The Age of Innocence

“I was a daisy fresh girl and look what you've done to me.” (Lolita)

I saw an article in the local paper the other day about alleged sexual relations between a high school teacher and a student. As per usual, there was outrage. Sure, the student was 16 or 17 while the teacher was something like 33, but what’s the big deal? Don’t get me wrong, I ain’t defending pedos here. It’s just that we heard of lots of relationships where a senior citizen is with someone more than 18 years younger and we don’t scoff at these relationships (at least not in the same way that we do those like that involving the abovementioned teacher). So what’s the big deal with the one and not the other?

I think most people think the differentiating quality is that the student/teacher relationship is one of trust and authority. But is that really all? I’ve heard of professors fornicating with first year undergrads and that tends to garner the same sort of response as the Hugh Hefner-plus-playmates type relationships rather than something similar to the teacher/student response. With the prof-esque relationship the one party is only a couple hundred days older than her high school counterpart. And, the prof has a position of trust and authority not unlike that of a high school teacher. So, surely, a position of trust and authority can’t be that which grounds our moral outrage. So what makes us boo-hiss the teacher/student relationship but not the professor/undergrad relationship?

It seems that the younger people are the greater significance we place on an age gap (when talking about romantic relations). After all, a 17 or 18 year old who dates a 15 year old is going to muster a different reaction from the 15 year old’s mommy than the kind of reaction a 27 year old would get out of the parents of a 22 year old. As we get older, an age gap just seems to matter less. So maybe it has something to do with maturity and autonomy. These are things that come in degrees and, as we get older, we tend to gain more of each. As such it just so happens that we think the younger someone is the less mature and autonomous they are; meaning the younger they are the more they need to be protected (since immature people who are only somewhat autonomous need to be protected). Maybe that’s what our moral repugnance towards age gaps involving teenagers is based on. If so, that seems to suggest that, after all, trust and authority ARE a key part – insofar as anyone older than some sweet young thing is in a de facto position of trust and authority in virtue of an absence of maturity and autonomy in the younger partner. So, in older pairings (e.g. the prof/undergrad) the fact that it's a relationship of trust and authority is outweighed by enough maturity and autonomy.

Although, even if this is right, it can’t be the whole story. That is, it doesn’t get us an explanation as to why we’ve set the late teens as the benchmark for when someone can (more) legitimately get involved with an older person. That age just seems so arbitrary. Why, after all, is the age of 18 significant for things, like going to fight a war, consuming alcohol and tobacco, and being involved in the production of pornography?

Really, it’s not. Sure, we could ask why not 17? Or 19? They’d work just as well. But that’s not the point. The point is that, for the law to work, a specific focal point is required. That age is just a focal point – a benchmark agreed upon by convention because some benchmark was necessary. When we talk about other things – like when it becomes socially acceptable to date someone younger than you – something so precise isn’t necessary. We can make due with a vaguer focal point. So, I think, the arbitrariness of the late teens turns out to not be such a big deal.

It seems to me that our need for some kinds of focal point, coupled with the fact that older folk are always in a position of trust and authority with younger once, explains our attitudes towards the aged romancing the fresh. Our inability to clearly identify which cases are repugnant and which are just unsettling stems from the vague nature of our focal point. But that’s ok; we don't need to draw a fine line. It's ok for us to boo-hiss the teacher/students, shrug at the Hugh Hefners, and be uncertain about the prof/undergrads. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Gamer’s Paradise Lost

“With great power comes great responsibility.” (Peter Parker)

I like videogames. For instance these days I love Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It’s owesome. If you’ve never played it, you should. If you have, you should play it more. I eagerly await Modern Warfare 2 (due out this fall, I believe). But I don’t like every videogame. Most of the games I dislike I dislike because they’ve got crappy game play or are just boring. But this one fairly new game, inFamous (available for the Playstation3), I dislike because it tells people what is, and isn’t, the morally right/wrong thing to do in certain situations. And, call me crazy, but I’m not sure people should be learning morality from video game developers.

