The facts of nature cannot in the long run be violated. Penetrating and seeping through everything like water, they will undermine any system that fails to take them into account.-- C. G. Jung
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Facts of Nature
Friday, January 30, 2009
Some More Thoughts on Sustainability
After my last post on Sustainability, NPR ran this story with Susan Solomon, a leading climate scientist whose recent study indicates that global warming is for all practical purposes irreversible. As it turns out, like a giant reservoir the oceans have been absorbing heat and carbon as atmospheric levels continue to rise. If we were to stabilize carbon emissions, this absorption would continue. And if we are to reverse them, thereby bringing down the carbon levels in the atmosphere, the carbon and heat in the oceans will start to come out, polluting the atmosphere for us. The time frame of reversal appears to her to be in terms of 1000 years, instead of just 100 or 200, as we have been thinking. Most troubling is this quote.
Capitalist systems and all western governments are built on the assumption that we have a ready and mostly trouble-free supply of food and water to feed our constituents. Imagine if that is significantly disrupted or destroyed. Imagine New York City, a city that at any one moment has enough food to feed its inhabitants for three days, if a massive environmental event were to take place disrupting it's food supply for significantly longer. What kind of picture does that start to make?
I should note that I am not advocating a fear based approach here, just a realistic one. We cannot control for all possible outcomes, but we can be better prepared should they arise. It seems likely that climate change will exert significant to dominant pressure on our culture over the next decades, increasing as time goes forward. Should it happen, this will be a very new thing for Americans. We live on the verdant continent of the world.
If we continue with business as usual for even a few more decades, she says, those emissions could be enough to create permanent dust-bowl conditions in the U.S. Southwest and around the Mediterranean.Since the whole debate surrounding even the idea of environmental sustainability has yet to have a clear vision, it seems to me that the conversation must include the potential and even likelihood of significant local difficulty. In which case our vision of how to prepare for, prevent and perhaps just adapt socially and economically to the future that awaits must include this possibility.
Capitalist systems and all western governments are built on the assumption that we have a ready and mostly trouble-free supply of food and water to feed our constituents. Imagine if that is significantly disrupted or destroyed. Imagine New York City, a city that at any one moment has enough food to feed its inhabitants for three days, if a massive environmental event were to take place disrupting it's food supply for significantly longer. What kind of picture does that start to make?
I should note that I am not advocating a fear based approach here, just a realistic one. We cannot control for all possible outcomes, but we can be better prepared should they arise. It seems likely that climate change will exert significant to dominant pressure on our culture over the next decades, increasing as time goes forward. Should it happen, this will be a very new thing for Americans. We live on the verdant continent of the world.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Courage
One of my favorite cartoons is a long running show on the Cartoon Network titled Courage the Cowardly Dog.
In every episode, Courage, a lavender mutt, and his two elderly owners, Eustace, a toothless crank, and his wife Muriel, a treacly sweet white haired codependent in an apron, confront the most unlikely of paranormal dangers. The three live in an isolated house in the middle of Nowhere (really) where they attempt to carry out a regular existence. Eustace natters about, muttering and cursing while Muriel bakes cookies and smooths it all over. Courage wants nothing more than a good scratch, a meal, and a nap.
Inevitably, a paranormal antagonist intrudes into their lives and sets
in motion a life threatening adventure that can't be avoided. It comes
in the form of an alien space robot who has been trained to destroy
worlds, or a mummy freed by an archeologist and now spreading the mummy's curse, or a microbial infection that turns the victim into a giant pustulant foot, or a possessed automobile, or, well, you get the picture.
Eustace and Muriel navigate each episode sometimes barely aware of the incredible dangers that are threatening their lives. But Courage sees it all. His animal self is the first to notice the monster at the door, and it terrifies him. In comic visual excess he yowls in fear, shaking and trying to point to the oncoming danger. Usually no one else is paying attention. And in every episode, with his knees knocking and his teeth chattering, Courage sees the danger for what it is, acts without thinking, and in the end saves everyone from an inventive menu of sufferings and terrible deaths. His thanks are more taunts from Eustace, a warm meal from Muriel, and a nap. Just long enough to get ready for the next bizarre intrusion.
In contrast with the name of the show, Courage is anything but cowardly. He is honest, and what he sees terrifies him. As an animal, his instincts keep him aware of his immediate surroundings while Eustace and Muriel have long ago buried their instinctual selves underneath their roles as codependent partners in a marriage that you may recognize from some of your own relatives. But Courage never fails to act in the face of that fear, and it is his open eyed relationship with the world that in the end saves the day for everyone.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Some Thoughts On Sustainability
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I keep coming back to the phenomenal ground of photography as an image-viewer interaction, rather than a viewer-subject interaction, the distinction being that it the image, not the subject, that the viewer actually encounters. I think this is incredibly important for the general audience to explore as we consume more and more pictures.
