First of all, I want to commend the RT for printing this. It is a perfect example of freedom of speech, especially since it is total nonsense and the editors were no doubt ROFL while doing the layout.
So, let's take a look at Mr. Leonard's reasoning.
Seth says "Profit is based on quarterly reports."
Well, Seth, no. Reports only generate profit if you sell them to somebody. Otherwise, reports are just collections of information designed to inform the reader.
Let's see if we can help Seth understand what profit actually is. Profit is when you sell something for more money than it took you to make it and deliver it to the customer.
Now was that so hard?
Seth says "Nothing in society is made to last forever due to the profit motive. Why make a computer that would last 100 years? It isn't profitable."
Although planned obsolescence is certainly a feature of the consumer society, the real reason people keep buying stuff is that ... gasp ... they like new stuff better than old stuff. Oh, and I don't know of any computer design that can last for 100 years because of the nature of the components that go into it.
Hey Seth, you got ten fingers and ten toes (presumably) which you can use to count things, but they probably won't last 100 years, either. Why don't you go complain to the manufacturer. Clearly, you got the short end of the stick here. I don't think you are sustainable.
Seth says that solar panels, robots and high speed rail will serve society without further [need of] care.
Yeah, maybe in Disney movies, but not in the real world. I'm sure that Seth would point to the ancient Native American culture as a model for sustainability. But they moved from place to place because they would totally trash the area around where they lived, so they had to pick everything up and move it to another location. Also, those dang flint implements kept breaking all the time so they had to be replaced.
Hey Seth, stuff wears out and it always will. Somebody has to replace it. Somebody has to maintain it. If we're all out lounging around all day painting and writing and playing our lyres, who is going to do that? Who is going to teach somebody how to repair things or replace them.
And Seth, what about population growth? Unless you are going to tell people they can't have babies (and good luck with that one!) then we will need more and better solar panels, robots and high speed rails to make it all work.
I did a little research on Seth before tearing into him. He routinely publishes similar letters to the RT, which are so ridiculous that they are picked up by the fringe commentators on the web as comedy. Here are a couple of evaluations of his ideas that I found in some of those sites:
"I wonder how many crayons he went through in writing that letter?"
"This is your brain on weed."
"This guy is proving that socialists are really just lazy. Workers of the world, relax!"
OK, so to be fair, Seth says he is an activist with mental problems, schizo-affective disorder. Given that the symptoms of that condition are delusions and disorganized speech and thinking, I wonder why the RT even publishes his crazy letters.
Look, opinions are like as..., I mean, elbows, everybody's got one (or two). But if you want to really make a difference in the world, try the simple step of knowing what you are talking about before you speak. You know the old quote, "Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
So why am I picking on Seth? Because, although he does not represent any of the cooky formal initiatives in Blacksburg, he echoes their sentiments in many ways. We even had a whole international conference organized in the area a year or so ago where these utopians descended on the Radford campus to spout this stuff.
It needs to be corralled before it does more harm.
Posts
4 comments:
Why does the RT print Mr. Leonard's letters? Ironically, because of the profit motive. Why's that? Because some of their readers want a diversity of opinion, including some "blue sky" thinking. Unlike this forum, where it costs nothing, but time, to get some opinion and a light dose of irritation.
Oh, and by the way, we have solar panels on Mars that just celebrated their 5th anniversary. They were not put there entirely out of profit motive, but maybe they will lead to 100-year, maintenance-free solar panels on earth.
ref: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/03/mars.rovers.five.years/index.html
Blue sky thinking is fine, but this is not it.
Sorry about the light dose of irritation, I really intended it to be much more irritating than that.
Nothing will lead to 100-year solar panels on earth or anywhere else unless somebody can get paid for it.
You know, NASA doesn't build solar panels. Companies do, and they are paid handsomely for it.
I put this on the RT site after I read your posting and read Seth's letter.
I'd just like to comment on Seth Leonard's letter, and some of the utter absurdity that permeated it. Profits are based on someone manufacturing a product and selling it to a willing buyer, or by someone offering a service that a customer deems worthy of providing a monetary payment for. Profit is not some magical thing that just appears in quarterly reports. People actually work to provide something that people want, and in-turn they earn a profit for their efforts. It's a foreign concept to many it seems, but that's the way the world has run for the history of humankind. People profit nowadays with cash, whereas in the past it was gold, animal hides, livestock, or some other commodity that the buyer and seller agreed were equitable for what was exchanged.
Why is a computer not made to last 100 years? Name the last item ever made for individual use that actually lasted 100 years with regular use. I'm still waiting. Unfortunately, the speed of technological advancement is so rapid that it is completely impossible to manufacture just about anything that does not become in some way obsolete within 5 years or so. Sure, it would be nice if we could go out and buy a new computer just once in our lives...but then we'd have a really old paperweight when it turned 100 because it wouldn't have any functionality left.
Profiteering is not making something for nothing. As I noted starting out, the folks who earn profits actually manufacture a physical product, or offer a service, that a buyer is willing to pay money for. Hence, there is no something-for-nothing that is implied. Something of value is provided, and payment is rendered. And if the seller is a good business-person, they will earn a small percentage of profit on what they provided after their expenses, taxes, and other obligations are met. What happens to those magical profits? They go to capital investment back in the company, as dividends to stock-holders, bonuses for employees...but are not just somehow swallowed up by some top CEO. Sure, some CEO's get awfully huge bonuses, maybe more than they "deserve", but I'd challenge you to run a Fortune 100 company for a year and see how well it's performing at the end of your tenure. I probably wouldn;t do much better, to be honest. It's not my thing.
However, sustainability is still a noble end goal where it is viable. Housing should be constructed in sustainable/renewable ways wherever possible. Land use considerations should be made with an eye toward lesser impacts and sustaining the environment. Transportation should move away from fossil fuels to renewable/sustainable means as we develop new technologies. The problem with the sustainability movement is that there are too many people lacking in common sense who espouse utter nonsense while making their point, rather than approaching the issue with reason, intelligence, and logic in making their case. If more did, perhaps this would not be viewed as such a fringe movement of hippies and tree-huggers.
John - well said.
Post a Comment