If you’re not familiar with it inFamous is, basically, a role-playing game like Grand Theft Auto wherein you wake up (or, if you prefer, your character) with special powers after an incident. As you play the game you can run around in a city and – like the Grand Theft Auto games –do whatever you want; you can just explore and blow shit up or you can do missions. That’s all pretty run-of-the-mill. What sets inFamous apart are the moral dilemmas you’re occasionally faced with. What’s interesting is that what you decide to do in these situations determines how your character is perceived by the public (in the game) and how they interact with you. Basically, you can decide to be good (a superhero) or evil (a supervillian). An interesting game concept, I’ll admit.

And that’s all well and fine. But, and this is where my beef lies, whether your decision is the morally “good” or morally “bad” one depends on whether it conforms to the moral compass of the game developers, not whether it’s objectively right or wrong. (Or, maybe more reasonably, whether or not the decision can be tenably argued to be a morally right decision).

Take the following situation from the game: You can either save the woman you love, or you can save 6 (count ‘em, 6!) doctors. But you can’t do both. Gasp! What would you do? What would be the morally right thing to do?? Well, according to the game developers, there’s one clearly right choice: save the doctors and let your sweetheart die. Classic Utilitarianism – the potential good for the community from 6 (count ‘em 6!) doctors outweigh any potential good that might come outta your squeezetoy. But what if you were predisposed to, or in virtue of well reasoned arguments, believe in some sort of Ethics of Care morality where your greatest responsibility is to those closest to you; where what we owe to each other is dependent on the relationships we have with one another? Or some other ethical theory (e.g. Virtue Ethics, Deontology) which prescribes the saving of the gf as the right thing to do? Nope. Sorry. According to the game developers you’re morally broken and in the wrong if you (for whatever reason) don’t agree with what they think is the right thing to do. So what happens here? Your character slides a bit more towards the evil side of the scale.

Whether or not you agree that the doctors should be saved in this case is beside the point; so don’t dwell on that. So what is the big deal? (The hippy asks.) It’s just a game, right? Sure. But it’s doing more than just being a game. It’s conveying moral sentiments to impressionable minds. And the people doing the conveying (e.g. game developers) don’t have the authority to do that and aren’t authorities on what’s right or wrong. That seems problematic to me. But not just anyone can get their hands of this game, right?

Well according to The Entertainment Software Rating Board, you need to be at least a teen (13+) to play this game. Now I dunno how mandatory these ratings are – if they’re like movie ratings (i.e. it’s the law) or just friendly suggestions to mindful parents – but either way, young teenagers are still highly impressionable and media like this can hugely influencing them. It’s not my intent today to say who should teach them what’s right and wrong; all I’m saying is that, surely, it shouldn’t be a videogame.

Come to think of it, most adults are pretty impressionable too. That’s how we get riots. And poor leaders elected into office. People are, generally, stupid. And most neophytes and philistines seem to assume moral matters are too complicated for them; take what they take to be the common sense right thing to do as the thing to do or the preachings of any authority. So, more than any other subject, we should be vigilant as to who can teach us all about what’s right or wrong.

I guess all I’m saying here is that it’s offensive for a vide game to tell me I don’t know what’s the morally right thing to do in moral dilemmas. And that, were I a superhero, I’d actually be a supervillian. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

p.s.: No, I don’t know what happen to Alex or why he hasn’t posted anything in AGES.

Home Improvement

“I would do anything for love, but I won't do that” (Meatloaf)

Most chicks I've asked, actually – come to think of it - maybe all chicks I've asked, are against breast implants. They’ve tried to explain it to me, but I'm still not sure why. Don’t get me wrong here – I’m not pro-big boobs or anything crazy like that. If anything I believe in a woman’s right to choose; I dream of a world in which a woman can freely decide to improve her breasts without prejudice.

Generally I think, though, that when I think about fake tits (lulz!) it's different than when chicks think of them. I think when asked about breast implants chicks (and probably some guys too) jump to oversized obviously artificial Pamela Anderson hooters circa 1991. I think it's critical to also bear in mind the more natural fake looking Pamela Anderson style knockers circa 1999. I bring this up because I don't think most reasonable non-entertainers would likely get overly large or obviously fake boobs. So let's not focus on them. Let’s consider your everyday woman. So I think it's proper to appropriately broaden our discussion here to all breast enhancement surgery. Let's focus on fake jugs that look like natural breast. But let's also consider appropriately similar operations: breast reductions and breast lifts. That means that I'm saying let's focus on reasonable kinds of breast augmentation. Once focused properly I think we can say that the prejudices that are typically attributed to un-real titties aren't applicable… I mean post surgery they probably look, basically, natural… just better than before. Right? Isn’t that the point?