With that in mind, I want to draw your attention to Volume #18 which tackles the issue of sustainability, examining its philosophical and linguistic grounds with a mind to ask some hard questions about the difference between the green movement as a fantasy and the green movement as a pragmatic political reality. It is in the fantasy of the future that the concept achieves its own phenomenal ground.
Sustainability is the catch word of the year, even getting indirectly worked into President Obama's inaugural address. Climate change and environmental issues are being framed as the the next great challenge for humankind. And they are. According to Obama, we will be mobilizing our economy in a way that will tackle these issues head on, as a country and perhaps modeled after a war effort. But...
What kind of future are we wanting to create? It would be possible right now to reduce an incredible amount of carbon and waste production by merely reducing individual consumption. But the economy is consumer driven and reduced consumption would add additional pressure on the already depressed economy.
Expect that whatever environmental solution the government proposes, it will be a consumer compatible movement, modifying consumption to reduce its impact while keeping it profitable. What profit is there in buying and consuming less? We need a global vision of where we are headed, and when that is not provided by the government, we need to ask the long term questions of what new policies will create over time.
To put it bluntly, we have discovered that continued growth in consumption cannot be sustained on this planet. It will eventually kill us all. We are now discovering that continued economic growth might not also be possible, since our current economic models require an increased consumption to fuel the economic expansion. The laws of physics trump economic theory. And if we cannot plan on increased economic growth, then what do we plan on?
What future do we envision if we cannot see more riches for ourselves and our children? And how do we meet the current economic crises knowing that the past solutions which ultimately resulted in restoring rising levels of consumption to fuel the economy might now no longer be physically viable?
In the same way that shareholders' demand increasing returns on their investments, do we continue to hold out for a return to economic growth as we have through every downturn since the Great Depression? Or do we recognize the need to contract, both physically and economically, beginning a generation of descent, of modesty and localization -- a conscious retraction from the excesses of the past centuries? There will be real economic consequences to any long term solution. Perhaps this will be part of the price of responsibility.
Any solution that does not address at its core the dependence of the world economy on rising levels of consumption will fail to address the environmental problems that come with it. We cannot simultaneously grow economically and consume less. So the logic would be to make consumption cleaner, thereby keeping the profitability of the system intact. Given the exponential population growth that we expect over the next century, this is only a very short term solution that will result in serious long term problems.
With that in mind, I want to draw your attention to Volume #18 which tackles the issue of sustainability, examining its philosophical and linguistic grounds with a mind to ask some hard questions about the difference between the green movement as a fantasy and the green movement as a pragmatic political reality. It is in the fantasy of the future that the concept achieves its own phenomenal ground.
Sustainability is the catch word of the year, even getting indirectly worked into President Obama's inaugural address. Climate change and environmental issues are being framed as the the next great challenge for humankind. And they are. According to Obama, we will be mobilizing our economy in a way that will tackle these issues head on, as a country and perhaps modeled after a war effort. But...
From After Zero, by Arjen Oosterman
Indeed, a clear differentiation between making a future and the possible making of the future is important. Architecture is called to arms to rescue the world from extinction, or rather humankind from perdition. Architecture is expected to vanquish a giant with many names, to free the way to the 'future.' What this future should be is rarely discussed. Nor has the true nature of this opponent been recognized. and this is remarkable since every soldier knows it is essential to know your enemy.
What kind of future are we wanting to create? It would be possible right now to reduce an incredible amount of carbon and waste production by merely reducing individual consumption. But the economy is consumer driven and reduced consumption would add additional pressure on the already depressed economy.
Expect that whatever environmental solution the government proposes, it will be a consumer compatible movement, modifying consumption to reduce its impact while keeping it profitable. What profit is there in buying and consuming less? We need a global vision of where we are headed, and when that is not provided by the government, we need to ask the long term questions of what new policies will create over time.
From Beyond Zero, by John E. Fernandez
If civilization is to progress a growth culture will have to change into a culture of descent [...]
The idea of sustainable economic growth clashes with the second law of thermodynamics [...] Our approach thus far continues to be incremental improvement because any change more significant than 'incremental' is not currently valued. Yet even accepting these hefty assumptions, there is a growing awareness that all is not well with the concept of beyond zero, not to mention the idea of reaching zero itself.
First there is physics. Anyone familiar with the primary arguments against the idea of sustainable economic growth has already been reminded of the second law of thermodynamics. While it is obvious that society itself constitutes the counter-entropy ordered assembly of energy and materials, our financial value system has failed to account for the real costs of this push against the second law. Ecological Economics has grown in stature and established the framework for an economics that acknowledges and internalizes the second law--thus accounting for effects that used to be known as externalities. However, we are very far away from a governmental and economic framework that even begins to acknowledge, much less work on the principles of the second law.
