Even though I wasn't around for the beginning of this brief I believe I caught on quite well fairly quickly.
The topic itself, global warming and why it has taken so long to be common knowledge, was quite interesting and relevant when compared with media's input on the publicity of the issue.
However, when we had to go off on tangents attempting to correlate other factors to the issue I found it hard to make any association with the task and our course, communication design, we aren't doing economics, sociology or philosophy. I still believe it is a slight stretch on our course learning, as it is only slightly related to media as we were asked to make other associations other than media itself, it seems more like a theory task.
Though I do understand now why the brief requested what it did, to prompt us to expand on a certain issue or topic and not just settle for what is common knowledge or prior conceptions. We had to dig deep and research well to be able to associate other participating facets to this already thouroughly-discussed issue.
The readings on the other hand were quite insightful and related entirely to our given topic and course.
I believe that this brief has encouraged me to research more deeply than I usually would and to make my own associations more. Rather than relying on what I read I have learnt to input my own thought much more than in previous briefs or just when reading the news or absorbing media in general.
In summary, I learnt a lot relating to this topic and though we (my group) came up with our theories and even have evidence to substantiate our ideas, I still wonder why exactly it has actually taken so long for this publicity and general knowlegde to eventuate?
=)
Friday, 25 May 2007
Thursday, 24 May 2007
Final Group Report!
Media Semester One 2007.“The environmental limits to human growth were first discussed (in Western discourse) by Thomas Malthus (1798). Western scientists have been investigating the evidence for the dangers posed to humanity’s survival by our environmental impact since the 1950's. Global warming itself, as a human driven process, has been discussed in scientific circles since the 1960's. It has taken until now (2006-2007) for this issue to become one of absolute public currency.” As stated in our brief as background.
The question then posed by this brief was enquiring as to why it has taken so long, approximately 210 years, for global warming to become common knowledge. Also adding to the question, what is media’s part in this new found awareness?To begin, we first had to research our topic in general, global warming, in order to fully understand its effects and why exactly it has come about. Through reading newspaper articles and many websites this is what we came up with in relation to global warming and then redefined it in our own terms, the way in which we (and quite possibly the majority of the general public) perceive the topic and take it as fact.
By definition global warming is the steady increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. This, along time, will cause dramatic climatic change! Though most people just know it as the change of the atmosphere and climate (mainly temperature), brought about by artificial means, i.e., by man, primarily as a result of pollution. Nowadays it seems as though anything we do 'hurt' the environment (and in turn damaging our own chances of life in the future). Consumer or supplier, be it by driving to work, industry production (to allow modern human way of life) or even just by having a shower that is longer than three minutes, we are doing irreversible damage.
All our pollution has damaged the ozone layer, therefore allowing more harmful UV rays to enter our atmosphere which corrupts our climate, drastically changing the weather patterns. This is the main reason why we are so short on water, climate change, not enough rainfall and why? Global warming. Not only the climate change but our wastage of natural resources has really had an adverse effect on our and the world's environment as a whole. Wastage of water, wastage of product and overuse of fossil fuels (which themselves lead to global warming) has lowered humanity's chances of a comfortable life in future generations.
So, just recently, upon this realization, we are being urged to conserve, reuse, and recycle. Upon finally accepting global warming as fact, the government and authority bodies are making the public more aware of global warming and its influence on our futures. Those who realise just what global warming can do are in a panic. Now the attempt to turn around, or even erase the damage, is on. Companies are being urged to reduce their wastage, use of resources and to recycle as much as possible. Families are being forced to conserve in everyday life, and even so, the environment is still on the decline.
This the view that the general public will get on global warming, even after extensive research. The basic facts and general ideas behind global warming. They will see what the authority bodies want to show the world. Yet you will not get information about what has been done prior to the past 5years or so in relation to this issue that apparently is of epidemic proportions. You will get current policies, current theories, current actions to try and save our world, but there is a good 200 years of missing information, missing research and missing theories. Nowadays there are advertisements and television commercials on global warming. Many different avenues have been traveled down in order to increase public awareness now, but what about many years ago? Why not then? From the first revelation of global warming some 209 years ago to now there has been hardly any substantial speak of the issue, again we ask why?
We now know what global warming is, what it is doing to our planet and what the government and other bodies are attempting to do to halt or even try to reverse some of the damage. However we don’t know why everyone knows about it now and not many years ago. So why has it taken so long for the world to realise, to know and to accept that the very existence of life is at risk?
We had to ponder as to why so recently and so suddenly the world has been overcome with knowledge about global warming. With the media being largely in our thoughts, we brainstormed how exactly the media itself would have an effect on public knowledge and acceptance of global warming.
Through brainstorming we assessed media 200 years ago. We assessed monetary factors, publicity factors, industry availability and even existence? We then assessed media today, monetary factors, publicity factors and the thriving industry. Both of which we endeavored to make a correlation with knowledge of global warming.
So this is what we came up with on media 200 years ago; media prior to the 20th and 21st century, well, honestly, what media? A newspaper and possibly a man walking down the streets ringing a bell and yelling out what happened the day prior? This was the so called 'media' back in those days. There were no posters, no televisions to place commercials and documentaries on, no billboards or magazines, so I'm guessing that the media didn't really have that much influence over peoples thoughts. If or at the time of anyone in the world discovering global warming, unless in close proximity, no one else would even hear about it for decades! That's if anyone even believed the person. And we wonder why it's taken so long for word to get out about global warming!
We then came up with a summary of media today. Media in current society is much more diverse and readily available for viewing, listening and reading. There are many different avenues of media. We now have television, radio, billboards, newspapers, magazines and the Internet, all of which are awash with various information, numerous advertisements and much proof to substantiate any scientific claim made. We now know more, seek more and want to be informed of more than we ever have before, and why, because it is readily available to us. As a result, we have a heightened awareness of events around us due to the overwhelming power of current media.
Just with our definitions and summaries of media 200 years ago and media today it would appear that media and media coverage is the main, if not the sole, contributor as to why the public is now aware and informed about global warming. However, we beg to differ with this assumption. How can one element be solely responsible for such an epic occurrence?
Media coverage is only one part, the part to notify the individual, the world, yet it’s not the only factor. You may ask what other factors could there be? You could state why would we be looking any further than the media when there is so much evidence to show that media is the reason why people now know about global warming?
After much deliberation and debate we discovered the answer we had been looking for. As we discussed, the answer was plain and simple; choice. Everything in every one's lives relies on the choices that are made. In the past it has just been chosen to deny the fact of global warming, just choosing not to believe it, until now. Now when the evidence that global warming is true and is currently occurring, is too great to deny any further.
But why deny it to begin with? The answer is choice, it was chosen to be ignored, denied and swept under the carpet. By whom, you may ask? Who makes these choices? Our response is, everyone.Choices are made by everyone. The government, the scientific bodies, industries, the media and the general public. You may wonder what choices have to do with the media and with global warming, or even just what they have to do with science in general. What you don’t know is that they play a pivotal role in every step of any discovery, what is publicized or reported and in life itself. In relation to the topic at hand however, choice is a factor in many stages of the quest for world realization of the scientific evidence relating to and backing up global warming.
