![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sometimes I really get sick of preachy leftist papers.
I'm sick of being told to be ethical, buy organic, buy fairtrade, support third world debt relief, yada yada yada.
It's not that I'm unwilling to change my habits. I would--if I were convinced properly, if arguments on all sides were considered, if behaving in the lefty-prescribed manner wasn't dealt with as a matter of faith rather than logic.
Take last week's report that disposables might not be any worse for the environment than washable diapers. Everyone was up in arms. "It CAN'T be," they cried. Then they attacked the assumptions the report made. Some were fair; I think more people do wash at 60C than 90 (I never wash anything at 90!) But one was ludicrous. Leo Hickman attacked the Environment Agency for using washing machine efficiency statistics from 1997, rather than more efficient recent models. Er, well, perhaps not everyone owns a new washing machine, and using 1997 statistics gives a clear average picture? And maybe the other 'flaws' represented what people actually do, rather than what people should do.
Or take organic. Again, it seems to be an article of faith that it's better for you. Is it? I was pleased to see the Independent, a few weeks ago, mention this and take a deeper look. As I've always said, it's not organic that makes food better--it's where it's produced. It's not being organic that makes it taste better, and possibly be more nutritious; it's that it was produced locally and not shipped unripe for thousands of miles. So if you're buying your organic veg at Sainsbury's or Tesco, you might as well not bother.
(I've got other issues with organic, namely, that it's a rich-people's luxury and can't be applied to all the food we grow, and focusing on it takes attention away from other techiques which could be more broadly applied. And in our obesity and health fixated age, it's another way that the middle and upper middle classes demonstrate their 'superiority' over the poor, whom they perceive to eat cheap, unhealthy food.)
(And yes, I recognize how I sound, given that I am hardly working class myself... but I never make a show of false solidarity with the proletariat. I don't think poverty is a virtue; I just detest a certain kind of middle class smugness. The only virtue I may possess on this front is that I'm willing to advocate changes which might personally disadvantage me.)
And so on. Fair trade? Show me that it does more than salve our consciences (the growers still only get 5% of the price). Anti-corporatism and anti-globalization? Show me an alternative, and show me it can be scaled--that new film showing how Argentine workers took over their company is not going to convince me. There are plenty of successful cooperatives all over the world, but there appears to be an upper limit on their feasibility. You could argue that all giant corporations are Bad and Evil, but then you'd have to show that there's a substitute for the economies of scale and resources they supply.
I read The Economist every week. It doesn't always convince me. But it does try to do so on the basis of an argument. (It can also get its facts wrong; don't get me started on their position on selective education, which bears no relation to educational fact.) All too often, I feel like I'm reading rhetoric from the left, not science.
I'm sick of being told to be ethical, buy organic, buy fairtrade, support third world debt relief, yada yada yada.
It's not that I'm unwilling to change my habits. I would--if I were convinced properly, if arguments on all sides were considered, if behaving in the lefty-prescribed manner wasn't dealt with as a matter of faith rather than logic.
Take last week's report that disposables might not be any worse for the environment than washable diapers. Everyone was up in arms. "It CAN'T be," they cried. Then they attacked the assumptions the report made. Some were fair; I think more people do wash at 60C than 90 (I never wash anything at 90!) But one was ludicrous. Leo Hickman attacked the Environment Agency for using washing machine efficiency statistics from 1997, rather than more efficient recent models. Er, well, perhaps not everyone owns a new washing machine, and using 1997 statistics gives a clear average picture? And maybe the other 'flaws' represented what people actually do, rather than what people should do.
Or take organic. Again, it seems to be an article of faith that it's better for you. Is it? I was pleased to see the Independent, a few weeks ago, mention this and take a deeper look. As I've always said, it's not organic that makes food better--it's where it's produced. It's not being organic that makes it taste better, and possibly be more nutritious; it's that it was produced locally and not shipped unripe for thousands of miles. So if you're buying your organic veg at Sainsbury's or Tesco, you might as well not bother.
(I've got other issues with organic, namely, that it's a rich-people's luxury and can't be applied to all the food we grow, and focusing on it takes attention away from other techiques which could be more broadly applied. And in our obesity and health fixated age, it's another way that the middle and upper middle classes demonstrate their 'superiority' over the poor, whom they perceive to eat cheap, unhealthy food.)
(And yes, I recognize how I sound, given that I am hardly working class myself... but I never make a show of false solidarity with the proletariat. I don't think poverty is a virtue; I just detest a certain kind of middle class smugness. The only virtue I may possess on this front is that I'm willing to advocate changes which might personally disadvantage me.)
And so on. Fair trade? Show me that it does more than salve our consciences (the growers still only get 5% of the price). Anti-corporatism and anti-globalization? Show me an alternative, and show me it can be scaled--that new film showing how Argentine workers took over their company is not going to convince me. There are plenty of successful cooperatives all over the world, but there appears to be an upper limit on their feasibility. You could argue that all giant corporations are Bad and Evil, but then you'd have to show that there's a substitute for the economies of scale and resources they supply.
I read The Economist every week. It doesn't always convince me. But it does try to do so on the basis of an argument. (It can also get its facts wrong; don't get me started on their position on selective education, which bears no relation to educational fact.) All too often, I feel like I'm reading rhetoric from the left, not science.
There are 4 comments on this entry. (Reply.)