A few years ago, I was sitting in my suburban apartment complex alone, while my then-partner was at work, enjoying a couple beers mid-afternoon, when I heard a knock at the door. I opened it to find two young guys, around 20 or 21, standing at the door holding clipboards. They went into their sales pitch about magazines and a contest between the guys and gals in the group for who could sell the most subscriptions and win some kind of trip that probably didn't exist, and, uninterested in overpriced magazines and happily buzzed, I told them no and invited them in for a beer, instead. They looked back and forth down the hallway looking for their fellow magazine-peddlers, found none, and quickly accepted the invitation. We sat around in my living room for a half hour or so, bullshitting about boyfriends and girlfriends and the strictness of their job and how often they had to travel, their quotas, etc. I announced that we were out of beer, and invited them to walk across the street to the liquor store with me. They happily obliged, but once we were near the complex garages, they saw their employer's van and had to duck out of sight, ultimately deciding that they'd better just go back to work, as they'd be in big trouble for hanging out in some random girl's apartment drinking beers (while one of them was not legally allowed to be doing such things for another year).
I share this fun little tidbit as an example of the positive things that can occur when you do a job that requires you to talk to scores of people about something you want from them. After those guys left my apartment, other magazine peddlers came knocking on the door in the following months, and were much less friendly and much more inclined to pressure me and use some manipulative tactic to try and sell me their overpriced garbage. I did not buy their magazines, and I did not invite them in for beer. I scowled and made them leave.
I also ignore phone calls from Planned Parenthood, various Democratic campaigns, and other places to whom I've donated in the past and who want more money from me. I ignore these calls not necessarily because I don't have the money to give them (although this is often the case), or because I don't want to continue supporting them, but because I would personally rather do such things on my own time, and on my own terms. I'm sensitive to feeling pressured by people, and I never, ever appreciate another person's attempt to manipulate me -- or anyone else -- for their own financial gain. I also admittedly have a difficult time keeping separate the individual employees of said organizations from the deceptive tactics implemented by their employer. And this is why I feel so conflicted about my current job.
I was recently hired on for training with a non-profit organization who lobbies for various environmental issues. My job, specifically, was to call people who've donated in the past to ask them to donate again to help our current campaign. Now, I don't mean to equate magazine-peddlers with canvassers who fight for stricter environmental regulations and other worthy causes. They're not the same. One works for a company's profit, one works for legislative efforts for under-funded projects, fighting against big business interests and in favor of the preservation of our drinking water. The problem is that they use the same tactics to get donations as the magazine-peddlers use to get subscriptions. And those tactics are manipulative, deceptive, and rely on vague, empty rhetoric to get their point across. Vague, empty rhetoric that insults the intelligence of everyone on whom they use it. "The fight for our future is now!" is a phrase that would make me laugh in the face of anyone who said it to me unironically. Using it over the phone makes me feel like an emotional manipulator, an asshole, an idiot, and a complete dork.
But anyway. Non-profits such as the one I worked for rely heavily on donations from members and new memberships, and the only way to get those donations is to ask for them, because while many people (like myself) spontaneously give money to organizations or campaigns when we can, they can't rely on something so inconsistent by itself. And someone has to ask for them. It's an important job, and a very difficult one. Many people don't appreciate being called and asked for money, though... under any circumstance. I'm one of them... hence my internal conflict.
I'm not doing so well there, and I'm not sure that I'm really going to last much longer. I'm deeply uncomfortable pressuring people about their money, and while I'm quite aware of how important it is that this work be done, I'm not sure I feel badly about not feeling comfortable pressuring people in this manner. While it may be necessary to some degree or another, I just... don't like doing it.
So, I quit.
I didn't talk to more than a handful of people who weren't openly irritated about my calling them. I'd get a similar reaction from bank customers back at Wells Fargo when I would go into a required sales pitch over the phone, just trying to get them to give a verbal affirmative that they would at least consider whatever I was trying to sell.