First of all there was the choice of the scientists way back 200 years ago to even study the Earth and the possible reality of global warming. This choice was made and the research done. The research showed global warming as fact the choice now was to discuss it. This was, as previously stated, discussed in 1798. The choice at that time was to take no further action. Whether this was a talked through choice of majority or a choice because not enough people took Thomas Malthus seriously we do not know but at that stage the choice stood. In the 1950's, some 150 years later, the choice was made to re investigate the environment. Then in the 1960's again it was chosen to discuss global warming as an issue of importance. Just recently the choice has been made to publicize global warming. To further study global warming, to validate it as fact and to develop further theories relating to global warming. The government has made the choice to enforce policies, to assist in reductions of pollution and to encourage environmentally friendly products and ways of life. The choice has been made to print articles in the newspaper, to put documentaries on television and commercials on the radio. The choice has been made to allow the media to cover this issue and to give so much publicity to this issue and articles surrounding it.
This topic now is widely covered and as such appears more believable and evidence seems to prove it more so than ever before. So was it the choice to publicize the topic, the choice of the media to present it in a more public way, to almost force it on society and to make people accept it through extensive presentation of evidence, information and ongoing publications? No, this is not the choice we are explaining.
There is really only one choice that defines whether or not the media has any influence at all over peoples thoughts and reactions to global warming. What one choice is it that we are implicating? The choice we are referring to is simply the choice to accept what has been placed in front of you, to accept what is told or shown to you. Put quite simply, it is the choice to believe.Our task now was to prove this. In order to prove this however, we first had to discover why people have chosen to believe only recently.
Upon examination of current media and media strategies we concluded that people are more inclined to believe such ideas as global warming now, or just recently, as it is at this time that many of the claims can seem to be proven facts. They can be shown to be more believable and publicized much more nowadays in comparison to any time before hand. In effect the knowledge of such an issue is much more common than ever before therefore as more people seem to know about it, discuss it and research it, it has become much more accepted and believed as a truthful fact.
Now to evidence this ourselves. We decided that a sufficient way to show our view and evidence our theory was to create a new product and attempt to sell the idea of it. Not literally sell the product, just advertise and see if the public would accept it as a new product on the market. We were to make this product reasonably controversial, something that is not going to be easily accepted, and play with its advertisement and image enough to make it seem a reality.
We came up with 'Mystifood'. A spray on food flavouring.
Mystifood is part of the Zücker Co. which mainly produces food products.The spray on flavor is the latest invention in the Mystifood food line. As part of Züker’s marketing team we are introducing the product to the public for the first time to get some opinion. Zücker is a manufacturing company from Germany with backgrounds in producing textile to food. The company was founded in 1984and is relatively new compared to other giant German manufacturers although this allows the company newer and fresher ideas in manufacturing innovative products such as this spray-on-flavor.
Founder:Dr. Stephanek Zuker (1920-2004)
The day that we toured the streets to get opinions from the public about Mystifood. We had several developments along the way as well and our story is no less than interesting.
The day started off at Southern Cross station, where we took the role of student researchers and went around carrying a huge ass camera, a small folding table and mystifood. We planned to hide the professional looking packaging and reveal it only after our interviewee had tasted the flavours. Although we did expect to be waved off by passersby who claims to be extremely busy, there were a hand full who took a glimpse at the 3 suspicious looking bottles on the table and made a face while walking away. It was especially so when we mentioned that it was a taste test and gave very vague information about the product. Our first customer was curious enough to walk up to us asking about what was going on, however we suspected he was wanting to get into our camera because he started telling us his life story as a pro-skater. After performing the test and asking for his opinions on the taste, we went on to the real questions. Be reminded that the whole taste test was purely created to heighten the illusion that this company actually exists.
We asked him how he felt about the idea of spraying on food and would he spend money on it when it was out on the shelf. He immediately linked the food spray to body spray and but went on to say that it was a brilliant idea. He had a look at the packaging as I was explaining how the actual aerosol food spray would work and the illusion was complete. He was prepared to part with his money to try the product out when it is available in IGA (or so we say).
We understood that it was a sensitive trust issue when it came to testing a suspicious food product, so we changed our tactics by placing the packaging right in the front of the table and the sprays behind them. We had some people who were more interested in looking at the packaging rather than testing the product. This was a really interesting because we realized that when we had a booth set up behind us, their eyes would scan the table first for something believable before engaging into it.Relating this back to our topic of choice, people as a whole are so used to seeing media around them that they would turn away from you if you only had a verbal concept. In their minds, they have a certain expectation to what is 'real'. Having watched the news and live reports day after day, some people will tend to believe what the news reports to be a fact. When the news stations decided to do a report on Global warming and showed what is believed to be evidence of the climate change, people responded to that after watching images and footage of the signs to this calamity. Seeing is believing so they say and the media has been able to make use of that. We are not saying that global warming doesn't exist. All we are trying to prove is that media does have the power to affect your choice. How?
Well. After being chased out from Southern Cross station by the station security for having that huge ass camera, we decided to go up a tram and actually set up our booth right in the middle of the carriage and do our interview right there. Although it was a total wacky idea, we reckon we could get a better chance of someone participating in our survey since people can't give the excuse that they were in a rush to go somewhere. We managed to put up our booth right in front of this one guy, who was staring at us the whole time we were setting up the booth. Who can blame him? We were right in his face. We started explaining what was happening and similarly we had the packaging laid out nicely right in front of the table. We did the whole test and managed to get him comfortable enough to talk about how he felt about the product and the idea of it. Although he was quite negative about the product, he was willing to try if the taste were stronger and had a better range of flavours. Right after that, we had the tram inspectors coming up on board and we were threatened with a heavy fine. Thanks to the whole 'student researchers' play, we got away Scot free but then we decided not to risk getting caught twice.
However, this proved an important point. Media is everywhere. On the floor of the streets, on the doors of a tram, in you face at the urinal to even on the ceiling while you stretch your neck to take a break on your ride home. When we did the survey in the tram, we were performing the same role as the advertisements stuck above the windows. Being trapped in that space for a certain amount of time gives media a chance alter your perception of they have to say. Even thou we did not get a good response about our product, now there is one more person who knows the 'existence' of mystifood.We went back into the city and continued our usual survey off the streets in the same way and the responses were pretty much the same. A fair bit of busy people and others interested in the packaging alone. And from those that we manage to convince to try our product, none of them actually raised the question of whether this was a real product. We believe that whole set up (i.e camera person, actual packaging, taste test samples) had pretty much bought over the trust of people. Basically, people are attracted to aesthetics, which gives them a choice to approach. After the attraction comes the facts which are presented in forms of verbal and/or visual materials, which gives the choice to believe.Somehow its like getting someone in America to invest money on a holiday resort in Indonesia and all that are presented to them are video footage of the place and paper proposals. The investors are not invited to take a flight down see to the actual place before closing the deal, but rather was shown visionary illusions of the future. Media played a role in hopes of convincing and affecting that investor's choice. Could global warming be a scam of the same nature? Are the measures recommended by the media a visionary illusion to improve their own status?
