|
|
Personally speaking, I find scensters to be somewhat of a sad existence IMHO: A scenester is someone who consciously tries to fit into a cultural scene based around a genre of music, art, film or other media. A scenester will adopt the fashion and habits of people in the scene (such as the comic book scene or the emo music scene) in an attempt to claim oneself as part of it.
The word scenester is used both as self-identification and as a derogatory statement. Someone may say, "I'm a scenester" or shorten it to "I'm scene" when identifying oneself. When used as an insult, it is usually in a snobby way suggesting, "You're a just scenester, but I'm the real thing."
The difference between a scenester and a person who is simply IN a culture is originality and sincerity. For example, a scenester in the emo music scene might think, "People who listen to emo music have shaggy black hair; therefore I should dye my hair and make it shaggy to prove that I listen to emo music." In reality, a hairstyle has nothing to do with a person's taste in music.( citation) And this unrealistic view about themselves can be seen in the existing Hipster and Kandi Kid subcultures: In a paper in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Consumer Research entitled "Demythologizing Consumption Practices: How Consumers Protect Their Field-Dependent Identity Investments from Devaluing Marketplace Myths," authors Zeynep Arsel and Craig J. Thompson delve deep into the phenomenon of hipsterism, and in particular its most abiding mystery: if everyone hates hipsters, why would anyone want to be one?
The long and short of it is that they don't.
In general, psychologists who study consumers understand that people are largely motivated to spend money not just on things that they materially need, but that bolster their sense of identity. They purchase not just goods and services, but mythologies. Imagining themselves as rugged, rebellious patriots, they buy a Harley-Davidson. Imagining themselves as respected and well-heeled, they buy a Lexus.
Hipsters, though, follow a different paradigm. Their problem is that their purchases tend to place them within a category whose mythology they despise. That's right: Nobody likes hipsters, not even hipsters.
As Arsel and Thompson put it, the beats of the '50s and hippies of the '60s and '70s, both of which had an admirable authenticity about them even if you didn't care for the particulars, eventually gave rise to "the millennial hipster," which "came to be represented as an uberconsumer of trends and as a new, and rather gullible, target market that consumes cool rather than creating it." As examples of the dorkification they cite online parodies of the iconic Mac v. PC ads and this viral YouTube video.( citation) Still not sure what the hipsters are? Just watch Scott Pilgrim VS the World/ Matrix.(how's that for being "viral")
Yeah I know what some of you might be thinking what a hypocrite that I am, judging by my CR profile picture. However, there's a fundamental difference between myself and a scenester: I happen to sympathize with the fictional character known as the Incredible Hulk, because I can relate with the reason and cause of why he's so angry about; the malicious parts of a greater society that refuse to leave him alone. And I personally identify them as whatever that the profit-driven capitalists would keep their consumers as: narcissistic and self-centered egotists, or what I would consider as an youthful and inexperienced version of themselves.
Finally I think the counterargument from those who champion how capitalism will lead to individual human flourishing is a false one: Capitalism and money do not lead to materialism or consumerism
There is no force operating in the free market that requires the intense pursuit of material possessions, unless this is our preference. As usual, critics of free-market capitalism who fear that it will lead to "materialism" and "consumerism" underestimate the ability of individuals to rationally make decisions for their own happiness.
Many rational individuals have followed the dictum of the great English dramatist Christopher Marlow, who wrote, "Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position."
Indeed, this is true in a stronger sense than he intended. For if we rationally pursue our happiness, and if we respect our desire for both material and nonmaterial goods and our preferences between them, then having an abundance of money and other material goods will give us greater freedom and greater inclination to pursue nonmaterial goods.
Thus, as we satisfy our desires for material comforts we naturally put greater effort towards the pursuit of other goals, be they knowledge, family, friendships, or love. Free-market capitalism and the abundance of wealth that it produces therefore lead us to both material abundance and nonmaterial satisfaction.( citation) There's a sociological contradiction within that assumption, of how humans as social animals would attach materials with cultural meanings and values, through the social process known as symbolic interaction. And it's precisely through this built-in social "force" that capitalists can mold their consumers into becoming more materialistic, otherwise the social manipulations of both advertisement and marketing scheme wouldn't had worked at all. This is further proven both sociologically and neurologically how individuals construct their own psychological identity, through the socialization of "the looking glass self", the discovery of the connectome, as well as the mirror neurons within the human brain. |
|
|
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
Personally speaking, I find scensters to be somewhat of a sad existence IMHO: A scenester is someone who consciously tries to fit into a cultural scene based around a genre of music, art, film or other media. A scenester will adopt the fashion and habits of people in the scene (such as the comic book scene or the emo music scene) in an attempt to claim oneself as part of it.
