4 ms·

TL;DR: he who pays the piper calls the tune. I am not convinced that the world of "organic" and "natural" is any better. A lot of that stuff is about using fea

by api 12y ago

TL;DR: he who pays the piper calls the tune. I am not convinced that the world of "organic" and "natural" is any better. A lot of that stuff is about using fear mongering to create a manufactured and scientifically baseless division between a higher priced tier of food for yuppies and a lower priced tier for the riff raff. I've heard it called "food gentrification." It's all about market segmentation and charging more to those who can be propagandized into paying it. Bernays would be proud. Eco-ideology is also used heavily to prevent the construction of new housing and infrastructure to artificially limit supply to the benefit of banks and existing property owners. My level of trust in pretty much any letter agency or social/political movement is low across the board. Nearly anything with a soapbox seems to be a front for something that reduces to political propaganda or wallet emptying. Right or left, religious or secular, green or whatever, it doesn't seem to matter. Nothing is true; everything is an advertisement. IMHO we live in a world where the law is do your own primary research or be exploited. No exceptions. I am not sure if it was ever different or if people are just becoming more aware.

pmoriarty 12y ago
"Nearly anything with a soapbox seems to be a front for something that reduces to political propaganda or wallet emptying. Right or left, religious or secular, green or whatever, it doesn't seem to matter. Nothing is true; everything is an advertisement." This seems to be an incredibly disempowering perspective.
- api 12y ago
  I don't see it that way. I see it as a simple recognition of a reality and a call to engage in primary research and reasoning from first principles. It is herds and movements that are disempowering. It's still possible to organize too. People should organize on concrete issues and leave the ideology (levers for mass manipulation) at the door. That way it's a lot harder to leverage group identity signifiers and mythological elements to manipulate large numbers of people while masking ones real agenda. For example, we might create an agency whose goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. That's it. No other bandwagons are implied. Don't get me wrong. I do see the universality of manipulation as a serious social pathology. I just don't know what to do about it in a world where people have to get paid. Seems to me that if money is required to make things happen, only things that are motivated by money or that serve the agendas of those with it will happen.
  - pmoriarty 12y ago
    "It is herds and movements that are disempowering." The Civil Rights movement. The labor movement. The environmental movement. The suffragette movement. The abolitionist movement. The free speech movement. The list can go on and on. Whatever else you could say about these movements, agree or disagree with their aims or effects, its difficult to give credence to the view that they weren't effective or empowering to their members or that their goals could have been achieved without organization.
    - api 12y ago
      Maybe something has changed then. The only movements I see today are right wing movements that use religion to get the poor to vote against their economic interests and left wing movements that are all about maintaining high food and real estate prices in wealthy enclaves, not to mention tons of salesmanship for questionable and expensive alternative medicine products. None of it seems related to improving life for anyone disadvantaged. If anything they result in the opposite -- NIMBY induced urban real estate hyperinflation is a great example. I see very little on the contemporary stage that in any way resembles those movements. More specifically I see almost nothing that is in any way about improving human life. It all just looks like sneaky forms of marketing or ideological wank that is irrelevant to any actual measure of freedom, dignity, or well being. IMHO it all went off the rails in the 70s. It's interesting to me in light of Peter Thiel's contention that fundamental technological innovation has stagnated since then, a view I very strongly agree with. Maybe something really deep and fundamental broke and both these things are symptoms.
      - judk 12y ago
        Maybe we have already won all the easy battles, and the remaining ones are the impassible disputes between powerful entities. Or maybe the Internet has made most people not care about modern movements, and billionare backdoor power has made it safe to ignore popular unrest.
      - calibraxis 12y ago
        Very interesting point. A couple days ago, Thiel debated one of the earliest Occupy members, David Graeber. On that very subject you mention. (http://www.thebaffler.com/live?u=social http://www.thebaffler.com/live?u=social) The radical left (like Graeber and Chomsky) points out one factor since the 70's is the financialization of the economy. (Financial institutions prefer short-term profits to long-term development.) Also, there's the rise of "neoliberalism", which Graeber argues prefers to destroy capitalism just to achieve one success: getting people to believe there's no alternative to capitalism. If all that capitalist propaganda's been successful in beating imagination out of people, that they can do far better than the status quo, maybe that explains why people are so depoliticized. Fewer people have passionate visions for a better world.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > This seems to be an incredibly disempowering perspective. That depends on one's narcissism index. A sufficiently narcissistic person will see it as a challenge to be proactively engaged. Someone less narcissistic will see it as a reason to give up. More here: http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus
boyaka 12y ago
Why associate natural with organic? Natural is utterly meaningless label marketing while Organic (USDA) and Non-GMO are actual certifications that have requirements, the latter of which is more trustworthy. There is absolutely a scientific basis behind them, and that is that there is a lack of transgenic crops in the ingredients.
- eurleif 12y ago
  Organic and non-GMO have specific definitions (which are in scientific terms). That does not imply there is a scientific justification for believing that they are better in any way.
SoftwareMaven 12y ago
In general, I agree. However, I think there may be some benefits in "organic". It actually says something about how the food was produced. It's not perfect, but it is a step. Things like "natural" are beyond useless, trying to capitalize on health halo effects without meaning anything. The best bet is to source locally grown food and meat from farmers you trust. Easier said than done. :)