This project could be developed by possibly taking the illusion even further. The role sample of this would be similar to the student documentary Cesky Sen (Czech Dream). The product(s) were pushed as far as they could go, for the illusion to blow up in the public’s face. From this we learned that people never really question what is being presented to you unless it comes in a certain package. Their package was that they were businessmen and had everything going just like a new business should. However, the goal for our project is not to focus on capitalism/consumerism but more of what media allows us to believe something that is not real. It would be fascinating to see more reaction from people if we could get advertisement of this fake product via television, radio, newspaper etc. Recently there was a new TV. advertisement for the Nando’s chewing gum. It was a vague advertisement because first of all it didn’t really relate to the brand at all! Nando’s chicken and chewing gum, what??!! Although it became more intriguing for the public to find out if this was something for real or a total hoax just to get more attention for Nandos. This could be said that curiosity drives the public to search for the truth. Therefore if we made our food spray product even more seductive and even more ambiguous it could produce more interest.
The idea of the product itself is ridiculous, like one our surveyed said that he’d rather just cook than spray the taste on some bland food. Not only that, our presentation, we were semi professionals because we knew we couldn’t pull off a complete business/marketing people look weren’t convincing enough. However, because we were “students” some people were more inclined to help try the product.What was interesting is that not one person question the idea that this product is harmful that it will be in an aerosol can. There are so many things wrong with aerosol cans but no one seemed to care.
What we can take away from this project is that you can sell anything if you present it, create the right illusion and make people believe in anything even if what you are selling is totally bogus and devious. As for our low budget illusion making project, the response was quite expected; a lot more people questioned the product (not the idea of the product) and were skeptical. Because it is an intimate setting that we are asking people to put things in their mouth, we will have negative reactions more than positive. The set up of the experiment is also what may have drove some people away or made them more reluctant; with our professional looking and conspicuous camera and a mini foldable-table.
This project may help some realize how dark and mischievous the marketing/advertising business could be and because we are (could be?) somewhat an extension of that discipline we could either take our knowledge and our illusion making skills down a good or evil path. At least we will be a lot more inquisitive and dubious about things that are presented to us and not accept it wholeheartedly without further investigation. It will definitely make us THINK!
The question then posed by this brief was enquiring as to why it has taken so long, approximately 210 years, for global warming to become common knowledge. Also adding to the question, what is media’s part in this new found awareness?To begin, we first had to research our topic in general, global warming, in order to fully understand its effects and why exactly it has come about. Through reading newspaper articles and many websites this is what we came up with in relation to global warming and then redefined it in our own terms, the way in which we (and quite possibly the majority of the general public) perceive the topic and take it as fact.
By definition global warming is the steady increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. This, along time, will cause dramatic climatic change! Though most people just know it as the change of the atmosphere and climate (mainly temperature), brought about by artificial means, i.e., by man, primarily as a result of pollution. Nowadays it seems as though anything we do 'hurt' the environment (and in turn damaging our own chances of life in the future). Consumer or supplier, be it by driving to work, industry production (to allow modern human way of life) or even just by having a shower that is longer than three minutes, we are doing irreversible damage.
All our pollution has damaged the ozone layer, therefore allowing more harmful UV rays to enter our atmosphere which corrupts our climate, drastically changing the weather patterns. This is the main reason why we are so short on water, climate change, not enough rainfall and why? Global warming. Not only the climate change but our wastage of natural resources has really had an adverse effect on our and the world's environment as a whole. Wastage of water, wastage of product and overuse of fossil fuels (which themselves lead to global warming) has lowered humanity's chances of a comfortable life in future generations.
So, just recently, upon this realization, we are being urged to conserve, reuse, and recycle. Upon finally accepting global warming as fact, the government and authority bodies are making the public more aware of global warming and its influence on our futures. Those who realise just what global warming can do are in a panic. Now the attempt to turn around, or even erase the damage, is on. Companies are being urged to reduce their wastage, use of resources and to recycle as much as possible. Families are being forced to conserve in everyday life, and even so, the environment is still on the decline.
This the view that the general public will get on global warming, even after extensive research. The basic facts and general ideas behind global warming. They will see what the authority bodies want to show the world. Yet you will not get information about what has been done prior to the past 5years or so in relation to this issue that apparently is of epidemic proportions. You will get current policies, current theories, current actions to try and save our world, but there is a good 200 years of missing information, missing research and missing theories. Nowadays there are advertisements and television commercials on global warming. Many different avenues have been traveled down in order to increase public awareness now, but what about many years ago? Why not then? From the first revelation of global warming some 209 years ago to now there has been hardly any substantial speak of the issue, again we ask why?
We now know what global warming is, what it is doing to our planet and what the government and other bodies are attempting to do to halt or even try to reverse some of the damage. However we don’t know why everyone knows about it now and not many years ago. So why has it taken so long for the world to realise, to know and to accept that the very existence of life is at risk?
We had to ponder as to why so recently and so suddenly the world has been overcome with knowledge about global warming. With the media being largely in our thoughts, we brainstormed how exactly the media itself would have an effect on public knowledge and acceptance of global warming.
Through brainstorming we assessed media 200 years ago. We assessed monetary factors, publicity factors, industry availability and even existence? We then assessed media today, monetary factors, publicity factors and the thriving industry. Both of which we endeavored to make a correlation with knowledge of global warming.
So this is what we came up with on media 200 years ago; media prior to the 20th and 21st century, well, honestly, what media? A newspaper and possibly a man walking down the streets ringing a bell and yelling out what happened the day prior? This was the so called 'media' back in those days. There were no posters, no televisions to place commercials and documentaries on, no billboards or magazines, so I'm guessing that the media didn't really have that much influence over peoples thoughts. If or at the time of anyone in the world discovering global warming, unless in close proximity, no one else would even hear about it for decades! That's if anyone even believed the person. And we wonder why it's taken so long for word to get out about global warming!
We then came up with a summary of media today. Media in current society is much more diverse and readily available for viewing, listening and reading. There are many different avenues of media. We now have television, radio, billboards, newspapers, magazines and the Internet, all of which are awash with various information, numerous advertisements and much proof to substantiate any scientific claim made. We now know more, seek more and want to be informed of more than we ever have before, and why, because it is readily available to us. As a result, we have a heightened awareness of events around us due to the overwhelming power of current media.
Just with our definitions and summaries of media 200 years ago and media today it would appear that media and media coverage is the main, if not the sole, contributor as to why the public is now aware and informed about global warming. However, we beg to differ with this assumption. How can one element be solely responsible for such an epic occurrence?
Media coverage is only one part, the part to notify the individual, the world, yet it’s not the only factor. You may ask what other factors could there be? You could state why would we be looking any further than the media when there is so much evidence to show that media is the reason why people now know about global warming?
After much deliberation and debate we discovered the answer we had been looking for. As we discussed, the answer was plain and simple; choice. Everything in every one's lives relies on the choices that are made. In the past it has just been chosen to deny the fact of global warming, just choosing not to believe it, until now. Now when the evidence that global warming is true and is currently occurring, is too great to deny any further.
