coffee so to prevent a pregger from ingesting second-hand caffeine! Beer and wine? Now that MADD has succeeded in lowering the blood-alcohol threshold to .08, let's push for .06! Then .03! Then .0000000003! And even a closed container of alcohol in a moving vehicle must be banned because someone might open it up and drink it! And let's not even get into how offensive said beverages are to Moslems! So, in the future, said beverages must be banned.
So what's left? Cow's milk is animal cruelty, so that will be banned. Soy milk? Soy's a potential allergent. Ban it! Orange juice? Orange trees are non-native invasive species in many locales. Chop 'em done and return the land to native scrub!
So I guess that leaves only one acceptable liquid refreshment of the future: the teardrops of white Christian children.