So, here's a new angle. What's the relationship between sustainability and the law?
Law, as the written exemplification of justice, is in place to provide a balancing force to society. A sort of newton's third law to society. The law is notoriously sluggish to change, needing to go through our bureaucratic process to shift. The necessity of that shift is ever-present too, as culture shifts so do the balancing needs of society shift.
I keenly remember a line from Star Trek: The Next Generation where Captain Picard says "There can be no justice as long as laws are absolute." In the reference to the episode this shows up in, Justice, Captain Picard is advocating to a technologically superior alien to spare the life of one of his crew for a minor infraction (trampling on the grass). Though the episode is more about cultural differences, it highlights a necessity of the law in regards to it's validity over time: That effect must match cause.
Interestingly, this caveat on law provides law with sustainability both in context of sustaining what it is, and sustaining the fact of it's existence. In addressing the latter, the law must always be about balance, equity and fairness. In addressing the former, the law must adapt and change in order for it to be about balance, equity and fairness, as society is constantly shifting.
It's an interesting perspective...
- Jason
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
The Sustainability Impacts of 'Green' Development
Ok, so I really have to push this one. Reading more of Lester Brown's book, Plan B 4.0, has me thinking about the side-effects of 'green' development. Let's take wind, for example. What thought is given to the large-scale effects of massive wind farm implementation? Isn't that adding more resistance to wind flow planet-wide? What will that do to global climate? Do we even know? What about solar panels? Doesn't the light/heat that the sun puts off normally go to the ground? What of the effects on things like soil arability? With geothermal, we're basically reducing the temperature of the lower crust of the earth in the process...
Here's the big problem I have. We're looking at mass implementation of green technologies, but do we really know what effect mass implementation will have? Though life may not be a zero-sum game, energy collection is! It's impossible to collect energy from the environment without affecting the environment, and much of what I see about the 'future green development' completely ignores the ecological impact of large-scale use of green technologies. Let's not forget the impact of laying all those power lines. Remember, large-scale electrification hasn't been around that long, less than 100 years.
Do we really know what we're doing, or are we just blazing ahead without really thinking about it?
*sigh*
- Jason
Here's the big problem I have. We're looking at mass implementation of green technologies, but do we really know what effect mass implementation will have? Though life may not be a zero-sum game, energy collection is! It's impossible to collect energy from the environment without affecting the environment, and much of what I see about the 'future green development' completely ignores the ecological impact of large-scale use of green technologies. Let's not forget the impact of laying all those power lines. Remember, large-scale electrification hasn't been around that long, less than 100 years.
Do we really know what we're doing, or are we just blazing ahead without really thinking about it?
*sigh*
- Jason
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The Seven Generation Rule and Change
The discussion last class regarding the economics of conservation and sustainability practices got me thinking, especially in relation to the seven generation rule (3 forward, 3 back, and current). The economic impact of migrating towards energy efficiency is undeniable, if less power is needed due to changes in how energy is used (efficent lightbulbs, buildings designed for less AC/heating use, etc.) then *people will loose jobs in the energy industry* companies will loose money in the industry. It's impossible to avoid this, corporate models are based on growth, not detraction. It takes money to un-build an unnecessary power plant, as it does to keep it running when it's not needed, this is inefficent, and in today's world where current expenses are paid from future profits...
Side note: Yes, this is a legitimate business model, read Robert Kiyosaki's book Rich Dad, Poor Dad for an excelent example of this. Kiyosaki outlines the priorities of resource allocation in business in the following way: 1) expansion, 2) regular workers, 3) specalists, 4) (Don't remember this one), 5) executives. Note how expansion is put first.
Anyhow, in today's world where current expenses are paid from future profits, threatening a company's future profits threatens the salience of the company. Inventors pull out, stock price plummets, company goes under, people get laid off, etc etc. Not good... More people unemployed means lower quality of life, lower GDP, economic hurt all ways around.
Ok, yes it opens up green jobs, but consider this on a psychological perspective. Young people are more into the green job market these days than the older generation. Stratifying the economic impact generationally, we're looking at a disproportionate hit on the older generation, not the younger. Additionally, the older generation would know that they, basically, lost their job for a green job. This does not encourage the older generation towards job re-training to learn how to work in the industry that just stole their job from them.
