This is a response to LEAD 3030 A02 Reading #2 questions.
1. Which stage of the âstuffâ lifecycle did you find most troubling or surprising, and why?
How does this challenge the idea that consumption is a neutral or purely personal choice?
"Fly Agaric (The term fly- refers not to insects as such but rather the delirium resulting from consumption of the fungus)" by Charles de Mille-Isles is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
All of the stages are troubling. The overuse and thus destruction of natural resources to the point they are no longer renewable, the synthetic, toxic materials and unethical worker conditions being used in manufacturing, the marketing used to promote buying more, the cradle to grave mentality and mentality that garbage disappears from our lives once the garbage truck picks it up, the continual pressures to perpetuate this linear style of consumerism; these are all distressing and saddening to see. Everyone is living life beyond their means, but few are truly seeing the consequences. The shift to large scale consumerism is unfortunate and sad. People have lost ingenuity from repurposing, discipline in mending and maintaining, and respect for where your materials are sourced. The longer the supply chain, the more convoluted it gets. The bigger the company, the more important consequences are not felt.Â
The entire âcycleâ is troubling because it is not sustainable. It is hurtful for the people and the planet. It is not the way the systems can stay. One day humans will over stay the Earthâs welcome should we keep up like this.
Consumption is a personal choice, it is simply that those who have power exert their choice onto others. Those who promote the ideal of consumption and those who encourage others to spend more to fuel this âcycleâ are adept at influencing and generally successful at getting others to act against the worldâs ecological and ethical interests. There is always a choice, but sometimes the choiceâs consequences are skewered to make you think what youâre doing isnât wrong. As in the video, consumers are constantly fed that they need to consume more to adhere to societal trends and norms so as to not fall out of favour of their friends or of society. Should they instead be fed accurate information as to how unethical and unsustainable continual shopping practices are, and instead of how to live more sustainably, would they change their behaviours?
2.The film argues that consumerism is not accidental but designed into the economic system.
In what ways does this challenge âbusiness as usual,â and what implications does this have for the role of business leaders rather than just individual consumers?
To be fair, business as usual changes as the usual changes. As the video mentioned, in the 1950âs advertising changed. So business as usual changed. I should hope that business as usual is changing in todayâs day and age. I hope that it is moving back to slower living, being content with what you have, fixing rather than throwing away. The idiom that one manâs trash is another manâs treasure is completely true. However, it should be that one manâs trash is the same manâs treasure. People should not be pushed to consume more, they should be self driven to use the materials and tools they already have. Creativity and resourcefulness are cultivated when using this mindset.
It is counterintuitive for business owners and leaders to promote not buying things. Business as usual today is all about selling, cutting costs, and making a profit. It seems as if those are the only things in the world that matter to businesses. That being said, there is a loss of connection, community, and respect for the environment. Business leaders should be supporting their workers, the environment, and the connections between them. This would be making products that last, products that are designed to be repurposable, and products that serve a purpose more than accumulating material wealth.
3. Why is climate change increasingly described as an economic and business risk rather than only an environmental issue?
Provide one example of how climate instability could directly affect business operations or supply chains.
"Yellowstone flood event 2022: Employee housing in Yellowstone River" by YellowstoneNPS is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.
Many businesses today realize how vital the environment actually is to their businesses. Some may see this as they actually want their business to adopt a circular system, but most are more likely driven to care about the environment because it affects their businessesâ profits or reputation.Â
Climate change affects crop harvests, can damage infrastructures from floods or other extreme weather conditions, affects insurance costs which incur more costs for the business, among other things. In areas where wildfires can run rampant, should an entire area be affected where houses and communities are destroyed, the owners of homes there may lose their homes and have no place to live. These are people foremost, but employees too. When your employees have no home or have endured some form of hardship linked to the environmental disasters invoked by climate change, your business suffers.Â
4. Despite decades of scientific evidence, large-scale action on climate change has been slow.
What structural, economic, or institutional factors do you think make meaningful change difficult?