The word scenester is used both as self-identification and as a derogatory statement. Someone may say, "I'm a scenester" or shorten it to "I'm scene" when identifying oneself. When used as an insult, it is usually in a snobby way suggesting, "You're a just scenester, but I'm the real thing."
The difference between a scenester and a person who is simply IN a culture is originality and sincerity. For example, a scenester in the emo music scene might think, "People who listen to emo music have shaggy black hair; therefore I should dye my hair and make it shaggy to prove that I listen to emo music." In reality, a hairstyle has nothing to do with a person's taste in music.( citation) And this unrealistic view about themselves can be seen in the existing Hipster and Kandi Kid subcultures: In a paper in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Consumer Research entitled "Demythologizing Consumption Practices: How Consumers Protect Their Field-Dependent Identity Investments from Devaluing Marketplace Myths," authors Zeynep Arsel and Craig J. Thompson delve deep into the phenomenon of hipsterism, and in particular its most abiding mystery: if everyone hates hipsters, why would anyone want to be one?
The long and short of it is that they don't.
In general, psychologists who study consumers understand that people are largely motivated to spend money not just on things that they materially need, but that bolster their sense of identity. They purchase not just goods and services, but mythologies. Imagining themselves as rugged, rebellious patriots, they buy a Harley-Davidson. Imagining themselves as respected and well-heeled, they buy a Lexus.
Hipsters, though, follow a different paradigm. Their problem is that their purchases tend to place them within a category whose mythology they despise. That's right: Nobody likes hipsters, not even hipsters.
As Arsel and Thompson put it, the beats of the '50s and hippies of the '60s and '70s, both of which had an admirable authenticity about them even if you didn't care for the particulars, eventually gave rise to "the millennial hipster," which "came to be represented as an uberconsumer of trends and as a new, and rather gullible, target market that consumes cool rather than creating it." As examples of the dorkification they cite online parodies of the iconic Mac v. PC ads and this viral YouTube video.( citation) Still not sure what the hipsters are? Just watch Scott Pilgrim VS the World/ Matrix.(how's that for being "viral")
Yeah I know what some of you might be thinking what a hypocrite that I am, judging by my CR profile picture. However, there's a fundamental difference between myself and a scenester: I happen to sympathize with the fictional character known as the Incredible Hulk, because I can relate with the reason and cause of why he's so angry about; the malicious parts of a greater society that refuse to leave him alone. And I personally identify them as whatever that the profit-driven capitalists would keep their consumers as: narcissistic and self-centered egotists, or what I would consider as an youthful and inexperienced version of themselves.
Finally I think the counterargument from those who champion how capitalism will lead to individual human flourishing is a false one: Capitalism and money do not lead to materialism or consumerism
There is no force operating in the free market that requires the intense pursuit of material possessions, unless this is our preference. As usual, critics of free-market capitalism who fear that it will lead to "materialism" and "consumerism" underestimate the ability of individuals to rationally make decisions for their own happiness.
Many rational individuals have followed the dictum of the great English dramatist Christopher Marlow, who wrote, "Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position."
Indeed, this is true in a stronger sense than he intended. For if we rationally pursue our happiness, and if we respect our desire for both material and nonmaterial goods and our preferences between them, then having an abundance of money and other material goods will give us greater freedom and greater inclination to pursue nonmaterial goods.
Thus, as we satisfy our desires for material comforts we naturally put greater effort towards the pursuit of other goals, be they knowledge, family, friendships, or love. Free-market capitalism and the abundance of wealth that it produces therefore lead us to both material abundance and nonmaterial satisfaction.( citation) There's a sociological contradiction within that assumption, of how humans as social animals would attach materials with cultural meanings and values, through the social process known as symbolic interaction. And it's precisely through this built-in social "force" that capitalists can mold their consumers into becoming more materialistic, otherwise the social manipulations of both advertisement and marketing scheme wouldn't had worked at all. This is further proven both sociologically and neurologically how individuals construct their own psychological identity, through the socialization of "the looking glass self", the discovery of the connectome, as well as the mirror neurons within the human brain.