This strikes me as selling out the old for the benefit of the young. Doesn't this violate the 7-generation rule, rather egregiously? In a way it's the opposite problem of what we've been talking about. Instead of pushing the burden in the future, we're pushing it backward.
Food for thought...
- Jason
Side note: Yes, this is a legitimate business model, read Robert Kiyosaki's book Rich Dad, Poor Dad for an excelent example of this. Kiyosaki outlines the priorities of resource allocation in business in the following way: 1) expansion, 2) regular workers, 3) specalists, 4) (Don't remember this one), 5) executives. Note how expansion is put first.
Anyhow, in today's world where current expenses are paid from future profits, threatening a company's future profits threatens the salience of the company. Inventors pull out, stock price plummets, company goes under, people get laid off, etc etc. Not good... More people unemployed means lower quality of life, lower GDP, economic hurt all ways around.
Ok, yes it opens up green jobs, but consider this on a psychological perspective. Young people are more into the green job market these days than the older generation. Stratifying the economic impact generationally, we're looking at a disproportionate hit on the older generation, not the younger. Additionally, the older generation would know that they, basically, lost their job for a green job. This does not encourage the older generation towards job re-training to learn how to work in the industry that just stole their job from them.
This strikes me as selling out the old for the benefit of the young. Doesn't this violate the 7-generation rule, rather egregiously? In a way it's the opposite problem of what we've been talking about. Instead of pushing the burden in the future, we're pushing it backward.
Food for thought...
- Jason
Sustainability of Relationships?
So all this social/cultural sustainability has me thinking, how does it apply on a personal level, such as human relations? What makes a relationship sustainable? Can I use the social/cultural models that I went over earlier to get any insight on that? Kallstrom & Ljung's (2005) model for farmers seems the most applicable, with a need for mutual care, rights and solidarity in a relationship for things to be sustainable, but there's another dimension to inter-personal relation ships too: change. Individuals change a lot faster than societies, and individuals can change in different directions too. When this happens, the traditional psychological advice would be that this would end the relationship, yet there are examples I can think of where people change in different directions yet continue their relationship.
The traditional model would put commitment at the core of relationship sustainability, with care, rights and solidarity as supporting factors. This attempts to box the individuals into social molds however, removing the possibility for real individual change, and that is (by and large) personally unsustainable and unhealthy. In building off of class discussion, what if commitment is re-framed to not be about commitment to having a specific kind of relationship with the other person, but instead commitment to a moral or ethic of interacting with that other person? Commitment to care, rights and solidarity. How does that change the interaction dynamic? Does that improve sustainability?
Consider, for a moment, the traditional model is boxing and confining, it forces participants to conform to social norms of human interaction: friend, best friend, co-workers, roommate, boyfriend/girlfriend, lover, partner, wife/husband, etc. There's social concepts that the traditional model requires us to bend to accommodate, with the idea that care, rights and solidarity exist within these models, and only within these models.
Breaking out of these models and looking at care, rights and solidarity on their own merits allows for an adaptability of interaction that can compensate for individual changes, and potentially improve sustainability of a relationship. Yet this raises an interesting question, what if a relationship isn't meant to continue? This is a larger sustainability question which I think I will address later, but it's especially relevant in this kind of discussion, so I'll at least raise the question: Why sustain something?
Food for thought,
- Jason
Reference:
Kallstrom, H. N. & Ljung, M. (2005). Social sustainability and collaborative learning. Ambio, 34(4/5), 376-382. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/environment/journal/13280
The traditional model would put commitment at the core of relationship sustainability, with care, rights and solidarity as supporting factors. This attempts to box the individuals into social molds however, removing the possibility for real individual change, and that is (by and large) personally unsustainable and unhealthy. In building off of class discussion, what if commitment is re-framed to not be about commitment to having a specific kind of relationship with the other person, but instead commitment to a moral or ethic of interacting with that other person? Commitment to care, rights and solidarity. How does that change the interaction dynamic? Does that improve sustainability?
Consider, for a moment, the traditional model is boxing and confining, it forces participants to conform to social norms of human interaction: friend, best friend, co-workers, roommate, boyfriend/girlfriend, lover, partner, wife/husband, etc. There's social concepts that the traditional model requires us to bend to accommodate, with the idea that care, rights and solidarity exist within these models, and only within these models.