Seeing as how uncomfortable this particular approach makes the majority of people its presented to, even if they eventually buy the product or donate money, are there any reasonable alternatives that would produce similar (if not better) results, while eliminating the practice of transparent psychological manipulation and appeal to the lowest common denominator? I have yet to come across anything else.
Due in no small part to ethecofem's very own (albeit currently MIA, although I'm working on that) kissiegrrrl, I've been made aware of the fabulous resource that is The Story of Stuff, and their YouTube educational series about what we consume, where it comes from, where it goes, and what it all means in the context of humanity and our continued existence. Another YouTube user, who so arrogantly names himself HowTheWorldWorks, put up a series of critiques of the HowStuffWorks content. Being the lover of critical thinking that I am, and appreciating intelligently-articulated views that may oppose my own, I enthusiastically watched the video in it's entirety, twice. Unfortunately, I learned nothing, other than the ways in which HowTheWorldWorks is just... wrong.
1. Why shouldn't 9-year-olds think that Legos (made from plastic, which is made from oil) are destroying the earth? Legos (which are plastic, and made from oil, an unsustainable natural resource), as well as other unrecycled plastic products, ARE destroying the earth. And where's your citation?
2. It's pretty awesome that microchips are getting smaller and smaller. It's pretty great that we can store more and more information on smaller and smaller devices. This, however, doesn't matter at all, considering the fact that the planet, and the people on it, aren't, you know, microchips.
3. The earth is compacted with tons of resources that we don't know how to use yet? Oh? Sure, this may be very true, and I am willing to believe your statement. But this still doesn't actually matter. Because the earth does not have endless resources. So we can run out of oil, some scientists can figure out how to use other resources to sustain our lifestyles, and then we panic about what will happen when THOSE resources near their end. What happens when we are out of THOSE resources? Or are you just crossing your fingers and hoping we end up like the folks in Firefly, and find a bunch of other "earths" to terraform? Good luck. Better get on that.
4. The economic theories on which you are basing your arguments about scarcity of resources, demand for the resources, and hoped-for resolution of buying less of those products coming from the scarce resources leading to the, again, hoped-for innovation in the hoped-for usage of new resources to continue to sustain our current Western lifestyle is STILL unsustainable. Still. Go back to your Econ 101 class and keep praying.
5. Ignoring the fact that you are practically worshipping James Madison as though he were a god amongst men (I just barfed a little in my mouth when I used "men" as a substitute for "people," but I thought that would be a language you could read) and treating the Constitution in the same way that fundamentalist Christians treat the Bible, let's talk about this whole "promoting general welfare" thing. I know the word "welfare" probably scares you and makes you think of black people scamming crackers or something, but in what way do you believe that ensuring that corporate powers and big business interests don't harm our health and general well-being for their own monetary profit is somehow NOT promoting the general welfare of the people of the United States? Or were you under the impression that corporate interests and their monetary profits are more worthy of protection than the health and general well-being than individual citizens of the planet? I certainly don't trust corporations to care about my welfare. I mean, I know corporations are considered people under US law, but I really didn't know people took that literally. Congratulations, you've made me more cynical than I was before. That's an accomplishment.
5.2. And for fuck's sake, my dad's name is Russell, not James. Stop referring to him as my father, or the father of the Constitution. Did his sperm really join an egg (and if so, whose egg? I never hear about the Constitution's mom-- or was this a reverse-immaculate-conception thing?) that contributed to the actual birth of a large piece of paper with some ink on it?
6. Did you really say that corporations are providing the things we need to survive? I mean, sure, some corporations are doing that, for their own monetary profit, but I'm also pretty sure that, for thousands of years, we got by without corporations taking control of our "necessities." But really? I need Apple products to SURVIVE? I can't live without my Converse sneakers? I will die without my Sony television? The checking accounts I own at a national bank are absolutely necessary to my survival? Is your dad Rupert Murdoch? Oh, sorry, I forgot; you pledge your allegiance to James Madison. My bad.