Let’s look at motivations. While artificial hooters may be sought to be more sexy or whatever, that doesn't need to be the case; for instance a girl might want them because she doesn't feel like a woman with what she's naturally got. And while getting breast implants might not fix the root problem about whether she should be happy with what she naturally got, that’s a separate issue. So this seems like a good, and plausibly common, reason. But even if she DID get 'em because she thinks it'll make her sexier, so what? It's not her fault that boobs of a specific shape and size are considered sexually attractive in our contemporary western society. Nor is it her obligation to fight these societal views of what looks good. So that seems like a fine reason too.

And what would you think of someone who gets augmentation surgery because it's what her partner wants? Let's look at a specific example: Take Jenny. She's got saggy 'C' boobs. She's married to Johnny. They deeply, madly, truly love each other. Although he's never said anything to her, she knows he prefers firm'n'perky 'B' sized honkers. Would this be the right, or wrong, kind of reason for Jenny to decide on her own to go under the knife? Some dames have called me crazy for this, but I think this is a good reason (maybe even the best of all possible reasons). I mean, come on. Sure surgery and its effects can be painful, but so is a lot of stuff people do for their partners. (Going to the ballet, for example. Or building a deck.) And it’s not like he asked her to do it; she’s doing it of her own free will. The fact that this sort of thing is permanent shouldn’t make a difference either. After all, they’re married and that’s suppose to be a permanent sort of thing as well.

So there seems to me to be an unfair prejudice against chicks who opt for unnatural funbags. And that’s not cool. I mean, if there’s a lady out there who’d get the surgery, but doesn’t because of the way she’d be perceived in virtue of having gotten the surgery, that’s a real shame. Not because it means there’s one more chick in the world without nice tits, but because there’s someone in the world who’s not doing what she wants to (legally) do to her own body because of the antiquated foolhardy opinions of the neighborhood catty bitches.

As a last aside, it feels as if a lot of hippy wishy-washy feminist crap could get pulled out here. Arguments like “breast implants promulgate the subjugation of women, you insensitive jerk!” I think a lot of these sorts of arguments aren’t really worth bringing up and addressing here. So I won’t. If you think you’ve got a pretty lil rant against breast implants that’s important, write it in a comment and I’ll address it… ya jerk.

At the end of the day, breast augmentation is on the same footing as tattoos. They're permanent. They're superficial. And people reckon they make them 'more beautiful' in a relevant kinda way (relevant to how they want to be seen). They enable them to express who they really are. Or Even get a head in the world. And what’s wrong with any of that? I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Blacked Out.

Much to the disappointment of Paul D, this is the first post I have made this month. Blame exams. I have missed quite a bit over the last month. David Bain didn't kill his family. The Tamil Tigers were defeated. The New Zealand Parliament had a sex scandal. Iran's election sucked. Obama killed a fly. Michael Jackson's death completely overshadowed Farrah Fawcett's. Susan Boyle didn't win Britain's Got Talent, then she went bat-shit crazy. Paul D moved back to Canada. All of these events could, would and should, be compelling, acerbic and witty blog posts in their own right.

Alas, they have all been overshadowed.

On current form, 2009 looks set to be remembered in New Zealand history not as the year in which John Key fell down the stairs, or of the great financial crisis - or even the year of the great Eskimo debate. No, 2009 is likely to be remembered as the year the All Blacks sucked, losing to France, then struggling to beat Italy. I-T-A-L-Y!!!

This is disturbing. The All Blacks are normally good. Very Good. Consistently one of the best in the world for the last 100 years in fact. It's hard to explain the unique place that the All Blacks (New Zealand's rugby team for those of you too lazy to watch the opening video) have in the New Zealand national identity. Expectations we have of their invincibility are at odds with the usual disparaging sheepishness that we reserve for most of our national icons. (pun intended) But for whatever reason, the ethos of a team that can 'never' be defeated, even if it is in a sport most of the world hasn't heard of, seems to be ingrained in New Zealander's sense of themselves as a plucky little can-do island nation, that punches above its weight.

