From: Michelle (michelle@barrymenasherealtors.com)
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 - 12:07:59 MST
I would not say I'm a puritan - in fact, no one ever has till just now! I
believe in consuming, in satisfying pleasures, in pursuing happiness in
whatever form it takes for an individual. It's when individuals let someone
else (or a corporation) tell them what that form is that I am saddened.
Just because a business that fabricates need will fail in the long run
doesn't mean it doesn't harm in the short run. Yes, the dot-coms crashed.
But didn't they fool a bunch of people into losing a bunch of
money/jobs/security? Investing their self-worth in worthless stock
portfolios that tanked? Other fads are the same - but we buy into them.
It's shallow, not considered, gratification. Not enriching.
A hasty example: for women especially, promiscuous sex can be tremendously
gratifying and enriching (mmmmmm) when approached with self-knowledge and
awareness (and hopefully condoms). When approached with the thought of
being popular or accepted (similar motivations to a fad), eventually it
turns around and bites, psychologically, damages the person. Just because
Cosmo says it's good for you doesn't mean it's good for _you_ . I don't
care what the gratification is, so long as the motivation comes from within.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Ridge <richard_ridge@tao-group.com>
To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: virus: Cannabinoid receptors and munchies : reprise
>
>> Personally, my main complaint with the modern age is not any of these
>> symptoms (poor farming, sweatshops and the like) but what is in my
opinion
>> the ultimate cause: advertising. Advertising is propagandizing and
>> manipulation of desire, creation of need.
>
>I would have to dispute the idea that advertising creates demand. Any
>company attempting to produce a business plan predicated on engineering
>demand for its product, i.e. a product for which no demonstrable market gap
>can be shown and for which no market research showing existing interests or
>needs can be demonstrated, is a company that would be unlikely to generate
>funding. If it could generate funding I would submit that it would probably
>fail. The legions of dot coms who lavished enormous amounts on advertising
>but failed to serve any existing market should be a case in point. The
only
>exception I can think of are companies like Sony, which exists to create
>markets for products that simply haven't existed before. Your point about
>rationality is a more sound one - clearly advertising is not a rational
>argument (or at least rarely so) it is an appeal to emotional behaviour.
But
>then human beings are not wholly rational; if they were memetics would not
>exist.
>
>> I'm all for modernity in every other sense, but what I think makes people
>> sad beyond rational explanation is the dissapointment in our fellow
humans
>> for being so easily herded and brainwashed.
>
>In truth, your argument is not that firms manipulate people - your argument
>is that you dislike people for being so materialistic as to buy said
>products. Like Bodie ('mindless consumers' is an interesting argument from
>someone who can't even lay claim to basic literacy) you are essentially a
>puritan. Why not admit it?
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:43 MDT