You do realize that recycling is the opposite of disposing, right?
True, perhaps… but giant confetti cannons!
Because the paper gets turned into more paper, and nothing gets disposed.
Yeah, sure, that’s just the way it works! And if you shine a light on a solar panel, and plug the solar panel into the light, it’ll shine forever because perpetual motion means no one has to worry about externalities…
Do all of those printers draw from big reservoirs of ink? Or do they use disposable ink cartridges? Are the cartridges recyclable, or are they DRM’d so they have to be replaced with the premium stuff? What about the costs of the ink? I’m not talking about the monetary costs, but the environmental costs. That shit is really carbon intensive when you add it all up.
2 Likes
I don’t know anyone who’d object to your worse examples. The difference I think matters, is none of those paper wastages are made into a front and center showcase for their brand. It’s like killing a mouse onscreen during a film shoot. Do it when the cameras are not running, and no one will care, you’re just maintaining a sanitary workspace. But film it and put it into a movie, and you are making a kinds of snuff film, that’ll disqualify the “no animals were harmed during the making of this movie” (That disclaimer doesn’t mean that only vegetarian meals were served for the films cast and crew)
USia has got a serious hangup about disposability. This video revels in that hangup.
2 Likes
Yeah, sure the production of this video expended resources, as any video production does. The paper is just somehow more visible than any rigging for the printers, the printers themselves, lighting, catering on the set, the energy that goes into running a flight rig, etc. Or the global infrastructure that serves up a video on demand for you. Sure, it’s frivolous. It’s art.
What bugs me most is the “killing trees” turn of phrase I always see when it’s paper specifically. That’s like saying having dinner is “killing potatoes”. The trees were grown and farmed for this purpose.
1 Like
The opposite of disposing is conservation. But that doesn’t show up on film very well.
2 Likes
Nobody seemed all that concerned about the carbon footprint for the dozens of flights in a privately chartered jet it took to choreograph and film Upside Down & Inside Out. I guess it’s just easier to get worked up about wasting resources when they are visibly collecting at the band’s feet.
8 Likes
Pretty much. Many conservationists only care about the appearance of waste. It’s a religion to them. Relative impacts don’t matter to them, only virtue signalling, which is why they make a show of their concern whenever anyone tries to offset their footprint but otherwise are conspicuously silent the majority of time when others are running roughshod over the planet without any regard. After all, they don’t have to prove their holier than those people.
2 Likes
the video was played at a higher frame rate to “hide” imperfections and create a stop motion appearance. this is why the paper comes out faster and on the beat.
There’s a reason the mantra is: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, with recycling being the last option after the other two have been tried.
Sure, it’s better to recycle paper (or glass, metal etc) than just throwing it away, but there’s still a significant cost in terms of materials, energy and money to return it to a useable state.
3 Likes
That’s total bollocks. The conservationists I know (myself included) spend a lot of time thinking about how to make our hidden waste more visible.
But whether or not any of our efforts make a difference is a much more interesting question. Plenty of studies show that no matter how much effort people put into conservation (i.e. trying to be more green), it makes almost no difference to their impact on the environment. This has nothing to do with whether people are focussing on the wrong kind of waste (e.g. visible or invisible). Instead, it has everything to do with wealth. Basically, we spend our disposable income on consuming stuff. The choices we make about whether to consume this or that are pretty much insignificant compared to the fact that all that disposable income is being spent on something. More disposable income = bigger environmental footprint.
And as conservationism tends to be wealthy person’s pursuit, there’s a correlation: the more conservationist you are, the bigger your environmental footprint.
1 Like
Virtue signalling is an action of the lifestylist.
2 Likes
Imagine having to start over every time someone made a mistake collating the colored paper in the stack…
Did I say all conservationists?
I accept that many other conservationists are quite sincere and practical. I cast a bit of side-eye on those who would denounce a music video because the use of resources is more visible than the magnitudes-larger waste carrying on in less visible ways. Because what they’re saying isn’t don’t be wasteful. What they’re saying is don’t show me it. Now I don’t how much the former helps, but I’m quite positive the latter does not help.
That’s a pretty hefty strawman you got skewered on your sword right there.
1 Like
You think fronting is a trivial activity in conservationism? Or are you still hung up on the (what must by now be deliberate) misconception that I mean all conservationists even though I’ve said twice (including in my original comment) than I didn’t?
ETA: You know what, this is a fantastically stupid argument we’re having. I appreciate the vast majority of your comments on this forum. I have no issue with this video and don’t think it’s some celebration of our species’ bonfire of vanities. But frankly if you or anyone else feels differently, I respectfully disagree.
Sorry I got a bit fighty.
2 Likes
It’s a fair cop. We’re certainly in agreement about the video.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