I know I've blogged before about how 'symbols of national identity' are largely just stuff the government either promoted to make everyone feel more patriotic, or stuff corporations promoted by preying on a misguided sense of patriotism. But I do feel, and feel free to disagree with me, that the affinity that New Zealander's share with their All Black team seem to be patriotic emotions that are more real, more natural than an affinity with say, Vegemite. I'm not sure why this is - I'm (proudly) not a sociologist. But there's a number of reasons.

Maybe it's the fact that one of the first times that New Zealander's began calling themselves 'New Zealander's' and not 'British' was in 1905, when the first All Black team toured Britain. Or maybe its the fact that some of the most closely followed events in NZ history were All Black series - see the 1956 Springbok Tour, the 1971 Lions Tour, the 1987 World Cup - or any Bledisoe Cup game over the last decade. Or maybe it was the 1981 Springbok tour, which divided the country into those protesting the South African apartheid regime vs those who just wanted to see NZ smash the Springboks. It's the closest NZ has ever come to civil war (see here for footage of the amazing flour bomb test), and cemented the importance of rugby as a key force in NZ society. Or maybe New Zealanders just like the fact that the All Blacks have changed as New Zealand society has changed - from the grizzled, cranky, high-country farmers of the 1960's, to the multiracial, strongly Polynesian outfit today.

One reason that I will controversially dismiss, is that New Zealander's love of the All Blacks stems from New Zealander's love of rugby. While it may have once been the case that every New Zealand boy spent his Saturday mornings playing rugby, every New Zealand Dad spent his Saturday mornings yelling 'encouragement' from the sideline, and every New Zealand Mum spent her Saturday mornings cutting the oranges for half-time - that is no longer, the case. Speaking as someone who reached the lofty heights of '5th Choice prop for the Rodney College 1st XV'- the majority of New Zealanders today are bereft of any aptitude for the game - and possess no interest to learn. So, in 2009, it doesnt seem to be the case that 'rugby' is an integral part of the national psyche, merely that 'All Black victories' are part of the national psyche.

This is unfortunate. While All Black victories lead to happy thoughts about New Zealand, to be in New Zealand after an All Black defeat is about as pleasant as spending a night washing Jabba the Hutt's left armpit. Defeat seems to dredge up a bunch of deep, dark thoughts by New Zealanders about New Zealand - about how maybe we aren't the tough, scrappy, little island nation that everyone hearts for trying their best - and maybe we are instead an international laughing-stock, with a bunch of sheep but very little else. It's bad enough in World Cup years, although since the All Blacks have made a habit of choking in the playoffs of every World Cup since 1987(!), New Zealanders seemed to have moved on from the disgraceful scenes of 1999, where the coach was booed in the street, and his horse spat at - to 2007, where a smattering of about 100 or so supporters turned up to show 'solidarity' with their defeated (and deflated) heroes. But in 2009, a non-World Cup year - to watch the All Blacks play like a bunch of rookies that would lose to my Grandmother's patchwork quilting group - is too much for most NZ'rs to bear.

The resulting bile that has spewed onto such auguste forums such as the NZ Herald's 'Your Views' section is depressing in its predictability. It ranges from thinly veiled racism - 'the All Blacks lose 'nowadays' because Polynesians dont have the same mental toughness of good, white, farmboys' - to allegations that they lose because they are unpatriotic -'ZOMG, they dont even sing the words to the National Anthem' - to the just plain weird - ' would someone please tell coach Graeme (sic) Henry that losing is unacceptable to ME.' It seems New Zealanders take the popping of the percieved invincibility bubble, as a direct and personal affront to themselves and their perception of their country.

On one level, the All Blacks marketers have only themselves to blame. The All Blacks have sucked in the past (in 1949, they lost TWO tests on the SAME DAY), and will suck in the future (all bets are off for the 2011 World Cup) - but to watch and listen to the marketing campaign - it is as though are invincible god-like beings. But it is incredibly unhealthy, to tie the viability of a national identity to the performance of a sports team - and to view 'victories' as intergal to the New Zealander experience. Sports teams have good trots and bad trots, its inevitable that at some point, the New Zealand team would lose a bunch of great players and have to rebuild. It is happening now, but will take a couple of years. That's a long time to spend in a funk about the future of the nation.