7. Try as I might, I can't seem to find the part where you explain how wind and solar energy are "nonsense." Care to elaborate on your claim that they are nonsense? Because I just can't for the life of me figure out how in the world these innovations-- undeniably sustainable innovations-- could be the slightest bit problematic. I must have just missed it, though. I mean, you so ardently criticize the narrator here for her apparent omission of truth and unsubstantiated claims and statistics, that I just can't imagine that you would fail to back up your own claims properly. Please, oh wise one, tell me just exactly how solar and windpower are nonsense.
8. I get the impression that you're critical of her claim that we're trashing the planet. Did you think that landfills are not comprised of trash? Which dictionary do you use? I guess I have the wrong one. Maybe that floating garbage island in the Pacific is really... art? Unclaimed landmass, waiting for new inhabitants? What?
9. Mining has been going on since the Roman empire. That makes it sustainable and not the slightest bit problematic. Persecution of homosexuals has also been going on since the Roman empire. I guess I should rethink the whole gay rights thing, too. That must be okay, since it's been going on for a long time. Same with the whole persecution of Christians and burning of witches. Got it.
10. Factory farming of animals for the US's ever-increasing meat consumption is contributing to greenhouse gasses. Oh, right, the air we breathe and our climate will stop being toxified once we... stop... buying... toxification? Because of the whole economic theory you cite. Right. When will that happen, again? I see a lot of big, important, self-described "conservative" white guys hollering about why we shouldn't stop, because it might decrease the numbers in the poor little CEOs bank accounts, the practice of which seems like it may possibly be hurting the people's continuous efforts to start using other, more sustainable methods of living (as you suggest we'll somehow seamlessly and automatically succeed at accomplishing), but maybe that's a part of your precious little theory that you thought you didn't need to share with us. How does corporate greed factor in? I'm sure you have the answer; maybe you just forgot to put it in your enlightening little video response?
11. Please take a geology class.
12. Our current generation's life expectancy has nothing to do with the planets inability to sustain human life and exponential population growth as it is in our current reality. The increase in life expectancy for western civilizations (so long as you're wealthy, white, and have access to healthy food and affordable health care), relative to what it was a hundred or more years ago, is due to advances in medical science, which is due, in large part, to antibiotics and other medications, the rampant usage of which has been directly linked to decreasing the quality of our water supply via endocrine disruptors and neurological and respiratory toxins, which cause innumerable health problems such as obesity and hormonal imbalances, which contribute to infertility in both males and females, and painful, debilitating conditions such as endometriosis, among scores of other things. All of which are predicted to ensure that our children will have a lower life expectancy than that which we currently enjoy.
12. Your critique of her ability to read her own data still doesn't mean that your analysis of her data means anything worth saying out loud, because it's all bullshit which relies on maintaining and defending the support of corporate greed and control.
13. "...[T]hat would be the equivalent of saying that every time we harvest corn, that farmland is gone forever." Oh. So since soil loses fertility over time, which takes a thousand years to regenerate organically, were you trying to tell us to wait a thousand years to keep feeding humanity, or were you advocating shortening our lifespans by continuing to introduce foreign, cancer-causing, endocrine-disrupting chemicals into our food and water supplies? A minute ago you used the whole longer-life-expectancy thing to prove some other nonsense point...
14. The fact that some water was undrinkable 200 years ago still fails to take into account the fact that less water is drinkable than what was drinkable 200 years ago. And that the reason that less water is drinkable today than it was 200 years ago is directly due to endocrine disruptors and other pollutants caused by the manufacturing of the mass consumption of, that's right, STUFF.
15. Using a horn sound effect and a bold, red font for the word "Marxism" doesn't disprove any particular point she has, nor does it help your argument any. Indoctrination, much? Socializzzmomgzz is scarrrrrryyyy!!! Take a gorram history class.
16. You attempted to counter the fact that the US uses more resources than anyone on the planet by commenting on how the US uses those resources. Fail. Respond to the statement in question, or shut the hell up. Welcome to the world of hypocrisy and political spin. I nominate you for mayor of said world.