Breaking out of these models and looking at care, rights and solidarity on their own merits allows for an adaptability of interaction that can compensate for individual changes, and potentially improve sustainability of a relationship. Yet this raises an interesting question, what if a relationship isn't meant to continue? This is a larger sustainability question which I think I will address later, but it's especially relevant in this kind of discussion, so I'll at least raise the question: Why sustain something?
Food for thought,
- Jason
Reference:
Kallstrom, H. N. & Ljung, M. (2005). Social sustainability and collaborative learning. Ambio, 34(4/5), 376-382. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/environment/journal/13280
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Sustainability in Planning?
So, I had my first meeting with my new committee - the Institutional Planning Council. While I was listening to one of the committee co-chairs basically re-capping the committee progress through last year (first meeting of the academic year) and where things were going from here, I started thinking in the back of my mind, what is sustainable planning? What kind of relationships would we like to have between the college plans and college operations? How could we get to this 'ideal planning' state? What are the steps?
I'll have the chance to really hash that out with my committee members over the next five months, but based on my initial questions, I think I piqued some interest in these issues. The first proper meeting is in two weeks (This was more of a status report/update than a proper committee meeting), so I'll get a chance to properly vet my questions then.
I am terribly curious though, comparing this to our final project: If our final project is more about getting a community interested in these issues, how does this translate to a workplace environment which often requires 'champions' of ideas in order for anything to happen that's not mandated by law? It's a tough question that I don't really know how to answer.
- Jason
I'll have the chance to really hash that out with my committee members over the next five months, but based on my initial questions, I think I piqued some interest in these issues. The first proper meeting is in two weeks (This was more of a status report/update than a proper committee meeting), so I'll get a chance to properly vet my questions then.
I am terribly curious though, comparing this to our final project: If our final project is more about getting a community interested in these issues, how does this translate to a workplace environment which often requires 'champions' of ideas in order for anything to happen that's not mandated by law? It's a tough question that I don't really know how to answer.
- Jason
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Cultural/Social Sustainability, Part 2 - Analysis of Sustainability of Groups.
So, I've got more under my belt now, and as such I'm going to attempt a proper analysis of cultural/social sustainability.
From what little there is on the subject, the majority of research on cultural/social sustainability has been from an urban planning perspective (Enyedi, 2002; Kong, 2009; Le Blanc, 2006) and includes recommendations to city policymakers and government on how to design their municipalities in a way that sustains the cultural roots of the region, usually through the creation of cultural centers that both display and attract the creation of cultural products (such as art, music, theater, etc.), development of places of social discourse for those that create cultural product, so they can interact with each other and with the larger municipality (Kong, 2009).
Translating these concepts from cities to social groups can be tricky. A city is not a cultural group, but it can contain parts of one. A cultural group, in today's world, has no physical location. Yet the measures may still be able to translate over. If the goal is the sustainment of the culture and social aspects unique to any specific group of people, then the city concepts can be looked at in terms of what the city is providing to a culture to help the culture sustain itself.
Prominently is the idea of accessibility that people, both from within a culture and without, have to existing places of cultural production. As identified by Kong (2009), the Shanghai Grand Theater is considered inaccessible to the average person due to cost, and doesn't include much local culture in it's offerings. Because of this, the sustainability of Shanghai's culture is harmed through a lack of interaction with the local culture. This infers a need for cultural sustainability that cultural products are produced, displayed, and used by the general population.
As such, places like art galleries, theaters, cinema, libraries and bookstores, all hold a place in sustaining culture. If their vitality in this process is in maintaining their accessibility to the common person, and in inclusion of local production, then the need of these places can be re-engineered to say that cultural sustainability can be measured (though not exclusively) by how much access that culture has to cultural production, and how much accessibility that cultural production has to the common person.
If another need identified is the social interaction within cultures, and between cultures and the common population, and this is provided by allowing for physical community space for people within the culture and people outside the culture to interact (Kong, 2009), specifically regarding the culture and it's cultural product, then this need can also be re-engineered to reflect what a sustainable culture consists of. Since having a physical location to host these social encounters is vital, as well as the inclusion of individuals from outside the culture, another measure can be related to the abundance of these cultural meeting spaces that are maintained by the culture. This can be a regular area, like a neighborhood community park or meeting hall, or something more transient such as a conference or seminar. Again, since Kong (2009) emphasizes the need for outside groups to interact with the culture, there can't be exclusivity involved in attendance.