To put it bluntly, we have discovered that continued growth in consumption cannot be sustained on this planet. It will eventually kill us all. We are now discovering that continued economic growth might not also be possible, since our current economic models require an increased consumption to fuel the economic expansion. The laws of physics trump economic theory. And if we cannot plan on increased economic growth, then what do we plan on?
What future do we envision if we cannot see more riches for ourselves and our children? And how do we meet the current economic crises knowing that the past solutions which ultimately resulted in restoring rising levels of consumption to fuel the economy might now no longer be physically viable?
In the same way that shareholders' demand increasing returns on their investments, do we continue to hold out for a return to economic growth as we have through every downturn since the Great Depression? Or do we recognize the need to contract, both physically and economically, beginning a generation of descent, of modesty and localization -- a conscious retraction from the excesses of the past centuries? There will be real economic consequences to any long term solution. Perhaps this will be part of the price of responsibility.
Any solution that does not address at its core the dependence of the world economy on rising levels of consumption will fail to address the environmental problems that come with it. We cannot simultaneously grow economically and consume less. So the logic would be to make consumption cleaner, thereby keeping the profitability of the system intact. Given the exponential population growth that we expect over the next century, this is only a very short term solution that will result in serious long term problems.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Prediction #1
According to Media Memo, The New York Times has taken out a $250 million dollar loan at a 14% (!) annual interest rate from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. They are also sitting on $46 million dollars in cash to cover $1.1 billion in debt.
Doesn't this sound like taking out a home equity loan in order to pay the mortgage? We have all seen how well that worked in the current mortgage collapse.
Grim.
The Times needs revenue increases, and fast. This in an industry that could barely grow during the dot com boom. Job cuts won't do it. The Times needs income.
Even grimmer.
Options?
Start charging what it costs to produce the daily publication? I wonder what the price of a single paper would be if that were the case. Something is going to change. Whether it is proactive or reactive. It's gonna happen soon.
Doesn't this sound like taking out a home equity loan in order to pay the mortgage? We have all seen how well that worked in the current mortgage collapse.
Grim.
The Times needs revenue increases, and fast. This in an industry that could barely grow during the dot com boom. Job cuts won't do it. The Times needs income.
Even grimmer.
Options?
Start charging what it costs to produce the daily publication? I wonder what the price of a single paper would be if that were the case. Something is going to change. Whether it is proactive or reactive. It's gonna happen soon.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
In 2009 the deep dive really begins
In 2009 the full brunt of our economic collapse is going to come to bear on the publishing world. Like a whale diving deep the economy is going down, down, down. Only the strongest will be able to hang on. The resulting pressure is going to eliminate the weak and the unnecessary. Even if the recession started to abate immediately, there will be no money for venture publishing for a long time. Either a publication is going to survive on its own merits, or it is not going to make it. Predicting anything is tempting fate, but here goes anyway-- my predictions for 2009.
1. The New York Times starts to charge for online access as the only means of making money available to it. Or it is bought up and folded into a Bloomburg-like empire, or goes non-profit.
2. Half of all local papers file for chapter 11 or go bankrupt. There will be enough national papers afloat to keep a close eye on the Federal Government. The loss of local papers with their watchdog functions will result in an increase in political corruption on a state and local level. There will be almost no independent small town papers left. The survivors will be swept up into conglomerate publications modeled after ClearChannel, the ubiquitous radio programming company.
3. At least 30% of all magazines fold while magazines like People and the Economist will thrive. Why? Because they have dedicated and loyal readers and they do an enormous amount to make sure that the readers get content that keeps them happy. They also charge a lot for subscriptions. In other words, they provide content that is worth the price and is profitable as a commodity. Their competitors who are making all their money on advertising and are using cheap subscriptions to bump up their rate base won't be able to cover their production costs. Without advertising, they have nothing. Not even readers. The survivors win doubly because when the market starts to return, whenever that might be, demand for ad space will increase with fewer publications to advertise in, increasing rates and profitability beyond where they were before the recession.
4. The individual creative becomes more valuable. There is no more efficient content producer than an experienced photographer who is capable and willing to work on her or his own. If they charge what they are worth and generate exciting and powerful images, they are still far cheaper than the complete entourage that comes with some celebrity shooters.
5. Good original photography comes back as good for business. Why? Because it is worth it. Not long ago I had a conversation about fashion and beauty work with a Lucie Award winning photographer. He had just been paid $400.00 for a one-day editorial shoot. The retouching budget on the spreads was over $4000.00. As he put it, "Any trained monkey can take a picture these days. It's the retouching that makes the work." That will change some as budgets get smaller and smaller. Paying photographers more while cutting down on the retouching is a smart move. Let's start making images in-camera again. It's more cost and time effective, not to mention more creative as well.