17. You keep failing to explain how your critique of the exponential growth function fails to account for the fact that, regardless of the resources available on the planet, they're still finite, and therefore unsustainable. No matter how many uses for new resources we can find-- if we're able to combat the rampant corporate greed that is currently stifling all efforts to create sustainable energy sources and ways of living, as you keep saying will "just happen," even though you simultaneously claim that we don't have to do anything about it-- the earth's resources are still finite, and therefore unsustainable!
18. Why do you keep acting as though resources becoming scarce is no big deal? What part of "finite" do you not understand?
19. I think you heard the word "strawman" somewhere, and, as a result of not having a valid counterpoint, you just thought you'd throw it out there for Glenn Beck & Co's approval. Because the labor that they "trade" us for their resources is... um, mean. Are you really arguing that paying pennies a day to people working in inhumane, unhealthy, and arguably immoral conditions is in some way desirable? Maybe we aren't talking about the same earth. Perhaps you live on a different planet, one that doesn't value human life, so long as the humans in question aren't in your immediate circle of wealthy, American white dudes. How would you like to earn a few dollars a month for all that labor that allows others to apparently guiltlessly consume iPods, clothing, and other consumer goods that you manufacture, but can't even realistically expect to afford to purchase in your lifetime? Good thing for you that you happened to be born and raised in the United States, or another Western or "first world" nation. Or were you under the impression that people in third world countries like their conditions, and if they didn't, there's a free plane ride to a new life in the ever-welcoming US? Hahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Aww. You're cute.
20. "What is an 'original forest'? Are we starting in Pangaea?" Okay. That was funny. But only when taken entirely out of context.
21. You said that the reason why trees in the Amazon aren't being replanted isn't surprising is because no one owns the Amazon. So-- god, I'm almost spitting up my beer, this is too funny-- if no one owns it, how is it that anyone gets the rights to use the Amazon's resources? You seem to believe that, if no one owns nature, we (who, exactly?) can destroy it at will, but that we need someone to "own" it in order to keep it alive and sustain it. As if this lack of private ownership of nature is a problem. Is this a real belief, the one where you think that private ownership of pieces of our planet is actually beneficial to humanity's existence? Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha.
22. What in the bloody hell do you consider "significantly improved"? Relative to what? Jesus H. Hell on a bloody popsicle stick, what do you mean?!
Apparently, the turdburgler has several more "parts" to his "critique." I may tackle those later, when I have the time and patience to watch them. Stay tuned.
The Hasidic community in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn requested that the city get rid of the bike lanes in the area, because they attracted too many scantily-clad hipsters riding through their city, causing the Hasids to stare at them, which is against their religious laws (no staring at members of the opposite sex).
Two cycling advocates were apprehended by the Shomrim Patrol, a Hasidic neighborhood watch group, as they repainted a section of bike lane at 3:30 a.m. yesterday, but when cops arrived, no one was arrested and no summonses were issued, police said.
In what will probably be the first nice thing I have to say about hipsters, I say: Right on. The freedom we have in the US to freely practice our religions if we so desire should not be allowed to impede with other, non-practicing citizens' right to ride their fucking bike down the street in the neighborhood in which they live. If religious people don't want to stare at bare flesh? Then they should stop staring at bare flesh.
I can understand the frustration at having a bunch of self-important, culturally appropriating hipster *@&%)@s take over your neighborhood, and I sympathize wholly. But ultimately, it's 100% legal to ride a bicycle on the street. In fact, in most US cities, is it against the law to ride your bike anywhere but the street. Removing the bike lanes does not change that law; it creates safety concerns for cyclists. Cyclists who are doing a very good thing for all of us collectively when they opt not to use a motor vehicle to get around.
Let the hipsters ride their stupid, ironic, fixed-gear bicycles. If you have a problem with people being responsible citizens and choosing bicycling as their main mode of transportation, and daring to dress accordingly in warmer weather, then by all means, stay inside.