I especially hate people long past their prime trying to be "with it" and they are clearly pushing 50-60 years of age, and are male.
This man in particular (40+ years of age)...
...SICKENS ME!
|
32064 cr points
Send Message:   21 / M / endrealm
 Offline
|
I hate hipsters. A lot. However, that being said, I find it hard to dislike them as individuals. After all, the hipster movement is one in which lonely unsure people attempt to be accepted, and I just can't get past it. Sure hipsters are hopeless narcissistic losers, but I sympathize with them because of it.
I feel that in the end it's best just to let them go off and be idiots if they want to, someday they'll realize they're losers, and if they don't, well then they'll just lead their lives believing themselves superior to everyone around them, which really is fine so long as they keep it between themselves and other hipsters.
|
|
|
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Northerner wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
Personally speaking, I find scensters to be somewhat of a sad existence IMHO: A scenester is someone who consciously tries to fit into a cultural scene based around a genre of music, art, film or other media. A scenester will adopt the fashion and habits of people in the scene (such as the comic book scene or the emo music scene) in an attempt to claim oneself as part of it.
The word scenester is used both as self-identification and as a derogatory statement. Someone may say, "I'm a scenester" or shorten it to "I'm scene" when identifying oneself. When used as an insult, it is usually in a snobby way suggesting, "You're a just scenester, but I'm the real thing."
The difference between a scenester and a person who is simply IN a culture is originality and sincerity. For example, a scenester in the emo music scene might think, "People who listen to emo music have shaggy black hair; therefore I should dye my hair and make it shaggy to prove that I listen to emo music." In reality, a hairstyle has nothing to do with a person's taste in music.( citation) And this unrealistic view about themselves can be seen in the existing Hipster and Kandi Kid subcultures: In a paper in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Consumer Research entitled "Demythologizing Consumption Practices: How Consumers Protect Their Field-Dependent Identity Investments from Devaluing Marketplace Myths," authors Zeynep Arsel and Craig J. Thompson delve deep into the phenomenon of hipsterism, and in particular its most abiding mystery: if everyone hates hipsters, why would anyone want to be one?
The long and short of it is that they don't.
In general, psychologists who study consumers understand that people are largely motivated to spend money not just on things that they materially need, but that bolster their sense of identity. They purchase not just goods and services, but mythologies. Imagining themselves as rugged, rebellious patriots, they buy a Harley-Davidson. Imagining themselves as respected and well-heeled, they buy a Lexus.
Hipsters, though, follow a different paradigm. Their problem is that their purchases tend to place them within a category whose mythology they despise. That's right: Nobody likes hipsters, not even hipsters.
As Arsel and Thompson put it, the beats of the '50s and hippies of the '60s and '70s, both of which had an admirable authenticity about them even if you didn't care for the particulars, eventually gave rise to "the millennial hipster," which "came to be represented as an uberconsumer of trends and as a new, and rather gullible, target market that consumes cool rather than creating it." As examples of the dorkification they cite online parodies of the iconic Mac v. PC ads and this viral YouTube video.( citation) Still not sure what the hipsters are? Just watch Scott Pilgrim VS the World/ Matrix.(how's that for being "viral")
Yeah I know what some of you might be thinking what a hypocrite that I am, judging by my CR profile picture. However, there's a fundamental difference between myself and a scenester: I happen to sympathize with the fictional character known as the Incredible Hulk, because I can relate with the reason and cause of why he's so angry about; the malicious parts of a greater society that refuse to leave him alone. And I personally identify them as whatever that the profit-driven capitalists would keep their consumers as: narcissistic and self-centered egotists, or what I would consider as an youthful and inexperienced version of themselves.
Finally I think the counterargument from those who champion how capitalism will lead to individual human flourishing is a false one: Capitalism and money do not lead to materialism or consumerism
There is no force operating in the free market that requires the intense pursuit of material possessions, unless this is our preference. As usual, critics of free-market capitalism who fear that it will lead to "materialism" and "consumerism" underestimate the ability of individuals to rationally make decisions for their own happiness.
Many rational individuals have followed the dictum of the great English dramatist Christopher Marlow, who wrote, "Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position."
Indeed, this is true in a stronger sense than he intended. For if we rationally pursue our happiness, and if we respect our desire for both material and nonmaterial goods and our preferences between them, then having an abundance of money and other material goods will give us greater freedom and greater inclination to pursue nonmaterial goods.