However, it should be noted that there's more dimensions to cultural and social sustainability than just what's listed above. The above criteria identify sustainability in regards to how a culture interacts with the outside world. What about how the culture interacts with it's members? For this, I can look to the model used by Kallstrom & Ljung (2005), identifying that individuals within a culture need care, rights and solidarity to be socially sustainable within a culture. Kallstrom & Ljung (2005) were specifically looking at the interaction between farmers and the larger society, however the basic principles can still apply, as the psychological detriments that Kallstrom & Ljung (2005) noted on the individuals are not unique specifically to farmers.
To break down care, rights and solidarity into measurable behaviors in a culture is challenging, at best. Starting with probably the easiest, rights, this can be measured in how much involvement and say do individuals have within their culture? Are individuals allowed to have input in decisions that affect them? This can be measured from both an in-group perspective (how much rights do I have within my own particular group?) and an out-group prospective (how much rights do I have within the larger society?). Without rights, it's easy for an individual to feel like they have on control over their life/environment/circumstances/etc. and to not participate socially, or culturally for that matter.
Next easiest is probably solidarity. This would be the merit-based recognition that our society is, supposedly, so fond of. Probably the easiest measure is: Are individuals getting recognition for their accomplishments? Like with value, it's a matter of social/cultural participation. Solidarity serves more as a carrot though, motivating people to include themselves by recognizing their accomplishments.
The third, care, is the most abstract and inconsistent with modern culture. It's non-merit based, unconditional regard. As Kallstrom & Ljung (2005) describe in the case of farmers, the measure is akin to asking 'Are farmers valued as farmers?' Simply valuing a group as who and what they are. Again, building on participation, an individual needs to feel valued for who they are in society to feel motivated to offer what they can contribute.
One thing that Kallstrom & Ljung (2005) don't cover is combining these social reinforcements with other sustainability measures. For example with solidarity, specifically promoting individuals who's behavior are consistent with sustainability behaviors. This is a potential avenue to not only create social sustainability for/within groups, but also to encourage the individuals within those groups to develop sustainable practices.
Then there are measures of social sustainability that blur with economic and urban sustainability and other traditional measures (Alpopi, Manole & Colesca, 2011), such as:
Life expectancy
Infant mortality rate
Number of social service providers per person (health care providers, for example)
Education drop-out rate
Population density
Population growth rate
Per-person living space
The advantage to using these measures is their ease to measure. These are all statistic-driven measures that can be analyzed quantitatively. Unfortunately the use of these measures then limits their applicability. There is no cultural dimension to these measures, and their social dimension is rather limited being limited to an exploration of social sustainability in regards to population. It *is* a vital area to cover however, as even if a group is sustainable in the more qualitative measures for culture and social sustainability, if they lack in the quantitative-based population sustainability then that group will eventually run into some of the more traditional sustainability issues, such as keeping education levels up, or providing sufficient living space per-person for living.
There's a few different ways to analyze social and cultural sustainability, and all of them have a legitimate use. The challenge is framing the measures in a way that's appropriate for the group being studied. Most of these measures fall in the realm of urban planning and provide some difficulty in translating them to group-level use, but there's still a lot of possibility in using these measures to asses the sustainability of groups among social and cultural axes.
- Jason Cherry
References:
From what little there is on the subject, the majority of research on cultural/social sustainability has been from an urban planning perspective (Enyedi, 2002; Kong, 2009; Le Blanc, 2006) and includes recommendations to city policymakers and government on how to design their municipalities in a way that sustains the cultural roots of the region, usually through the creation of cultural centers that both display and attract the creation of cultural products (such as art, music, theater, etc.), development of places of social discourse for those that create cultural product, so they can interact with each other and with the larger municipality (Kong, 2009).
Translating these concepts from cities to social groups can be tricky. A city is not a cultural group, but it can contain parts of one. A cultural group, in today's world, has no physical location. Yet the measures may still be able to translate over. If the goal is the sustainment of the culture and social aspects unique to any specific group of people, then the city concepts can be looked at in terms of what the city is providing to a culture to help the culture sustain itself.