But why deny it to begin with? The answer is choice, it was chosen to be ignored, denied and swept under the carpet. By whom, you may ask? Who makes these choices? Our response is, everyone.Choices are made by everyone. The government, the scientific bodies, industries, the media and the general public. You may wonder what choices have to do with the media and with global warming, or even just what they have to do with science in general. What you don’t know is that they play a pivotal role in every step of any discovery, what is publicized or reported and in life itself. In relation to the topic at hand however, choice is a factor in many stages of the quest for world realization of the scientific evidence relating to and backing up global warming.
First of all there was the choice of the scientists way back 200 years ago to even study the Earth and the possible reality of global warming. This choice was made and the research done. The research showed global warming as fact the choice now was to discuss it. This was, as previously stated, discussed in 1798. The choice at that time was to take no further action. Whether this was a talked through choice of majority or a choice because not enough people took Thomas Malthus seriously we do not know but at that stage the choice stood. In the 1950's, some 150 years later, the choice was made to re investigate the environment. Then in the 1960's again it was chosen to discuss global warming as an issue of importance. Just recently the choice has been made to publicize global warming. To further study global warming, to validate it as fact and to develop further theories relating to global warming. The government has made the choice to enforce policies, to assist in reductions of pollution and to encourage environmentally friendly products and ways of life. The choice has been made to print articles in the newspaper, to put documentaries on television and commercials on the radio. The choice has been made to allow the media to cover this issue and to give so much publicity to this issue and articles surrounding it.
This topic now is widely covered and as such appears more believable and evidence seems to prove it more so than ever before. So was it the choice to publicize the topic, the choice of the media to present it in a more public way, to almost force it on society and to make people accept it through extensive presentation of evidence, information and ongoing publications? No, this is not the choice we are explaining.
There is really only one choice that defines whether or not the media has any influence at all over peoples thoughts and reactions to global warming. What one choice is it that we are implicating? The choice we are referring to is simply the choice to accept what has been placed in front of you, to accept what is told or shown to you. Put quite simply, it is the choice to believe.Our task now was to prove this. In order to prove this however, we first had to discover why people have chosen to believe only recently.
Upon examination of current media and media strategies we concluded that people are more inclined to believe such ideas as global warming now, or just recently, as it is at this time that many of the claims can seem to be proven facts. They can be shown to be more believable and publicized much more nowadays in comparison to any time before hand. In effect the knowledge of such an issue is much more common than ever before therefore as more people seem to know about it, discuss it and research it, it has become much more accepted and believed as a truthful fact.
Now to evidence this ourselves. We decided that a sufficient way to show our view and evidence our theory was to create a new product and attempt to sell the idea of it. Not literally sell the product, just advertise and see if the public would accept it as a new product on the market. We were to make this product reasonably controversial, something that is not going to be easily accepted, and play with its advertisement and image enough to make it seem a reality.
We came up with 'Mystifood'. A spray on food flavouring.
Mystifood is part of the Zücker Co. which mainly produces food products.The spray on flavor is the latest invention in the Mystifood food line. As part of Züker’s marketing team we are introducing the product to the public for the first time to get some opinion. Zücker is a manufacturing company from Germany with backgrounds in producing textile to food. The company was founded in 1984and is relatively new compared to other giant German manufacturers although this allows the company newer and fresher ideas in manufacturing innovative products such as this spray-on-flavor.
Founder:Dr. Stephanek Zuker (1920-2004)
The day that we toured the streets to get opinions from the public about Mystifood. We had several developments along the way as well and our story is no less than interesting.
The day started off at Southern Cross station, where we took the role of student researchers and went around carrying a huge ass camera, a small folding table and mystifood. We planned to hide the professional looking packaging and reveal it only after our interviewee had tasted the flavours. Although we did expect to be waved off by passersby who claims to be extremely busy, there were a hand full who took a glimpse at the 3 suspicious looking bottles on the table and made a face while walking away. It was especially so when we mentioned that it was a taste test and gave very vague information about the product. Our first customer was curious enough to walk up to us asking about what was going on, however we suspected he was wanting to get into our camera because he started telling us his life story as a pro-skater. After performing the test and asking for his opinions on the taste, we went on to the real questions. Be reminded that the whole taste test was purely created to heighten the illusion that this company actually exists.
We asked him how he felt about the idea of spraying on food and would he spend money on it when it was out on the shelf. He immediately linked the food spray to body spray and but went on to say that it was a brilliant idea. He had a look at the packaging as I was explaining how the actual aerosol food spray would work and the illusion was complete. He was prepared to part with his money to try the product out when it is available in IGA (or so we say).
We understood that it was a sensitive trust issue when it came to testing a suspicious food product, so we changed our tactics by placing the packaging right in the front of the table and the sprays behind them. We had some people who were more interested in looking at the packaging rather than testing the product. This was a really interesting because we realized that when we had a booth set up behind us, their eyes would scan the table first for something believable before engaging into it.Relating this back to our topic of choice, people as a whole are so used to seeing media around them that they would turn away from you if you only had a verbal concept. In their minds, they have a certain expectation to what is 'real'. Having watched the news and live reports day after day, some people will tend to believe what the news reports to be a fact. When the news stations decided to do a report on Global warming and showed what is believed to be evidence of the climate change, people responded to that after watching images and footage of the signs to this calamity. Seeing is believing so they say and the media has been able to make use of that. We are not saying that global warming doesn't exist. All we are trying to prove is that media does have the power to affect your choice. How?
Well. After being chased out from Southern Cross station by the station security for having that huge ass camera, we decided to go up a tram and actually set up our booth right in the middle of the carriage and do our interview right there. Although it was a total wacky idea, we reckon we could get a better chance of someone participating in our survey since people can't give the excuse that they were in a rush to go somewhere. We managed to put up our booth right in front of this one guy, who was staring at us the whole time we were setting up the booth. Who can blame him? We were right in his face. We started explaining what was happening and similarly we had the packaging laid out nicely right in front of the table. We did the whole test and managed to get him comfortable enough to talk about how he felt about the product and the idea of it. Although he was quite negative about the product, he was willing to try if the taste were stronger and had a better range of flavours. Right after that, we had the tram inspectors coming up on board and we were threatened with a heavy fine. Thanks to the whole 'student researchers' play, we got away Scot free but then we decided not to risk getting caught twice.
However, this proved an important point. Media is everywhere. On the floor of the streets, on the doors of a tram, in you face at the urinal to even on the ceiling while you stretch your neck to take a break on your ride home. When we did the survey in the tram, we were performing the same role as the advertisements stuck above the windows. Being trapped in that space for a certain amount of time gives media a chance alter your perception of they have to say. Even thou we did not get a good response about our product, now there is one more person who knows the 'existence' of mystifood.We went back into the city and continued our usual survey off the streets in the same way and the responses were pretty much the same. A fair bit of busy people and others interested in the packaging alone. And from those that we manage to convince to try our product, none of them actually raised the question of whether this was a real product. We believe that whole set up (i.e camera person, actual packaging, taste test samples) had pretty much bought over the trust of people. Basically, people are attracted to aesthetics, which gives them a choice to approach. After the attraction comes the facts which are presented in forms of verbal and/or visual materials, which gives the choice to believe.Somehow its like getting someone in America to invest money on a holiday resort in Indonesia and all that are presented to them are video footage of the place and paper proposals. The investors are not invited to take a flight down see to the actual place before closing the deal, but rather was shown visionary illusions of the future. Media played a role in hopes of convincing and affecting that investor's choice. Could global warming be a scam of the same nature? Are the measures recommended by the media a visionary illusion to improve their own status?