I'll still watch the All Blacks against Aussie and South Africa next month, even though I fear the worst - not only because I heart rugby, but also because I'm a proud New Zealander. But I'll try and keep a sense of perspective - and view these games as watching a sports team that I love undergoing a horrible run of form, and not as watching a country that I love fade into international irrelevance.

Alex

Wayward Pilgrim: A Special Report

“America is like an unfaithful lover who promised us more than we got.” (Unknown)

Having just spent a week or so livin' it up in the United States of America, it seemed appropriate to talk a bit about the place. Of course this isn't going to be a 'dear diary' kinda post – that's not what this blog, ahem, 'online magazine', is all about – maybe think of this more as a report from a foreign correspondent....?

I didn't do anything overly exciting while in the US, I'll confess. Didn't see any famous sights; didn't do anything touristy; didn't do much of anything, really. Just lazed about, drank booze, and goofed around. Actually, come to think of it, I did a lot – insomuch as I spent my time doing what Americans do. I had what you might call a 'cultural experience'. And I think this improved my perspective of the US and maybe also how Americans perceive themselves (as well as the rest of the world). After all, it (almost) goes without saying that most people haven't ever been to the US; but this doesn't stop them from poo poo-ing it and the people who live there. So it seems kinda pompous and unfair to criticize when judging from a far-off ivory tower; basing everything on 2nd hand sources (like MTV and FOX News). This cuts both ways, though, since most Americans haven't travelled abroad themselves (and, for a lot of 'em, aren't interested in ever doing so) and most of them have no reservations when it comes to judging or mouthing off any far away land.

Patriotism is one of the first things any outlander is gonna notice about this place. There are US flags everywhere. But this isn't, really, so unique when you think about it. A lot of places, especially touristy type places, have a lot of national flags hanging around. After all, they're real common in New Zealand (for instance). As are other similar signs of national identity and pride. I guess the thing that makes them stand out in the US is that they're so much bigger. But that can't be problematic – everything is the US is bigger. Bigger stores, bigger products, bigger people. It's only fitting that the flags should be bigger too.

This 'bigger equals better' mentality seems to reflect the sense of entitlement that's common to a lot of Americans. And it sounds like a lot of people – hippies, specifically – pick out capitalism as the root problem for it. But I dunno if that's right. I dunno if the problem is so much with capitalism or, rather, consumerism (something else a lot of hippies often moan about). I think consumerism and capitalism need to be distinguished: you could, in theory, see the same consumerist problem in a socialist/communist/whatever state but for the fact that such states just aren't successful enough to have enough stuff for consumerism to take hold. Capitalism is just, historically, more 'successful'... but I digress... and this is largely guess work on my part… Alex probably knows better about this sort of stuff than I. In the end patriotism in the US is probably a bad thing... I guess. (I mean, if you read and bought into Alex's boo-hiss blog post on that sort of thing.) But it certainly ain't something you can single out the US for.

If you've seen any American focused movie – especially one focused on high school or college – you might have reckoned that their society is somewhat stratified by class. But, really, it goes beyond that. The class system is, it seems once you get on soil, so deeply entrenched that it's more of a caste system: movement from one group to another, and even fraternization between groups, is surprisingly uncommon. I can only speculate on why this is… so I will. The "American Values" seems to be pertinent here. For example, the self-interested pursuit of one's own financial wealth; this seems to segregated people according to the kind of means they have to pursue that end.

Another "American Value" is freedom. Freedom, freedom, freedom. But when you get down to it, it's the kind of freedom that's like "Sure, it's your God given freedom do to that, but it's my God given freedom to kick your ass if ya do it, punk." I mean, ya, they got the freedom to be different, express different views, and whatever, but they're largely inhibited by social constraints. It's easy to say that the gay or the emo kid has the right to walk around as she sees fit. But the threat of getting a beer bottle chucked at the back of your head while out and about is a huge deterrent. So is the threat of being sued. Something else Americans love to do… but that's a whole other story.