Prominently is the idea of accessibility that people, both from within a culture and without, have to existing places of cultural production. As identified by Kong (2009), the Shanghai Grand Theater is considered inaccessible to the average person due to cost, and doesn't include much local culture in it's offerings. Because of this, the sustainability of Shanghai's culture is harmed through a lack of interaction with the local culture. This infers a need for cultural sustainability that cultural products are produced, displayed, and used by the general population.
As such, places like art galleries, theaters, cinema, libraries and bookstores, all hold a place in sustaining culture. If their vitality in this process is in maintaining their accessibility to the common person, and in inclusion of local production, then the need of these places can be re-engineered to say that cultural sustainability can be measured (though not exclusively) by how much access that culture has to cultural production, and how much accessibility that cultural production has to the common person.
If another need identified is the social interaction within cultures, and between cultures and the common population, and this is provided by allowing for physical community space for people within the culture and people outside the culture to interact (Kong, 2009), specifically regarding the culture and it's cultural product, then this need can also be re-engineered to reflect what a sustainable culture consists of. Since having a physical location to host these social encounters is vital, as well as the inclusion of individuals from outside the culture, another measure can be related to the abundance of these cultural meeting spaces that are maintained by the culture. This can be a regular area, like a neighborhood community park or meeting hall, or something more transient such as a conference or seminar. Again, since Kong (2009) emphasizes the need for outside groups to interact with the culture, there can't be exclusivity involved in attendance.
However, it should be noted that there's more dimensions to cultural and social sustainability than just what's listed above. The above criteria identify sustainability in regards to how a culture interacts with the outside world. What about how the culture interacts with it's members? For this, I can look to the model used by Kallstrom & Ljung (2005), identifying that individuals within a culture need care, rights and solidarity to be socially sustainable within a culture. Kallstrom & Ljung (2005) were specifically looking at the interaction between farmers and the larger society, however the basic principles can still apply, as the psychological detriments that Kallstrom & Ljung (2005) noted on the individuals are not unique specifically to farmers.
To break down care, rights and solidarity into measurable behaviors in a culture is challenging, at best. Starting with probably the easiest, rights, this can be measured in how much involvement and say do individuals have within their culture? Are individuals allowed to have input in decisions that affect them? This can be measured from both an in-group perspective (how much rights do I have within my own particular group?) and an out-group prospective (how much rights do I have within the larger society?). Without rights, it's easy for an individual to feel like they have on control over their life/environment/circumstances/etc. and to not participate socially, or culturally for that matter.
Next easiest is probably solidarity. This would be the merit-based recognition that our society is, supposedly, so fond of. Probably the easiest measure is: Are individuals getting recognition for their accomplishments? Like with value, it's a matter of social/cultural participation. Solidarity serves more as a carrot though, motivating people to include themselves by recognizing their accomplishments.
The third, care, is the most abstract and inconsistent with modern culture. It's non-merit based, unconditional regard. As Kallstrom & Ljung (2005) describe in the case of farmers, the measure is akin to asking 'Are farmers valued as farmers?' Simply valuing a group as who and what they are. Again, building on participation, an individual needs to feel valued for who they are in society to feel motivated to offer what they can contribute.
One thing that Kallstrom & Ljung (2005) don't cover is combining these social reinforcements with other sustainability measures. For example with solidarity, specifically promoting individuals who's behavior are consistent with sustainability behaviors. This is a potential avenue to not only create social sustainability for/within groups, but also to encourage the individuals within those groups to develop sustainable practices.
Then there are measures of social sustainability that blur with economic and urban sustainability and other traditional measures (Alpopi, Manole & Colesca, 2011), such as:
Life expectancy
Infant mortality rate
Number of social service providers per person (health care providers, for example)
Education drop-out rate
Population density
Population growth rate
Per-person living space
The advantage to using these measures is their ease to measure. These are all statistic-driven measures that can be analyzed quantitatively. Unfortunately the use of these measures then limits their applicability. There is no cultural dimension to these measures, and their social dimension is rather limited being limited to an exploration of social sustainability in regards to population. It *is* a vital area to cover however, as even if a group is sustainable in the more qualitative measures for culture and social sustainability, if they lack in the quantitative-based population sustainability then that group will eventually run into some of the more traditional sustainability issues, such as keeping education levels up, or providing sufficient living space per-person for living.