This project could be developed by possibly taking the illusion even further. The role sample of this would be similar to the student documentary Cesky Sen (Czech Dream). The product(s) were pushed as far as they could go, for the illusion to blow up in the public’s face. From this we learned that people never really question what is being presented to you unless it comes in a certain package. Their package was that they were businessmen and had everything going just like a new business should. However, the goal for our project is not to focus on capitalism/consumerism but more of what media allows us to believe something that is not real. It would be fascinating to see more reaction from people if we could get advertisement of this fake product via television, radio, newspaper etc. Recently there was a new TV. advertisement for the Nando’s chewing gum. It was a vague advertisement because first of all it didn’t really relate to the brand at all! Nando’s chicken and chewing gum, what??!! Although it became more intriguing for the public to find out if this was something for real or a total hoax just to get more attention for Nandos. This could be said that curiosity drives the public to search for the truth. Therefore if we made our food spray product even more seductive and even more ambiguous it could produce more interest.
The idea of the product itself is ridiculous, like one our surveyed said that he’d rather just cook than spray the taste on some bland food. Not only that, our presentation, we were semi professionals because we knew we couldn’t pull off a complete business/marketing people look weren’t convincing enough. However, because we were “students” some people were more inclined to help try the product.What was interesting is that not one person question the idea that this product is harmful that it will be in an aerosol can. There are so many things wrong with aerosol cans but no one seemed to care.
What we can take away from this project is that you can sell anything if you present it, create the right illusion and make people believe in anything even if what you are selling is totally bogus and devious. As for our low budget illusion making project, the response was quite expected; a lot more people questioned the product (not the idea of the product) and were skeptical. Because it is an intimate setting that we are asking people to put things in their mouth, we will have negative reactions more than positive. The set up of the experiment is also what may have drove some people away or made them more reluctant; with our professional looking and conspicuous camera and a mini foldable-table.
This project may help some realize how dark and mischievous the marketing/advertising business could be and because we are (could be?) somewhat an extension of that discipline we could either take our knowledge and our illusion making skills down a good or evil path. At least we will be a lot more inquisitive and dubious about things that are presented to us and not accept it wholeheartedly without further investigation. It will definitely make us THINK!
Small is Beautiful
In relation to this topic the title of the text says it all. Small is beautiful, in effect, less is more.
The texts begins by talking about materialism and how us as a society have become acustomed to living a materialistic lifestyle. Yet this cannot go on forever and won't last long.
It then goes on to discuss technology and what technology does for humanity and humanity's way of life. This text states, quite rightly too if I may add, that technology has done nothing to diminish poverty or lower unemployment (especially in developing countries, where it is as high as 30%), if anything, regarding unemployment technology is almost contributing to it by replacing man in many tasks that can now be done mechanically. Even the jobs that have been created by technology are, put quite simply, boring as hell, therefore people don't get enjoyment out of working at all.
So, the question was posed, 'What does technology actually do for us?'
Well, it is "designed to serve the human person," an attempt at making life easier. Cars were invented to get us from palce a. to place b. but why did we need to get there so fast? Computers and calculators were invented to assist in mathematics and sciences, but why couldn't we have just continued to use our brains? Technological advances are not necessary, as other methods have already been in place for hundreds of years. Though they do make things easier. Yet ease doesn't equal simplicity. Ease doesn't necessarily deliver a stress free lifestyle.
With technology comes the responsibility of harnessing these new developments and the expectation of further progress. Thus, the "burden of living" is much heavier then that of a technological free lifestyle.
Happiness is not a result of technology or material posessions, some people are just deluded enough to believe that it is.
The texts begins by talking about materialism and how us as a society have become acustomed to living a materialistic lifestyle. Yet this cannot go on forever and won't last long.
It then goes on to discuss technology and what technology does for humanity and humanity's way of life. This text states, quite rightly too if I may add, that technology has done nothing to diminish poverty or lower unemployment (especially in developing countries, where it is as high as 30%), if anything, regarding unemployment technology is almost contributing to it by replacing man in many tasks that can now be done mechanically. Even the jobs that have been created by technology are, put quite simply, boring as hell, therefore people don't get enjoyment out of working at all.
So, the question was posed, 'What does technology actually do for us?'
Well, it is "designed to serve the human person," an attempt at making life easier. Cars were invented to get us from palce a. to place b. but why did we need to get there so fast? Computers and calculators were invented to assist in mathematics and sciences, but why couldn't we have just continued to use our brains? Technological advances are not necessary, as other methods have already been in place for hundreds of years. Though they do make things easier. Yet ease doesn't equal simplicity. Ease doesn't necessarily deliver a stress free lifestyle.
With technology comes the responsibility of harnessing these new developments and the expectation of further progress. Thus, the "burden of living" is much heavier then that of a technological free lifestyle.
Happiness is not a result of technology or material posessions, some people are just deluded enough to believe that it is.
The Rules of the Game
This text has many interesting, relevant and logical points. It makes sense.
The points which got me thinking thought relate back to the government.
"Government policies and communications on climate change must be consistent" and "make climate change a 'home' not 'away' issue." I agree with this points and think that the government should be doing much more in relation to climate change. It is happening now, and is happening to us, here at home. Can't the government see that?! It's as simple as looking at our dwindling water supply! (To which the only policies put into place are restrictions, and to which also there are no plans from the government on how we will sustain or increase our water supply in the future.)
Goverment policies as well should be much more cosiderate of the global climatic state, not just revenue. I read in the newspaper a few weeks ago that a man was considering giving back an environmental award he had been presented by the government after hearing of the Prime Minister saying that the economy, and industry profits are more important than the environment and environmental issues. Now honestly, how can you be giving out awards to people for helping the environment when, for one, you don't, and for two, you think there are more important things anyway...where is the consistency?
The points which got me thinking thought relate back to the government.
"Government policies and communications on climate change must be consistent" and "make climate change a 'home' not 'away' issue." I agree with this points and think that the government should be doing much more in relation to climate change. It is happening now, and is happening to us, here at home. Can't the government see that?! It's as simple as looking at our dwindling water supply! (To which the only policies put into place are restrictions, and to which also there are no plans from the government on how we will sustain or increase our water supply in the future.)
Goverment policies as well should be much more cosiderate of the global climatic state, not just revenue. I read in the newspaper a few weeks ago that a man was considering giving back an environmental award he had been presented by the government after hearing of the Prime Minister saying that the economy, and industry profits are more important than the environment and environmental issues. Now honestly, how can you be giving out awards to people for helping the environment when, for one, you don't, and for two, you think there are more important things anyway...where is the consistency?