Thus, as we satisfy our desires for material comforts we naturally put greater effort towards the pursuit of other goals, be they knowledge, family, friendships, or love. Free-market capitalism and the abundance of wealth that it produces therefore lead us to both material abundance and nonmaterial satisfaction.( citation) There's a sociological contradiction within that assumption, of how humans as social animals would attach materials with cultural meanings and values, through the social process known as symbolic interaction. And it's precisely through this built-in social "force" that capitalists can mold their consumers into becoming more materialistic, otherwise the social manipulations of both advertisement and marketing scheme wouldn't had worked at all. This is further proven both sociologically and neurologically how individuals construct their own psychological identity, through the socialization of "the looking glass self", the discovery of the connectome, as well as the mirror neurons within the human brain.
I especially hate people long past their prime trying to be "with it" and they are clearly pushing 50-60 years of age, and are male.
This man in particular (40+ years of age)...
...SICKENS ME!
I doubt that's even his real hair.
His hair line must be pushing all the way to the back.
|
|
|
Northerner wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
Personally speaking, I find scensters to be somewhat of a sad existence IMHO: A scenester is someone who consciously tries to fit into a cultural scene based around a genre of music, art, film or other media. A scenester will adopt the fashion and habits of people in the scene (such as the comic book scene or the emo music scene) in an attempt to claim oneself as part of it.
The word scenester is used both as self-identification and as a derogatory statement. Someone may say, "I'm a scenester" or shorten it to "I'm scene" when identifying oneself. When used as an insult, it is usually in a snobby way suggesting, "You're a just scenester, but I'm the real thing."
The difference between a scenester and a person who is simply IN a culture is originality and sincerity. For example, a scenester in the emo music scene might think, "People who listen to emo music have shaggy black hair; therefore I should dye my hair and make it shaggy to prove that I listen to emo music." In reality, a hairstyle has nothing to do with a person's taste in music.( citation) And this unrealistic view about themselves can be seen in the existing Hipster and Kandi Kid subcultures: In a paper in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Consumer Research entitled "Demythologizing Consumption Practices: How Consumers Protect Their Field-Dependent Identity Investments from Devaluing Marketplace Myths," authors Zeynep Arsel and Craig J. Thompson delve deep into the phenomenon of hipsterism, and in particular its most abiding mystery: if everyone hates hipsters, why would anyone want to be one?
The long and short of it is that they don't.
In general, psychologists who study consumers understand that people are largely motivated to spend money not just on things that they materially need, but that bolster their sense of identity. They purchase not just goods and services, but mythologies. Imagining themselves as rugged, rebellious patriots, they buy a Harley-Davidson. Imagining themselves as respected and well-heeled, they buy a Lexus.
Hipsters, though, follow a different paradigm. Their problem is that their purchases tend to place them within a category whose mythology they despise. That's right: Nobody likes hipsters, not even hipsters.
As Arsel and Thompson put it, the beats of the '50s and hippies of the '60s and '70s, both of which had an admirable authenticity about them even if you didn't care for the particulars, eventually gave rise to "the millennial hipster," which "came to be represented as an uberconsumer of trends and as a new, and rather gullible, target market that consumes cool rather than creating it." As examples of the dorkification they cite online parodies of the iconic Mac v. PC ads and this viral YouTube video.( citation) Still not sure what the hipsters are? Just watch Scott Pilgrim VS the World/ Matrix.(how's that for being "viral")
Yeah I know what some of you might be thinking what a hypocrite that I am, judging by my CR profile picture. However, there's a fundamental difference between myself and a scenester: I happen to sympathize with the fictional character known as the Incredible Hulk, because I can relate with the reason and cause of why he's so angry about; the malicious parts of a greater society that refuse to leave him alone. And I personally identify them as whatever that the profit-driven capitalists would keep their consumers as: narcissistic and self-centered egotists, or what I would consider as an youthful and inexperienced version of themselves.
Finally I think the counterargument from those who champion how capitalism will lead to individual human flourishing is a false one: Capitalism and money do not lead to materialism or consumerism
There is no force operating in the free market that requires the intense pursuit of material possessions, unless this is our preference. As usual, critics of free-market capitalism who fear that it will lead to "materialism" and "consumerism" underestimate the ability of individuals to rationally make decisions for their own happiness.
Many rational individuals have followed the dictum of the great English dramatist Christopher Marlow, who wrote, "Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position."