There's a few different ways to analyze social and cultural sustainability, and all of them have a legitimate use. The challenge is framing the measures in a way that's appropriate for the group being studied. Most of these measures fall in the realm of urban planning and provide some difficulty in translating them to group-level use, but there's still a lot of possibility in using these measures to asses the sustainability of groups among social and cultural axes.
- Jason Cherry
References:
Alpopi, C., Manole, C., &
Enyedi, G. (2002). Social sustainability of large cities. Ekistics, 69(412-414), 142-144. Retrieved from http://www.ekistics.org/EJournal.htm
Kallstrom, H. N. & Ljung, M. (2005). Social sustainability and collaborative learning. Ambio, 34(4/5), 376-382. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/environment/journal/13280Kong, L. (2009). Making sustainable creative/cultural space in Shanghai and Singapore. Geographical Review, 99(1), 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.amergeog.org/gr/grhome.html
Le Blanc, M. (2006). Two tales of municipal reorganization: Toronto’s and Montreal’s diverging paths towards regional governance and social sustainability. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 571. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=CJP
Monday, July 25, 2011
Cultural/Social Sustainability
As the class text hasn't really covered this much, I've had to do a little independent research to get a sense of what social and cultural sustainability look like. Here's my resources that I've read so far:
Interesting reads for those inclined. I believe I can start to formulate a loose understanding of social and cultural sustainability thus far:
Cultural Sustainability (mostly from Kong): The ability for society to produce locally-created cultural products (theater, art, music, etc.) and make them commonly accessible to the population. Also the ability for those products to integrate into the regular day-to-day operation of the population's lives. This is done while maintaining an openness and appreciation for external cultural products.
Social Sustainability (mostly from Kallstrom & Ljung): The ability for individuals to interact on a social plane, supported by the culture, and receiving affirmation from three dimensions: love/care, rights and solidarity. Inclusion in decision-making processes on those aspects that affect the individual, and the assurance of this as a human/democratic right.
I've still got a lot to mull over, but the first few things that pop up is with Kong's work, identifying the economic/cultural tightrope that is walked with cultural product. What is popular and sells well (economics) doesn't necessarily benefit the culture at all. This is clear with the milieu of repetition on cultural products in the US. The saying that there's only six movie scripts in Hollywood, and everything else is a variation on that theme. TV, theater, music, kind of the same as well. Money goes to produce cultural product that's economically profitable, not culturally sustaining.
Sad :-(
- Jason
Enyedi, G. (2002). Social sustainability of large cities. Ekistics, 69(412-414), 142-144. Retrieved from http://www.ekistics.org/EJournal.htm
Kallstrom, H. N. & Ljung, M. (2005). Social sustainability and collaborative learning. Ambio, 34(4/5), 376-382. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/environment/journal/13280
Kong, L. (2009). Making sustainable creative/cultural space in Shanghai and Singapore. Geographical Review, 99(1), 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.amergeog.org/gr/grhome.html
Interesting reads for those inclined. I believe I can start to formulate a loose understanding of social and cultural sustainability thus far:
Cultural Sustainability (mostly from Kong): The ability for society to produce locally-created cultural products (theater, art, music, etc.) and make them commonly accessible to the population. Also the ability for those products to integrate into the regular day-to-day operation of the population's lives. This is done while maintaining an openness and appreciation for external cultural products.
Social Sustainability (mostly from Kallstrom & Ljung): The ability for individuals to interact on a social plane, supported by the culture, and receiving affirmation from three dimensions: love/care, rights and solidarity. Inclusion in decision-making processes on those aspects that affect the individual, and the assurance of this as a human/democratic right.
I've still got a lot to mull over, but the first few things that pop up is with Kong's work, identifying the economic/cultural tightrope that is walked with cultural product. What is popular and sells well (economics) doesn't necessarily benefit the culture at all. This is clear with the milieu of repetition on cultural products in the US. The saying that there's only six movie scripts in Hollywood, and everything else is a variation on that theme. TV, theater, music, kind of the same as well. Money goes to produce cultural product that's economically profitable, not culturally sustaining.
Sad :-(
- Jason
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)