On the town with GWB, AKA democracy in action

[MtnGoat]

"so the kid who wants the latest sport shoe or the Bellevue housewife who wants the latest suv, want it for their 'own reasons'?"

 

Of course! Who else makes the decision based on their own values and desires? They do! We're not mindless robots programmed to want what others tell, us, we have minds, independent ideas, needs and values.

 

The latest SUV or shoe may look cool, may be functional, may be a whim. Any of these reasons is sufficient for that person, as it's their life, their values, their choice.

 

"at best this is vague terminology, but more likely it is a blunt apology for our mass marketing dominated culture."

 

I have no need to make apologies for free individuals able to decide for themselves what their needs are. Wether or not mass marketing takes place has no bearing on the individuals ability to decide for themselves what tradeoffs they wish to accept in pursuit of what they value for their own reasons.

 

If you see validating human choice as an "apology" for mass marketing, so be it. See it however you like, as long as you do not argue this means people should not own their choices and be able to make them, the disagreement is an academic one.

 

"especially when those wants are derived from the marketing of those 'willing to trade'."

 

Are they? How do you know this? How can you tell me people don't go to Mcdonalds because it has a universal value, instead of being robots programmed to do so by ads? If people did not like the convenience, price, etc, they would not go *regardless* of the ads. MANY companies with worldwide reach spend millions or more on failed ad campaigns because their products have no intrinsic value to those who decide to spend their money.

 

We're not deterministic cogs driven by marketing masters, and each product that fails in mass markets is proof of this because if what you say is true, marketing would succeed every time.

 

How do *you* resist the pressures of what you see as your marketing masters? Are you a special case? Do you allow advertisements to determine what you will buy and what you want? Of course not. You pick and choose based on what is presented to you and how it fits with your values. The idea that everyone *else* is too stupid to make decisions is something I fundamentally disagree with.

 

[ 09-12-2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[j_b]

I thought we had established those wants were conditioned by culture: "I agree that one's wants are influenced by culture".

 

if your wants are different according to the culture you are exposed to, I just don't see how individuals make purchasing decisions "based on their own values and desires". That is, unless your understanding of english is very different than mine.

[MtnGoat]

"if your wants are different according to the culture you are exposed to, I just don't see how individuals make purchasing decisions "based on their own values and desires"".

 

It's because I did not say their wants were enforced by their culture necessarily, only differing by culture, and in this sense, I meant because what one *can* want in different cultures plays a role because something may not exist, or may exist but is not known, not necessarily because we are programmed per se.

 

When you don't know there is such a thing as electricity, you don't want it because you don't know about it. When you do know, you can want it, and this is not because the culture is forcing it's choices on you but because your values are used to decide you desire it.

 

[ 09-12-2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Dru]

Scientists say mankind will be replaced by giant land squid, flying killer fish and intelligent baboons.

 

Evolution experts have been asked to predict the kind of animals which will be around in the next few million years.

 

The results will feature in a new TV series called The Future is Wild which will get its debut at a film festival in Bristol next month.

 

Scientists based their predictions on the kind of climate and geographical changes expected to take place in the distant future.

 

If areas such as the Mediterranean and the Amazon become deserts as expected new lifeforms will evolve to take advantage of MuironSaturday.

 

The 120 million tonne Toraton could become the largest creature ever to walk the Earth and a half-metre tall snail will bounce along the sandy wastelands.

 

So called Ocean Fish will live in cliffs and will be able to fly as well as swim, while tiger-sized Snowstalkers will be bear-like creatures living in a future European ice-age.

 

All 16 scientists taking part in the series, to be shown on Discovery International's MuironSaturday Animal Planet channel, agree mankind will have been wiped out within the next few million years.

 

The Daily Mail reports the scientists as saying a new kind of intelligent ape will most likely evolve from baboons

[j_b]

"When you don't know there is such a thing as electricity, you don't want it because you don't know about it. When you do know, you can want it, and this is not because the culture is forcing it's choices on you but because your values are used to decide you desire it."

 

oh I see, this is like this country before microbrews: everybody drunk piss beer because nobody knew good beer existed and everyone wanted to drink piss beer anyway ...

[j_b]

Dru writes: "Scientists say mankind will be replaced by giant bla, bla, bla ...."

 

you know as well as I do they don't know what they are talking about anyway. I am not worried.

[MtnGoat]

kinda, they didn't know they were drinking piss beer but they liked beer so they drank it and thought it was great. But due to the ever profitable search to sell more beer and advance the beermakers inscrutable yet honored art, someone invented microbrews, the regular brews became piss brews by comparison and there you have it.