Indeed, this is true in a stronger sense than he intended. For if we rationally pursue our happiness, and if we respect our desire for both material and nonmaterial goods and our preferences between them, then having an abundance of money and other material goods will give us greater freedom and greater inclination to pursue nonmaterial goods.
Thus, as we satisfy our desires for material comforts we naturally put greater effort towards the pursuit of other goals, be they knowledge, family, friendships, or love. Free-market capitalism and the abundance of wealth that it produces therefore lead us to both material abundance and nonmaterial satisfaction.( citation) There's a sociological contradiction within that assumption, of how humans as social animals would attach materials with cultural meanings and values, through the social process known as symbolic interaction. And it's precisely through this built-in social "force" that capitalists can mold their consumers into becoming more materialistic, otherwise the social manipulations of both advertisement and marketing scheme wouldn't had worked at all. This is further proven both sociologically and neurologically how individuals construct their own psychological identity, through the socialization of "the looking glass self", the discovery of the connectome, as well as the mirror neurons within the human brain.
I especially hate people long past their prime trying to be "with it" and they are clearly pushing 50-60 years of age, and are male.
This man in particular (40+ years of age)...
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
...SICKENS ME! The thing is, the whole hipster/kandi kid/scenster cultural identity can be summarized into individuals who couldn't stand being themselves not because they don't know who they are. But rather it's the fact that for the longest time they've let others redefining them for too long, they have no expectation for themselves at all. They don't value their own individual self-worth because there's nothing within themselves that's objectively of values.
facestealer wrote:
I hate hipsters. A lot. However, that being said, I find it hard to dislike them as individuals. After all, the hipster movement is one in which lonely unsure people attempt to be accepted, and I just can't get past it. Sure hipsters are hopeless narcissistic losers, but I sympathize with them because of it.
I feel that in the end it's best just to let them go off and be idiots if they want to, someday they'll realize they're losers, and if they don't, well then they'll just lead their lives believing themselves superior to everyone around them, which really is fine so long as they keep it between themselves and other hipsters. But worst than being mere sheep, they'll be living in a delusion based solely on consumerism culture. And no just any culture, this one that they're following is of no consequences in one's action, nothing that they say or do would matters because it won't change how others would see themselves as. It's by comparison just as bad as the unrealistic moral hierarchy known as the religious dualism, if not worst: Shortcomings of Dualism
Although Dualism is an improvement over gross Materialism, it still constitutes an extremely naive and simplistic explanation of things, for it reduces all the manifold aspects and dimensions of consciousness to only two principles, spirit and matter. Moreover, there is the dangerous tendency to believe in an external totalitarian Deity, as in the case of the fundamentalist religionists who believe in God (or God and the Devil), the world, the soul, and nothing else. And many of those even deny that the soul can exist apart from the body; hence there dependence on the myth of bodily resurrection; a truely materialistic scenario if ever there was one!).( citation) Somehow this rings similarity with organized religious teaching.
|
3068 cr points
Send Message: 72 / M
Offline
|
For the record, I would sleep with any hot female scene/kandikid/emo. I heard they're amazing in bed.
I would like to bring a quote from House:
"Nonconformity - right. I can't remember the last time saw a twenty-something kid with a tattoo of an Asian letter on his wrist. You are one wicked free thinker! You want to be a rebel? Stop being cool. Wear a pocket protector like he does, and get a hair cut like the Asian kids that don't leave the library for twenty hour stretches. They're the ones who don't care what you think. " |
|
|
makix wrote:
For the record, I would sleep with any hot female scene/kandikid/emo. I heard they're amazing in bed.
I would like to bring a quote from House:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide It sure comes down to conformity, or whatever that's deemed as the social norms within our own cultures. However, that's precisely how the various corporations had managed to mold humanity into noncritical consumers, through the implementation of "the nag factor": The marriage of psychology and marketing
To effectively market to children, advertisers need to know what makes kids tick. With the help of well-paid researchers and psychologists, advertisers now have access to in-depth knowledge about children's developmental, emotional and social needs at different ages. Using research that analyzes children's behavior, fantasy lives, art work, even their dreams, companies are able to craft sophisticated marketing strategies to reach young people.
The issue of using child psychologists to help marketers target kids gained widespread public attention in 1999, when a group of U.S. mental health professionals issued a public letter to the American Psychological Association (APA) urging them to declare the practice unethical. The APA is currently studying the issue.( citation)
|
3068 cr points
Send Message: 72 / M
Offline
|
DomFortress wrote:
makix wrote:
For the record, I would sleep with any hot female scene/kandikid/emo. I heard they're amazing in bed.