by api 12y ago

pmoriarty 12y ago

"Nearly anything with a soapbox seems to be a front for something that reduces to political propaganda or wallet emptying. Right or left, religious or secular, green or whatever, it doesn't seem to matter. Nothing is true; everything is an advertisement." This seems to be an incredibly disempowering perspective.

api 12y ago
I don't see it that way. I see it as a simple recognition of a reality and a call to engage in primary research and reasoning from first principles. It is herds and movements that are disempowering. It's still possible to organize too. People should organize on concrete issues and leave the ideology (levers for mass manipulation) at the door. That way it's a lot harder to leverage group identity signifiers and mythological elements to manipulate large numbers of people while masking ones real agenda. For example, we might create an agency whose goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. That's it. No other bandwagons are implied. Don't get me wrong. I do see the universality of manipulation as a serious social pathology. I just don't know what to do about it in a world where people have to get paid. Seems to me that if money is required to make things happen, only things that are motivated by money or that serve the agendas of those with it will happen.
- pmoriarty 12y ago
  "It is herds and movements that are disempowering." The Civil Rights movement. The labor movement. The environmental movement. The suffragette movement. The abolitionist movement. The free speech movement. The list can go on and on. Whatever else you could say about these movements, agree or disagree with their aims or effects, its difficult to give credence to the view that they weren't effective or empowering to their members or that their goals could have been achieved without organization.
  - api 12y ago
    Maybe something has changed then. The only movements I see today are right wing movements that use religion to get the poor to vote against their economic interests and left wing movements that are all about maintaining high food and real estate prices in wealthy enclaves, not to mention tons of salesmanship for questionable and expensive alternative medicine products. None of it seems related to improving life for anyone disadvantaged. If anything they result in the opposite -- NIMBY induced urban real estate hyperinflation is a great example. I see very little on the contemporary stage that in any way resembles those movements. More specifically I see almost nothing that is in any way about improving human life. It all just looks like sneaky forms of marketing or ideological wank that is irrelevant to any actual measure of freedom, dignity, or well being. IMHO it all went off the rails in the 70s. It's interesting to me in light of Peter Thiel's contention that fundamental technological innovation has stagnated since then, a view I very strongly agree with. Maybe something really deep and fundamental broke and both these things are symptoms.
    - judk 12y ago
      Maybe we have already won all the easy battles, and the remaining ones are the impassible disputes between powerful entities. Or maybe the Internet has made most people not care about modern movements, and billionare backdoor power has made it safe to ignore popular unrest.
    - calibraxis 12y ago
      Very interesting point. A couple days ago, Thiel debated one of the earliest Occupy members, David Graeber. On that very subject you mention. (http://www.thebaffler.com/live?u=social http://www.thebaffler.com/live?u=social) The radical left (like Graeber and Chomsky) points out one factor since the 70's is the financialization of the economy. (Financial institutions prefer short-term profits to long-term development.) Also, there's the rise of "neoliberalism", which Graeber argues prefers to destroy capitalism just to achieve one success: getting people to believe there's no alternative to capitalism. If all that capitalist propaganda's been successful in beating imagination out of people, that they can do far better than the status quo, maybe that explains why people are so depoliticized. Fewer people have passionate visions for a better world.
lutusp 12y ago
> This seems to be an incredibly disempowering perspective. That depends on one's narcissism index. A sufficiently narcissistic person will see it as a challenge to be proactively engaged. Someone less narcissistic will see it as a reason to give up. More here: http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus

boyaka 12y ago

Why associate natural with organic? Natural is utterly meaningless label marketing while Organic (USDA) and Non-GMO are actual certifications that have requirements, the latter of which is more trustworthy. There is absolutely a scientific basis behind them, and that is that there is a lack of transgenic crops in the ingredients.

eurleif 12y ago
Organic and non-GMO have specific definitions (which are in scientific terms). That does not imply there is a scientific justification for believing that they are better in any way.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago

In general, I agree. However, I think there may be some benefits in "organic". It actually says something about how the food was produced. It's not perfect, but it is a step. Things like "natural" are beyond useless, trying to capitalize on health halo effects without meaning anything. The best bet is to source locally grown food and meat from farmers you trust. Easier said than done. :)