 

I don't drink micros because I'm told to, but because they freakin taste good! I didn't gag down a McBurger at lunch today because I've been programmed, it was because it was not totally objectionable and it was on the way back to work and the drive through was empty, and the tradeoff was acceptable, indeed desirable.

 

I like your comments, one of the former forced me to think in more detail about the social angle of influence, which I appreciate.

[j_b]

"kinda, they didn't know they were drinking piss beer but they liked beer so they drank it and thought it was great. But due to the ever profitable search to sell more beer and advance the beermakers inscrutable yet honored art, someone invented microbrews, the regular brews became piss brews by comparison and there you have it."

 

well nevermind that euros have been drinking good beer for centuries and that it only took for someone to figure out they could make a buck selling it in this country. What were we talking about anyway? the influence of the allmighty dollar on available culture?

 

"I don't drink micros because I'm told to, but because they freakin taste good! I didn't gag down a McBurger at lunch today because I've been programmed, it was because it was not totally objectionable and it was on the way back to work and the drive through was empty, and the tradeoff was acceptable, indeed desirable."

 

it's because the alternatives at your disposal are as hopeless. Good 'fastfood' has been around forever but it can't survive in this economy.

[MtnGoat]

"the influence of the allmighty dollar on available culture?"

 

Course it has an influence. The allmighty dollar, or ruble, or drachma, or a pretty piece of abalone, or whatever represents value, is a basic idea, regardless of form, for millenia.

 

I'm not sure we are disagreeing on this at all, after all I did not comment earlier that we weren't motivated by money, only that in my belief we are not programmed by mass marketing to buy what we do not want. I do not believe we can cnange human nature so that people will not want what they choose to want for themselves or look after themselves first, because on a basic level anything less is a non survival behaviour racially.

 

That does not mean we cannot learn educated self interest though, I get more from you asking you what you'd like and trading with you by choice than I will from compelling you to serve me, and I believe this is evident to anyone who has the opportunity to observe cooperation in action.

 

"it's because the alternatives at your disposal are as hopeless. Good 'fastfood' has been around forever but it can't survive in this economy."

 

The consumer has spoken. I will not eat at a place I find too expensive, regardless of quality, or a good place if it's slow and I'm in a hurry, or if some find it great but I think it sucks! My alternatives also include going into a grocery store and eating healthy, but today my need for speed outweighed this alternative.

 

I am not sure why it is related to the economy instead of the consumers view of the relationship to them of price/speed/quality, though the economy make play a role. Can you illuminate?

 

The same principle applies to the ruckus over airline seat sizes. No matter how many complain about them, the consumer has shown time and time again what they care about more than comfort, is price. I know for certain this is the case for me. I do not wish to see any seat guideline in terms of size imposed on airlines, I am perfectly capable of deciding which seats I prefer by choosing among them, or not flying at all. IMO I do not have the right to compel the owner of an airline to offer me what I want by force. If they are smart, they offer me what I will accept, if they do not I do not ride with them, if none offer it I go another route. I do not have a right to air travel no matter where it is, IMO.

 

[ 09-12-2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[j_b]

well it appears we are going around in circles. Anyhoo ...

 

some people (in particular brewers) knew that good beer existed yet the only stuff available was piss beer and most were happy to drink it. What does it say about the influence of the economy/mass marketing on our wants?

 

Did they start selling good beer because people were asking for it? no. Did they start selling good beer because they thought enough of us would buy it and therefore they could make a buck? yes. Ergo, and you'll forgive me for generalizing without providing other examples, innate "wants do not drive the train" for manufacturing suv's over mid-size cars, crappy beer over good beer. If that was not the case people would not have drunk shitty beer and coffee for as long as they have. We cannot "blame anyone but the consumer" because he is not first responsible for available goods. Producing said goods at the smallest possible cost and that will 'appeal' (thanks to mass marketing) to the greatest number of us 'drives the train'. I can assure you that if you went to a pig farm at feeding time, you wouldn't see a pig refusing to eat because it is not fed high grade, environmentally sensitive food.

[j_b]

MtnGoat writes:"I agree that one's wants are influenced by culture, but this doesn't mean those wants, however derived, are not what creates a market to fulfill them. If you want firewood or a goat, you want it for your own reasons influenced by culture, and someone will be willing to trade you one."

 

so the kid who wants the latest sport shoe or the Bellevue housewife who wants the latest suv, want it for their 'own reasons'? at best this is vague terminology, but more likely it is a blunt apology for our mass marketing dominated culture.

 

'however derived' is not good enough either, especially when those wants are derived from the marketing of those 'willing to trade'.