The simple fact that many of the businesses today which are established or mature already have far reaching roots into a linear business style leads to a slower adoption of large-scale action on climate change. Many of these businesses function profitably as they are, and so it would take some elbow grease to reassess and reconfigure the operations to reflect a more sustainable method of doing business. On top of this, it would likely take a fair amount of monetary investment to change infrastructure to one of more sustainable construction and operation. For many large businesses, this is a huge undertaking which to some may have no benefit in terms of profitability. For them, they will see unethical worker conditions as a way to cut on costs, and so to increase profits. This poses as a problematic supply chain, though they may say it is an economic supply chain. People who live by âIf it ainât broke, donât fix itâ, but cannot tell when something is broke, will have a difficult time seeing the need to change.
5. How can food be simultaneously âcheapâ and yet contribute to poor health, inequality, and ecological degradation?
What does this reveal about how efficiency is defined in current food systems?
"110113-F-5549S-211" by ResoluteSupportMedia is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Food is cheap because of economies of scale and externalized costs. Economies of scale in food I personally do not believe is a good idea. I think that there should be regional diversity, and diversity in general in the food you eat. Fresh ingredients and local varieties can cause even the same recipe to turn out slightly different. Many industrial agricultural businesses use copious amounts of nonrenewable energies, high GHG emitting fertilizers, and long routes for transportation. Many of these businesses are unethical to their workers and to their animals. The large-scale monoculture of produce and animal products cause a loss in biodiversity and crop or livestock pest resilience. Among all this, the food produced is not as nutritional as a homecooked meal. The food is so incredibly processed to the extent of being largely calorific without much nutritional value.Â
Efficiency in this sense is tied to production solely, not on the quality of the food or the accessibility to quality food. Food systems today are incredibly productive at producing low quality foods in mass amounts, but terribly unproductive in producing nutritious, affordable, accessible foods.
6. What responsibilities do businesses, governments, and consumers each have in reshaping food systems to support both human and ecological flourishing?
Which actors do you think have the greatest capacity to drive change, and why?
Businesses are too focused on the financial bottom line when it comes to almost any sector, the food sector included. Governments are oftentimes in the same boat as businesses in terms of focussing on the financial bottom line. Consumers will follow what will benefit them most or what will harm them the least. It is up to the consumers to show that they want to have food systems that are affordable, nutritious, and accessible. It is up to governments to enforce legislation for businesses to operate to accommodate the consumersâ wants. It is up to businesses to follow legislation and conform to what the consumers want.
Ultimately I suppose consumers would have the best say, but only if it is in great numbers. Businesses are unlikely to change unless it affects sales, and governments are unlikely to change unless it affects GDP. Consumers can affect both businessesâ sales and countriesâ GDP, but only if they change their ways altogether. Money talks, but individual consumers often have the smallest voices.
7. Why does paying attention to âplaceâ matter for creating meaningful products, services, or experiences?Â
Can you think of a business or organization that does this well, and what makes it feel different?
Paying attention to place allows businesses to truly listen to what the people of the place need. Knowing your place in the community and how you can best serve your customers spells for success. Success is being able to make meaningful products, services, and experiences for your customers and your community. Being conscious of the businessâs place within the community allows business owners to address local issues or needs and accommodate for them.
Typically smaller businesses with loyal customers will fit this bill. The small local run businesses tend to have better reputations amongst the people of the communities and better general relations. These businesses make customers feel at home and trusting to the business and the business owners. Mutual trust and respect are felt in these businesses.Â
8. How might greater attention to place change how businesses relate to the local environment and community?
What responsibilities do businesses have to the soil, water, air, and people of the places in which they operate?
"twisty forest paths" by MGSpiller is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
Paying attention to place matters in an organization when you wish your business to function as a cog in the machine of the community and environment. You want to have the business integrated within the community and environment to serve both their needs. Having a business that supports its own community and people creates lasting and trusting relationships between the business and the people. Deep connection with your community inherently should lead to deep connection with your local environment. Businesses that pay attention to their place are vital to strong and thriving communities and environments.
Businesses have the responsibility to their place and to their environment. All aspects that the business affects in either the community or environment are under the responsibility of the business. The businesses on top of this should be beneficial to both, not simply just being neutral. Businesses should eliminate negative externalities and introduce positive ones. This includes having good stewardship to the land, air, soil, flora, fauna and people.
