Neverending Logical Strings: "If this....then...AND then...therefore"
>> 10 July 2007
"PAPER or PLASTIC?"
It seems like an ordinary, everyday question, but the implications—politically, environmentally, ecumenically—may run deeper than you think when you tell that underpaid (and unlikely to understand any English besides "paper" or "plastic") grocery-bagger of your choice of bag.
Well, besides personal preference for how you carry your grocery bags, or the utility of the bags after they've served their initial purpose, I don't see how you could be a strong advocate for one or the other. The interesting thing that got me thinking about this, however, is the logic used by those who DO hold strong opinions regarding one or the other.
Some environmentalists will say "paper" because it is recyclable, and, at the very least, biodegradable. It does, however, kill trees. Lots of them. And to serve what purpose? To be used once, maybe twice, then thrown away. So plastic must be the way to go, right? True, it saves the trees from being cut down, but it is 100% non-biodegradable, and quite possibly contributes to the killing of animals that Green Peace or PETA or someone is trying to save (didn't Russell Crowe asphyxiate that tiger in the Colosseum-scene in "Gladiator" with a plastic grocery sack? I can't remember).
I suppose you could take the saving the trees argument far enough down the logical line to say: "Well, if you're saving trees, then there are more trees to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen…and THEN you're indirectly fighting global warming," or something...but then, you're still stuck with the rising landfills and dying cuddly animals problem, which, last time I checked, aren't incredibly environmentally- or ecosystem- friendly.
Quite the conundrum.
I don't write this to further paralyze people from making decisions, so that when they're in the supermarket and are innocently asked "paper or plastic" they freeze like a deer in the headlights because images of dying seagulls flash through their minds; nor when they are done taking care of business in the bathroom to make them stare aimlessly at the paper towel dispenser and/or the hand dryer thingy.
I'm just saying that you can only use the running-train of logic that a lot of people with special interests (in this particular blog entry, environmentalists or animal rights' activists...which, by the way, I am not picking on, this just happened to be the first subject I thought of) can take us down: "If this is the case...then this...AND then this...etc", but end up coming full circle or contradicting themselves. There are a lot of flip sides to a lot of coins.
So I guess I should add "…but probably not" to the very end of my opening paragraph.
8 ideas preached:
Well said Asian. I think when long trains of thought, that of necessity have mutliple cars, are used to argue what some deem to be controversial topics, it is a sign of a weak position. It's more likely there is no real point, but the argument is used to cover someones extremism. There I said it.
Good stuff. Reminds me of something the economist Henry Hazlitt wrote about. He relates the parable of the broken window. If a kid throws a brick into the front window of a baker's shop and then runs off, there may be some who argue that the crime actually improves the economy. They'll say the money spent by the baker to repair the window gets pumped into the economy as the glazier who repaired it earns revenue from the baker and eventually spends it, and so it goes, making it appear as though the brick, though a cost to the baker, actually ends up doing more good than bad.
What Hazlitt points out, is that people rarely recognize the loss of the baker. The $100 he had to spend to fix his window could have been used to buy a new suit, which in turn would have enriched the tailor, who in turn would have spent that money on more goods, and so on.
The point is, I think, that you can spin most things two ways. Sure WWII, Hazlitt points out, caused the economy of Europe to grow. But the growth was caused by damage, not by economic demand. Damage, and the need to repair something, he claims, is hardly ever a positive thing. How much better off could Europe have been it it didn't have to replace all of it's manufacturing plants?
Food for thought. Sometimes things aren't as simple or easy to label as we all like to think they are.
To echo the words of the J train, Well said Asian. And yes, Maximus did take out the tiger with a plastic sack, but sorry, it was from the colosseum concession stand, not the grocery store.
What, no cardboard in the mix? Only paper and plastic? I fear you might offend the habitual warehouse shopper types with your paper or plastic snobery. Is it too much to ask that you at least include the soccer moms and preparedness zealots with huge families who must out of time restraint alone be forced to warehouse shop. Paper or plastic indead! I think the phrase is, " Are you gonna need boxes ma'am?"
Great is an understatement. After I got past cracking up at the pictures I actually read some of it. Your writing skills are as great as ever. I remember reading your papers in college, it is great that you still continue to use it. I'll continue to check back.
This blog entry was very educational because who would have known they still use paper bags in grocery stores (which proves I live in Utah). I think the real decision regarding whether to use hand dryers or paper towels should be based on how many germs you gain back by touching the blower or paper towel dispenser. I love those new towel dispensers with the light that dispenses the towel without touching the germy pull down button and the blower that senses your hands without touching the fingerprint infested large silver button. I'm pretty sure Rich and I will get a kick out of your blog. Thanks for the thoughts.
You win. You are better at everything... I mean- look at you- you are like a James Joycian Seinfeld.... I love it! Way to go...:)
I can think of so many future targets such as PETA and celebicians (celebrity politicians - I just coined the new term). But glad to see your start.
On paper or plastic, we actually use our paper as our garbage can because we're cheap like that. Never move to Oregon by the way. Its the capital of irational tree huggin logic. This leads to a great debate, who should be treated better ... trees or animals. If we could get PETA to fight against the tree huggers, that'd be something.
But on a more serious note, I can't think of extremes without thinking of the Letter from Birmingham Jail and the example of good extremes (and I can think of very few of them beyond what the Reverend wrote). But the thing about other extremists isn't that they aren't trying to do a good thing, but what they neglect to push their extreme agenda. I really liked Travis point too. I don't want to get into economists too much right now to expand...
Post a Comment