6. Good retouching gets cheaper. It has been very hard to find good retouchers. People with deep experience in printing, camera work, and photoshop, as well as in working with photographers, agencies and publications are hard to create. It takes an apprenticeship that can't be learned in school. For a long time, when I was asked to recommend retouchers, it was hard because everyone I knew who I thought was really good had as much work as they could handle or was on staff somewhere. That all changes with the massive waves of layoffs that have gone through New York's publishing world.
7. Content will become a commodity again. It cannot be produced and distributed entirely for free.
8. Social media changes the basic advertising model. As companies suffer financially, they will need cheaper ways to advertise. Social media is the answer. However, it concurrently requires something new from advertisers. Previously, advertising sought to influence, manipulate and modify the potential buyer. This was a one-way exchange. Within social media circles the audience can talk back--quickly and en masse--forcing a movement away from audience manipulation towards authentic communication between advertiser and market. This is also good for capitalism and the health of the markets in general as social media tend to increase transparency and feedback with so many voices involved in the exchange.
9. Photojournalism, and to some degree journalism in general, adopts a non-profit business model, much like arts and humanitarian organizations have. With this comes an increased exploration of the aesthetics of journalism and more public awareness of how linked our visual forms of news are to the arts.
10. I leave this one blank for the completely unexpected thing that will happen by mid-year, shifting the cultural landscape again. Chaos begets chaos, at least for a time.
See you back here in 2010. It's gonna be a wild ride.
1. The New York Times starts to charge for online access as the only means of making money available to it. Or it is bought up and folded into a Bloomburg-like empire, or goes non-profit.
2. Half of all local papers file for chapter 11 or go bankrupt. There will be enough national papers afloat to keep a close eye on the Federal Government. The loss of local papers with their watchdog functions will result in an increase in political corruption on a state and local level. There will be almost no independent small town papers left. The survivors will be swept up into conglomerate publications modeled after ClearChannel, the ubiquitous radio programming company.
3. At least 30% of all magazines fold while magazines like People and the Economist will thrive. Why? Because they have dedicated and loyal readers and they do an enormous amount to make sure that the readers get content that keeps them happy. They also charge a lot for subscriptions. In other words, they provide content that is worth the price and is profitable as a commodity. Their competitors who are making all their money on advertising and are using cheap subscriptions to bump up their rate base won't be able to cover their production costs. Without advertising, they have nothing. Not even readers. The survivors win doubly because when the market starts to return, whenever that might be, demand for ad space will increase with fewer publications to advertise in, increasing rates and profitability beyond where they were before the recession.
4. The individual creative becomes more valuable. There is no more efficient content producer than an experienced photographer who is capable and willing to work on her or his own. If they charge what they are worth and generate exciting and powerful images, they are still far cheaper than the complete entourage that comes with some celebrity shooters.
5. Good original photography comes back as good for business. Why? Because it is worth it. Not long ago I had a conversation about fashion and beauty work with a Lucie Award winning photographer. He had just been paid $400.00 for a one-day editorial shoot. The retouching budget on the spreads was over $4000.00. As he put it, "Any trained monkey can take a picture these days. It's the retouching that makes the work." That will change some as budgets get smaller and smaller. Paying photographers more while cutting down on the retouching is a smart move. Let's start making images in-camera again. It's more cost and time effective, not to mention more creative as well.
6. Good retouching gets cheaper. It has been very hard to find good retouchers. People with deep experience in printing, camera work, and photoshop, as well as in working with photographers, agencies and publications are hard to create. It takes an apprenticeship that can't be learned in school. For a long time, when I was asked to recommend retouchers, it was hard because everyone I knew who I thought was really good had as much work as they could handle or was on staff somewhere. That all changes with the massive waves of layoffs that have gone through New York's publishing world.
7. Content will become a commodity again. It cannot be produced and distributed entirely for free.
8. Social media changes the basic advertising model. As companies suffer financially, they will need cheaper ways to advertise. Social media is the answer. However, it concurrently requires something new from advertisers. Previously, advertising sought to influence, manipulate and modify the potential buyer. This was a one-way exchange. Within social media circles the audience can talk back--quickly and en masse--forcing a movement away from audience manipulation towards authentic communication between advertiser and market. This is also good for capitalism and the health of the markets in general as social media tend to increase transparency and feedback with so many voices involved in the exchange.
9. Photojournalism, and to some degree journalism in general, adopts a non-profit business model, much like arts and humanitarian organizations have. With this comes an increased exploration of the aesthetics of journalism and more public awareness of how linked our visual forms of news are to the arts.
10. I leave this one blank for the completely unexpected thing that will happen by mid-year, shifting the cultural landscape again. Chaos begets chaos, at least for a time.
See you back here in 2010. It's gonna be a wild ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)