I could also ramble here about their love of guns. But that's been done to death already by others. And, really, it's understandable. Guns are fun. I hate to say it, but when you got one in your paws it's exciting. Even if you're crazy and don't get all warm and fuzzy inside by holding a nice and shiny firearm, the US is a militaristic society. And that's another thing they think is valuable; whether or not that's a good thing is a different question. Nevertheless I certainly reckon it's tied to why the average American is a fan of the firearm.

In the end, then, I reckon Americans just don't see what the hubbub is all about – 'if you don't like it, piss off' might be the way to describe their take of how they're perceived. Maybe this is a remnant of the pre-Pearl Harbour isolationist USA. Or maybe it's something else I just can't figure out. And don't me wrong. I ain't “Anti-American” or whatever. This post shouldn't be taken that way. I know lots of Americans. And I'm friends with plenty of 'em. I've kinda rambled here, but I'll say that's okay; it's an American kinda thing to do I guess. If you don't like it, sue me. Or, better yet, fuck off. (Which, I guess, kinda an American thing to say.) I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Captain Planet was a Wanker: Part 2 in a 2-Part Series on "Living Green"

Part 2: The Corporations Vs. The Earth

“Corporate social responsibility is not a fad.” (Angel Cabrera)

Second, as far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with non- “eco-friendly” businesses. That is, businesses shouldn't be expected to consider the welfare of the environment when it comes to how they conduct their affairs.

Sure, some businesses are genuinely concerned about the environment; it's part of their corporate personality. These firms are willing to take steps, often at the cost of less profit, to treat the environment better. And this is okay, so long as that's the way the shareholders (i.e. owners) want the business to be run.

But there are also businesses that just don't give a fuck about the environment. They, more than anything, just care about profit. It's not that they're interested in destroying the environment it's just that they've got their priorities straight – earning cash. I think this is your typical business. And that, too, is okay.

These businesses – whose owners don't think the business should consider the welfare of the environment – aren't doing anything wrong. Businesses or, rather, those who chiefly run businesses (let's call them managers) have one obligation: to do that which the owners want. Typically that involves maximizing profits while conforming to the rules of law. End of story. After all, that's what businesses are – they're a mechanism to derive a profit by offering a service.

We can say that the managers, as individual moral persons, have obligations to whatever (possibly, let's say, the environment). While this is true, it'd be immoral for a manager to run her employing firm such that it serves as a means for her to meet any obligations she has to the environment (or whatever). Managers are, plainly, paid to run the business however the owners want it run; to do it otherwise would be immoral insofar as it'd be immoral to waste company or shareholder money on stuff they don't want. It's, essentially, equivalent to stealing. If a manager is concerned with the welfare of the environment, cool. But that's wholly separate from her role as manager. She can spend her free time and her own money however she sees fit; it's an abuse of power for her to make the business something other than what the owners want.

Okay so can we say that the owners, who have the ability to direct the managers on how to run the business, have an obligation to see it run in a specific (e.g. “green”) way? Well, no. Firstly for them to have such obligations the owners would need to have some sort of obligation (e.g. to the environment)... and I'm not convenience that they have such an obligation. But, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to throw the good for nuthin' hippies a bone – let's assume that the owners do have an obligation to the environment. Still, this is a personal obligation of each individual, not one of their business. They have the prerogative to meet any such obligations however they deem fit. But they aren't morally required to do it through their business. Again, the purposes of their business is to derive a profit (by offering a service). Just because the individuals who own and run a business have some peripheral obligation doesn't mean that that business needs to be run in a certain way; a way that's a perversion of the role businesses are meant to play.

So, then, why are there "eco-friendly" businesses out there? This is, really, a side issues that's different than what I wanted to talk about... so I'll only say that there could be any number of explanations (none of which denote a moral obligation of the right kind): The owners might not realize that their perverting the purpose of a business by making it "eco-friendly"; Or, they could consider it the best way to capitalize on a niche market (what better way to milk the dollars outta those dirty hippy hands); Or, maybe, they're just stupid hippies themselves trying (unsuccessfully) to play the capitalist game.