The Medium is the Massage
"When this circuit learns your job, what are you going to do?"
This provoked thought in my mind, as this is already taking place. Many workers are now (and have been for some time) being forced out of their workplaces and professions because computers can now do what they (the people) have been doing for many years prior. We live in a day and age of mass production therefore in a mass production factory for example, the only job for humans is possibly to work the computers/machines.
Though on the other hand, nowadays many more people are aspiring to get 'higher class' jobs and get into highly acredited professions. It is in fact these people who are inventing the computers/machines that take over other peoples jobs. It's all a terrible cycle. People want to better themselves, so they invent items to take humans further, which in turn makes many other peoples jobs redundant.
Also,
"All media are extensions of some human faculty..."
This reminded me of a brief we did for media last year which evoked our thought into how every invention, gadget or machine is somehow an extension of man. The example in the text is that, 'wheel is an extension of the foot', or 'electric circuit is an extension of the nervous system'.
Either way, this topic alone triggered thought in me last year, as it has now. I don't fully agree with the statement that everything is an extension of man, I think inventions are only a tool to assist man.
This provoked thought in my mind, as this is already taking place. Many workers are now (and have been for some time) being forced out of their workplaces and professions because computers can now do what they (the people) have been doing for many years prior. We live in a day and age of mass production therefore in a mass production factory for example, the only job for humans is possibly to work the computers/machines.
Though on the other hand, nowadays many more people are aspiring to get 'higher class' jobs and get into highly acredited professions. It is in fact these people who are inventing the computers/machines that take over other peoples jobs. It's all a terrible cycle. People want to better themselves, so they invent items to take humans further, which in turn makes many other peoples jobs redundant.
Also,
"All media are extensions of some human faculty..."
This reminded me of a brief we did for media last year which evoked our thought into how every invention, gadget or machine is somehow an extension of man. The example in the text is that, 'wheel is an extension of the foot', or 'electric circuit is an extension of the nervous system'.
Either way, this topic alone triggered thought in me last year, as it has now. I don't fully agree with the statement that everything is an extension of man, I think inventions are only a tool to assist man.
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
Cradle to Cradle
This really got me thinking on just what is added into everyday products. Dangerous additives which give off harmful gasses or substances which can be breathed in, eaten or somehow leech into the body. It is extremely disturbing to know the number of products or chemical additives which are actually banned overseas that are imported and sold to the public here, this is a health hazard!
Though I may debate the statement that indoor air is more polluted/contaminated than outdoor air. Even including emissions from products containing chemicals, the only way I can see indoor air being more polluted is if nothing is ever ventilated, therefore the emissions are trapped inside. It also depends on what the 'indoor' air is compared to. If say it were compared to air from the country, untouched rainforest or bushland, then yes of course it would be more polluted than if it were compared to outdoor air from the CBD to which, of course, it would be much purer.
The main element that really got me thinking is the apparent fascination with cancer.
Anything that is 'bad' is now refered to as a 'cancer'...cancer is a malignant tumor, geez, it's an illness, it kills people. The association is apparent, cancer, bad, cancer, death, cancer, industry?...industry, bad? industry, death??...this is true to some extent, but where would humans be without industry anyways? poverty maybe? No industry, bad, no industry, death....
Also,
Does everything cause cancer nowaday? Sure seems so. Eating foods with preservatives, uh oh, cancer, cleaning your hair and body with shampoos and lotions, oops cancer again, even when you do absolutely nothing you run a risk of cancer, so really, who cares now? Of course you care if you get sick, but when everything causes cancer now who really wants to know? You can't avoid eating (even fruit and vegies have pesticides of some sort on them), you can't avoid breathing (or should I say,breathing in these toxins) either.
I bet nothing even causes cancer. It's probably just an illness that can come up with no cause yet mankind being mankind HAVE to point the finger at something...they just can't decide what specifically, so they may as well include the lot. We, the public get told almost everything contributes to causing cancer of some sort, or that it apparenlty "causes cancer in animals" (dont we have a different anatomy?)...What's next? We are already warned of the dangers of going outside and staying in the sun too long and now we're being told that we're breathing in a cocktail of harmful chemical emissions a toxic fumes, "Don't breathe too much, it causes cancer". Breathing, of all things, it's how we live, that's our way of surviving, yet as was stated above, that alone is killing us too as we constantly breathe in poison...so really, regardless of anything we do at all, we're still up the creek without a paddle!
Shortly there will be a new revelation on these 'cancer' studies, again I say...What's next?
Though I may debate the statement that indoor air is more polluted/contaminated than outdoor air. Even including emissions from products containing chemicals, the only way I can see indoor air being more polluted is if nothing is ever ventilated, therefore the emissions are trapped inside. It also depends on what the 'indoor' air is compared to. If say it were compared to air from the country, untouched rainforest or bushland, then yes of course it would be more polluted than if it were compared to outdoor air from the CBD to which, of course, it would be much purer.
The main element that really got me thinking is the apparent fascination with cancer.
Anything that is 'bad' is now refered to as a 'cancer'...cancer is a malignant tumor, geez, it's an illness, it kills people. The association is apparent, cancer, bad, cancer, death, cancer, industry?...industry, bad? industry, death??...this is true to some extent, but where would humans be without industry anyways? poverty maybe? No industry, bad, no industry, death....
Also,
Does everything cause cancer nowaday? Sure seems so. Eating foods with preservatives, uh oh, cancer, cleaning your hair and body with shampoos and lotions, oops cancer again, even when you do absolutely nothing you run a risk of cancer, so really, who cares now? Of course you care if you get sick, but when everything causes cancer now who really wants to know? You can't avoid eating (even fruit and vegies have pesticides of some sort on them), you can't avoid breathing (or should I say,breathing in these toxins) either.
I bet nothing even causes cancer. It's probably just an illness that can come up with no cause yet mankind being mankind HAVE to point the finger at something...they just can't decide what specifically, so they may as well include the lot. We, the public get told almost everything contributes to causing cancer of some sort, or that it apparenlty "causes cancer in animals" (dont we have a different anatomy?)...What's next? We are already warned of the dangers of going outside and staying in the sun too long and now we're being told that we're breathing in a cocktail of harmful chemical emissions a toxic fumes, "Don't breathe too much, it causes cancer". Breathing, of all things, it's how we live, that's our way of surviving, yet as was stated above, that alone is killing us too as we constantly breathe in poison...so really, regardless of anything we do at all, we're still up the creek without a paddle!
Shortly there will be a new revelation on these 'cancer' studies, again I say...What's next?
The Earth Charter???
The Earth charter?? Well my main query is, why haven't I heard of this before? Have many people? I understand the thoughts behind all the policies and how badly it wants to save the environment but honestly, to me this looks almost like a new 10 commandments, appears as a new religion of a sort to govern human's way of life, it goes too far....I don't know, maybe I'm just over cynical? But we all know 'world peace' is not just around the corner.
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
Saturday, 12 May 2007
Our Idea...