I would like to bring a quote from House:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide It sure comes down to conformity, or whatever that's deemed as the social norms within our own cultures. However, that's precisely how the various corporations had managed to mold humanity into noncritical consumers, through the implementation of "the nag factor": The marriage of psychology and marketing
To effectively market to children, advertisers need to know what makes kids tick. With the help of well-paid researchers and psychologists, advertisers now have access to in-depth knowledge about children's developmental, emotional and social needs at different ages. Using research that analyzes children's behavior, fantasy lives, art work, even their dreams, companies are able to craft sophisticated marketing strategies to reach young people.
The issue of using child psychologists to help marketers target kids gained widespread public attention in 1999, when a group of U.S. mental health professionals issued a public letter to the American Psychological Association (APA) urging them to declare the practice unethical. The APA is currently studying the issue.( citation)
Starbucks and Apple Co. customers who refuse to consume anything that is not "organic".
*sigh*
These people make me want to rip their eyes out.
|
|
Forum Moderator
42764 cr points
Send Message: 20 / F / District of Columbia
Offline
|
Whatever people decide to do with themselves and their lives in general is none of my concern, really. Let them be. Sure it's annoying, but is it really harming anyone?
Is the world ending?
|
|
|
makix wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
makix wrote:
For the record, I would sleep with any hot female scene/kandikid/emo. I heard they're amazing in bed.
I would like to bring a quote from House:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide It sure comes down to conformity, or whatever that's deemed as the social norms within our own cultures. However, that's precisely how the various corporations had managed to mold humanity into noncritical consumers, through the implementation of "the nag factor": The marriage of psychology and marketing
To effectively market to children, advertisers need to know what makes kids tick. With the help of well-paid researchers and psychologists, advertisers now have access to in-depth knowledge about children's developmental, emotional and social needs at different ages. Using research that analyzes children's behavior, fantasy lives, art work, even their dreams, companies are able to craft sophisticated marketing strategies to reach young people.
The issue of using child psychologists to help marketers target kids gained widespread public attention in 1999, when a group of U.S. mental health professionals issued a public letter to the American Psychological Association (APA) urging them to declare the practice unethical. The APA is currently studying the issue.( citation)
Starbucks and Apple Co. customers who refuse to consume anything that is not "organic".
*sigh*
These people make me want to rip their eyes out. I know. Such unrealistic expectation just makes me wanna give them free skydiving lesson, minus the gear and refund policy. Why? Cause it's free!
LosingOrbit wrote:
Whatever people decide to do with themselves and their lives in general is none of my concern, really. Let them be. Sure it's annoying, but is it really harming anyone?
Is the world ending? However, that's no longer the issue here. When media advertisements designed specifically to manipulate and mold human children into consumers with no individuality, you have no competent and consensual adults with autonomy. In other words, their world ended as soon as the corporations told them what to buy that would make them happy, and they believed it.
|
3068 cr points
Send Message: 72 / M
Offline
|
LosingOrbit wrote:
Whatever people decide to do with themselves and their lives in general is none of my concern, really. Let them be. Sure it's annoying, but is it really harming anyone?
Is the world ending?
Yes, some of these people are harming other people - whether directly or indirectly.
The green "organic" movement is. With the high demand for organic food, farmers are creating less and less food for an overgrowing population. Since technology and specific farming techniques are shunned by the average green movement hippie, there will not enough food to feed the world. Since organic farmers must maintain a certain practice in raising their crops, they often produce significantly less with such restricted practices. People will say that the conventional farmer will use pesticides while the organic farmer chooses not to; this is not true. Numerous organic farmers use pesticides - it's a practice in loopholes. Organic farmers tend to use "Organic pesticides" which for some reason, people think it is healthier (Or simply refuse to accept the fact that nearly all farmers must use pesticides to yield a profitable season). Conventional farmers use synthetic pesticides instead. However, it's completely ridiculous to label one kind of poison as safer than the other. I would trust the poison "that admits it is a poison" over a poison that claims it is "healthier".
"Okay, but at least you're getting a bigger bang for your buck when purchasing organic food."
No - organic food contains just as much nutrition as the conventionally farmed food. The only difference is that organic farmers yield less crops than the conventional farmers while charging more for less food. If anything, organic food cost more per pound.
|