Businesses aren't wrong for not acting to benefit the environment. That's not their role and it's not the responsibility of a business to ensure the environment is cared for. If the people, at large, want businesses to be "eco-friendly", they have the ability to make it happen: through their power as consumers and/or through government regulation on business practices.

At the end of the day, it's cool if businesses are "eco-friendly", but it has to be for the right reasons -- which are limited to the rules of law, the consumer demands, and the desires of the owners. Barring that it'd be immoral for the employees to make it a "green" company. The sole focus of those who run any business is to do their part in making the company earn a profit while acting in accordance with the rules of law and any other restrictions stipulated by the owners (which may or may not include environmental considerations). That is, in short, why those lamewad green-thumbs shouldn't expect businesses to be "eco-friendly". I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Captain Planet was a Wanker: Part 1 in a 2-Part Series on "Living Green"

Part 1: Me and My Planet

“I can remember when the air was clean and sex was dirty” (George F. Burns)

There's a lot of buzz these days about “sustainability” and being “eco friendly”. More than anything else, this is a trend. Sure, some people have been concerned about the planet for quite a while, but it's only been in the past few years that this has been popularized into a “green” movement. And while it's a trend that has, arguably, good effects I've got 2 reservations:

First, as far as I can tell, I ain't motivated to live a “sustainable” life.

I say this because I'm not sure going out of my way to make sure the world will be able to provide for humans longer than I'll be alive is in my best interest or, even, something I should care about altruistically. I mean, so long as the planet doesn't die before I do, everything's cool (for me). That is, I'm motivated to ensure that the world is capable of giving us (me included) what we need for however long I'm likely to live. After that, though, I don't think I care. And why should I? After that point I'll be dead and the condition of the world won't matter to me. (How could it – I can't care about anything if I'm dead... right??)

However – and this is important – if people I care about are going to live longer than I, then I should care about the longevity of the Earth. And if I should care about the longevity of the Earth, then I ought to act now in a way to ensure that those people that I care about will have a clean 'n' pretty lil' planet to live on.

Now be sure to recognize the antecedent of that first conditional statement: it focus on people I care about; not imaginary (i.e. non-existent) people and not people I don't know. Until there are people who I care about that are going to live longer than I, making sure the environment will last isn't a priority. While I care about lots of people – for instance friends and family – they are pretty much all of my generation or an older one; I don't got any kids and I ain't friends with anyone else's. And were all gonna die around the same time.

Those damn dirty idealists out there might have 3 objections here: That I should care about the planet because: (a) There might someday be people (e.g. kids) who I'll care about that'll need a healthy planet; (b) There are people outside my generation alive now that will need a healthy planet; and, (c) The planet is something we should just care about for it's own welfare. These are all stupid. Let's look at each of them in turn.

So what about the kids I might have some day? (Cries out the tree-huggin' hippy.) Nope, they don't count. I say this because it's non-sensical to talk about having obligations to people who don't exist or who you don't presently care about. To have obligations to someone you need to stand in the right kind of relation to them. And of all the possible right kinds of relations, I think, they all necessarily involve the target person(s) being tangible; like how you can't tie a rope to you and your pretend kid, you can't have obligations towards a pretend kid. So even if I intend to have kids someday, and I want my kids to have the best life possible, until they are actual moral patients I'm not motivated to change my actions to actions that will benefit them. Just because I suspect that there will be people I care about who will survive me, that's not reason enough to care about the environment today.

And sure, there are other people in my community or society who will out live me with a significant enough margin such that me living a green life would probably make a difference for their lives (and the lives of those they care about). But it just isn't the case that I have a default level of care or obligation to them that makes me obligated to live green just because we share a community or society or or earth or whatever. To require me to make a lifestyle change of that significance requires a much stronger kind of relationship.

I'll note that this does hinges on 1 other important claim: that the earth isn't itself a moral patient. While some hemp wearing jerkwad might wanna disagree with me on that, I think it's pretty obviously true. At the end of the day the environment is just a collection of non-sentient lifeforms. And that's not enough to qualify as a moral patient. It's no more than an instrument we use to survive. It seems that people get confused on that because we need to share it with everyone else. But those we share it with are the ones we might have obligations to; not the instrument itself. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.