In order to test what people would believe we came up with a bogus product.
It is called Mystifood and is a spray on food flavouring. If you don't like something you have to eat, like children and vegetables, then spray our different flavours over the food and make it taste like something you actually like to eat!
As stated in our group blog: Mystifood is part of the Zücker Co. which mainly produces food products. The spray on flavor is the latest invention in the Mystifood foodline. As part of Züker’s marketing team we are introducing the product to the public for the first time to get some opinion. Zücker is a manufacturing company from Germany with backgrounds in producing textile to food. The company was founded in 1984 and is relatively new compared to other giant German manufacturers although this allows the company newer and fresher ideas in manufacturing innovative products such as this spray-on-flavor.Founder:Dr. Stephanek Zuker (1920-2004)
We made up samples of this by mixing flavour sachets or spices/flavourings with boiled water, and sifting out any resedue. We then put it into spray bottles and sprayed it onto little pieces of bread to taste it. The flavours we have made are, Roast Chicken and Smokey Barbeque. Honestly, they don't taste too good. Maybe we need different flavours?
Friday, 4 May 2007
Media's influence on the choice of the individual...
Media in current society is much more diverse and readily available for viewing, listening and reading. There are many different avenues of media. We now have televison, radio, billboards, newspapers, magazines and the internet, all of which are awash with various information, numerous advertisements and much more proof to substantiate any scientific claim made. We now know more, seek more and want to be informed of more than we ever have before, and why, because it is readily available to us. As a result, we have a heightened awareness of events around us due to the overwhelming power of current media.
So, was it the fact that now a choice allowed global warming to be more publicized that it is more accepted? No, this is only one choice, minute in comparison to the other.
The other choice is the only choice that has any power over people's mindset on the issue. This is really the only choice that defines whether or not the media has any influence at all over people's thoughts and reactions to global warming. What one choice is it that my group is implicating? The choice we are referring to is simply the choice to accept what has been placed in front of you, to accept what is told or shown to you. Put quite simply, it is the choice to believe.
So, was it the fact that now a choice allowed global warming to be more publicized that it is more accepted? No, this is only one choice, minute in comparison to the other.
The other choice is the only choice that has any power over people's mindset on the issue. This is really the only choice that defines whether or not the media has any influence at all over people's thoughts and reactions to global warming. What one choice is it that my group is implicating? The choice we are referring to is simply the choice to accept what has been placed in front of you, to accept what is told or shown to you. Put quite simply, it is the choice to believe.
Thursday, 3 May 2007
Choice of the individual...
What is the choice if the individual and what promts them to choose it?
The choice of people is also influenced by what they see, what is projected in the media and what they think gives then the most evidence. We now know what global warming is, what it is doing to our planet and what the government and other bodies are attempting to do to halt or even try to reverse some of the damage. However we don’t know why everyone knows about it now and not many years ago. So why has it taken so long for the world to realise, to know and to accept that the very existence of life is at risk? Many times the individual choses to believe what will benefit him the most, or what he sees the majority of the public believing. People no matter what age are subject to peer pressure. People in a way are also similar to government and industry, they chose the benefitting choice. This is 'easier' choice and costs less money and time. So why now do people take climate change into account and not for years before? Is is because there are many more options available now to reduce, recycle and reuse items to help lower pollution and general harmful emissions? Is it because recycling options and materials have become cheaper to purchase, or that the cost will somehow benefit people in the long run? Or is it the media? This topic now is widely covered within the media and as such appears more believable and evidence seems to prove it more so than ever before. So was it the choice to publicize the topic, the choice of the media to present it in a more public way, to almost force it on society and to make people accept it through extensive presentation of evidence, information and ongoing publications as people believe hard evidence rather than theories?
The choice of people is also influenced by what they see, what is projected in the media and what they think gives then the most evidence. We now know what global warming is, what it is doing to our planet and what the government and other bodies are attempting to do to halt or even try to reverse some of the damage. However we don’t know why everyone knows about it now and not many years ago. So why has it taken so long for the world to realise, to know and to accept that the very existence of life is at risk? Many times the individual choses to believe what will benefit him the most, or what he sees the majority of the public believing. People no matter what age are subject to peer pressure. People in a way are also similar to government and industry, they chose the benefitting choice. This is 'easier' choice and costs less money and time. So why now do people take climate change into account and not for years before? Is is because there are many more options available now to reduce, recycle and reuse items to help lower pollution and general harmful emissions? Is it because recycling options and materials have become cheaper to purchase, or that the cost will somehow benefit people in the long run? Or is it the media? This topic now is widely covered within the media and as such appears more believable and evidence seems to prove it more so than ever before. So was it the choice to publicize the topic, the choice of the media to present it in a more public way, to almost force it on society and to make people accept it through extensive presentation of evidence, information and ongoing publications as people believe hard evidence rather than theories?
Saturday, 28 April 2007
Choice of industries...
I think thats industries really just choose to go along with the government and only think about the monetry value of anything.
Most industries just dismiss the fact that they greatly pollute the environment, be in from emissions, waste of resources or just plainly destroying land. Industries worry greatly about profits as this is their purpose. Their purpose is not to keep the environment healthy, so they strive to full fill their purpose regardless of the cost on the environment.
They choose to justify this by counting the 'benefits' of industry. The money in society, the products they create for our use, the 'jobs' that they provide the community, yet they fail to realise that one day if global warming takes charge there will be no more industry anyway, no money, no product and no jobs.
Some companies and industries however have begun to choose a more environmentally friendly way of operation. Utilizing less chemicals, less resourses and using recycled products. This is the begining of a path in the right direction.
Most industries just dismiss the fact that they greatly pollute the environment, be in from emissions, waste of resources or just plainly destroying land. Industries worry greatly about profits as this is their purpose. Their purpose is not to keep the environment healthy, so they strive to full fill their purpose regardless of the cost on the environment.
They choose to justify this by counting the 'benefits' of industry. The money in society, the products they create for our use, the 'jobs' that they provide the community, yet they fail to realise that one day if global warming takes charge there will be no more industry anyway, no money, no product and no jobs.
Some companies and industries however have begun to choose a more environmentally friendly way of operation. Utilizing less chemicals, less resourses and using recycled products. This is the begining of a path in the right direction.
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Choice of the government...
Discussing the choices of the government is highly controversial. You can support, you can reject or you can sit on the fence. However we all know and should realise that, in fact, the government is sweeping the issue of global warming and climate change under the carpet. There is not enough being done, but why? Don't they realise that this is a major issue? Is the fact that we have a diminishing water supply, or that our weather is crazy not proof enough?
Many people believe, as I do, that the government is still playing as though they are ignorant to the facts fo global warming and are trying to ignore the damage it is doing in order to save a few dollars. My question is however, what is the point? What is a few dollars now when soon enough, the prices of everything that occurs naturally will go through the roof as these things will scarcely be available as the planet, and new, changed climate will not be able to sustain them, especially not to the amounts and the quality that we see today.
The rich will survive while the majority and the rest of the population will be reduced to living in poverty. Money may even become worthless.
People will revert to the way of growing their own food and salvaging anything that they can to survive. What will the government do then? Will they deny golbal warming and its effects then? That's if, of course, there even is a government left.
So, why is the government choosing to take a back seat on global warming and climate change?
How do we know that the government didn't actually choose to cover up the whole thing for the 200 or so years that this issue has remained dormant? Why would they do this, you may ask? Answered simply with one word, economy. Economy and industrial prosperity.
Apparently money is of greater importance than the future of life on Earth.
It's as though accepting global warming will lead to the decline in industrial revenue, but, as a painted slogan (situated up the side of a very large chimeny type of structure on the outskirts of the city) states, there's...
"NO JOBS ON A DEAD PLANET."
...then what will money be worth?
Many people believe, as I do, that the government is still playing as though they are ignorant to the facts fo global warming and are trying to ignore the damage it is doing in order to save a few dollars. My question is however, what is the point? What is a few dollars now when soon enough, the prices of everything that occurs naturally will go through the roof as these things will scarcely be available as the planet, and new, changed climate will not be able to sustain them, especially not to the amounts and the quality that we see today.
The rich will survive while the majority and the rest of the population will be reduced to living in poverty. Money may even become worthless.
People will revert to the way of growing their own food and salvaging anything that they can to survive. What will the government do then? Will they deny golbal warming and its effects then? That's if, of course, there even is a government left.
So, why is the government choosing to take a back seat on global warming and climate change?
How do we know that the government didn't actually choose to cover up the whole thing for the 200 or so years that this issue has remained dormant? Why would they do this, you may ask? Answered simply with one word, economy. Economy and industrial prosperity.
Apparently money is of greater importance than the future of life on Earth.
It's as though accepting global warming will lead to the decline in industrial revenue, but, as a painted slogan (situated up the side of a very large chimeny type of structure on the outskirts of the city) states, there's...
"NO JOBS ON A DEAD PLANET."
...then what will money be worth?
Saturday, 14 April 2007
Religion's denial...blog #2
Religion is a tricky topic as there are so many, each with numerous and varying beliefs. Yet the majoity agree on one thing, that only their 'God' will ever have the power to destroy life on earth or earth itself, this includes the atmosphere and climate.
Many religions up until recent decades only chose to believe what they knew from previous generations and their religious teachings, not of what science stated. Many religious groups, up until recently, didn't even accept medicine as fact, they just chose their faith.
Only God can change the world, the weather, the climate. Only God will ever be responsible for the Earth's eventual demise, as God controls all. It wasn't necessary to believe in anything further, yet now, as the proof is evident, religious groups have no choice but to accept global warming as a fact and that it is, in effect, destroying the planet.
Many religions up until recent decades only chose to believe what they knew from previous generations and their religious teachings, not of what science stated. Many religious groups, up until recently, didn't even accept medicine as fact, they just chose their faith.
Only God can change the world, the weather, the climate. Only God will ever be responsible for the Earth's eventual demise, as God controls all. It wasn't necessary to believe in anything further, yet now, as the proof is evident, religious groups have no choice but to accept global warming as a fact and that it is, in effect, destroying the planet.
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
Catchup blog...blog #1 !
Yes, I have been away for quite some time but as you can tell I am back...and already way into this brief! In this blog and those to follow shortly, I will attempt to make up for the fact that there are no blogs before now...
Global warming.
By definition global warming is the steady increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. This, along time, will cause dramatic climatic change! Though most people just know it as the change of the atmosphere and climate (mainly temperature), brought about by artificial means, ie; by man, primarily as a result of pollution. Nowadays it seems as though anything we do 'hurts' the environment (and in turn damaging our own chances of life in the future). Consumer or supplier, be it by driving to work, industry production (to allow modern human way of life) or even just by having a shower that is longer than 3 minutes, we are doing irreversible damage.
All our pollution has damaged the ozone layer, therefore allowing more harmful uv rays to enter our atmosphere which corrupts our climate, drastically changing the weather patterns. This is the main reason why we are so short on water, climate change, not enough rainfall and why?Global warming.
Not only the climate change but our wastage of natural resources has really had an adverse effect on our and the world's environment as a whole. Wastage of water, wastage of product and overuse of fossil fuels (which themselves lead to global warming) have lowered humanity's chances of a comfortable life in future generations.
So, just recently, upon this realisation, we are being urged to conserve, reuse, and recycle. Upon finally accepting global warming as fact, the government and authority bodies are making the public more aware of global warming and its influence on our futures. Those who realise just what global warming can do are in a panic. Now the attempt to turn around, or even erase the damage, is on. Companies are being urged to reduce their wastage, use of resources and to recycle as much as possible. Families are being forced to conserve in everyday life, and even so, the enviromment is still on the decline. So why has it taken so long for the world to realise, to know and to accept that the very existance of life is at risk?
As my group and I have discussed, the answer is plain and simple; choice.
Everything in everyone's lives relies on the choices that are made. In the past it has just been chosen to deny the fact of global warming, just chosing not to believe it, until now. Now when the evidence that global warming is true and is currently occurring, is too great to deny any further.
But why deny it to begin with?
Again, choice, life choice, the choices from goverments, the choices from industries, the choices of the individual and even the choices of religion.
Global warming.
By definition global warming is the steady increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. This, along time, will cause dramatic climatic change! Though most people just know it as the change of the atmosphere and climate (mainly temperature), brought about by artificial means, ie; by man, primarily as a result of pollution. Nowadays it seems as though anything we do 'hurts' the environment (and in turn damaging our own chances of life in the future). Consumer or supplier, be it by driving to work, industry production (to allow modern human way of life) or even just by having a shower that is longer than 3 minutes, we are doing irreversible damage.
All our pollution has damaged the ozone layer, therefore allowing more harmful uv rays to enter our atmosphere which corrupts our climate, drastically changing the weather patterns. This is the main reason why we are so short on water, climate change, not enough rainfall and why?Global warming.
Not only the climate change but our wastage of natural resources has really had an adverse effect on our and the world's environment as a whole. Wastage of water, wastage of product and overuse of fossil fuels (which themselves lead to global warming) have lowered humanity's chances of a comfortable life in future generations.
So, just recently, upon this realisation, we are being urged to conserve, reuse, and recycle. Upon finally accepting global warming as fact, the government and authority bodies are making the public more aware of global warming and its influence on our futures. Those who realise just what global warming can do are in a panic. Now the attempt to turn around, or even erase the damage, is on. Companies are being urged to reduce their wastage, use of resources and to recycle as much as possible. Families are being forced to conserve in everyday life, and even so, the enviromment is still on the decline. So why has it taken so long for the world to realise, to know and to accept that the very existance of life is at risk?
As my group and I have discussed, the answer is plain and simple; choice.
Everything in everyone's lives relies on the choices that are made. In the past it has just been chosen to deny the fact of global warming, just chosing not to believe it, until now. Now when the evidence that global warming is true and is currently occurring, is too great to deny any further.
But why deny it to begin with?
Again, choice, life choice, the choices from goverments, the choices from industries, the choices of the individual and even the choices of religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
