November 28th is Buy Nothing Day. Protest the impact of globalism by ducking out of capital structures for 24 hours… if you can (or maybe Amy and I will buy our new car that day). In the U.K., BND is on the 29th, I guess so the time zones sync up.
Music: Chumbawamba :: give the anarchist a cigarette
Buy nothing on 11/28? Easy – since I didn’t plan on buying anything that day anyway :-)
What car model are you thinking about?
Lars, we’re looking at the Subaru Forester, Honda CR-V, and Toyota RAV-4, though the latter is pretty much off the list now due to safety considerations (it shows up at the bottom of ratings lists).
Good selection, but it’s going to be a tough choice between the Subaru and the Honda!
I’m told Toyota will have a hybrid version of the Highlander out in the 2005 model year. So… given that you live in an area of the world that is pretty much entirely paved, why do you want an SUV? That seems like a lot of extra steel to haul around if you don’t need the ground clearance.
Also, could you expound on ‘globalism’ and why it’s bad? I happen to think the globalization of markets and commerce are probably the best hope for world peace that there is. You don’t bomb where your factories are.
We also have heard rumors about Toyota’s coming SUV hybrids, but couldn’t get anyone to nail down a date (I think they don’t want to Osborne themselves). Thought we might get our car now and then re-evaluate in a few years when the hybrid market has stabilized and matured a bit more. Believe me, we really do resent the crappy mileage that even these mini-SUVs are getting.
I’m sure you’ll see more posts from me in the future grappling with the issue of how we decided to go mini-SUV rather than family wagon.
> You don’t bomb where your factories are.
A good point Jim, but ultimately it’s akin to saying “You don’t bomb yourself,” because that’ what globalism means to me – homogenization, destruction of culture and custom in the swatch of American style burgers and jeans and cars and attitudes, etc.
LOL, just came upon this, re: globalization:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/homemadespecial/31676.html?mode=reply
It seems to me that culture serves people, not the other way around. If it serves people better to adopt our culture, they will. If it doesn’t, they won’t. I think this is inevitable. This is how cultures evolve as their ecology changes.
I also think the trappings of culture and the culture itself are distinct. Canada, for example, on the surface is indistinguishable from America, and yet if you talk to Canadians for long, you realize the culture itself is very different. They trust their government, for one thing. :)
Likewise Japanese culture seems to be doing to American culture what American culture does to other cultures it encounters – pick the stuff that fits and enjoy it, leave behind the stuff that doesn’t. Again, Japanese culture has many of the trappings of American culture, but nobody would argue that it’s the same culture. Again, I don’t see that cultural change is bad, because ultimately culture is an artifact of what people want. I don’t believe preserving cultures that can’t survive on their own is appropriate anywhere outside of a museum, since usually those most interested in preserving a culture are the ones whose power base is threatened by the change. Culture should serve
people, not be a mechanism for control, IMHO.
I also think a worldwide culture is inevitable as the world becomes connected together. It will be like the greater American culture is to the various regional cultures (ever been to Utah? How about the deep South?) Regional cultures are alive and well, but we have a cultural common ground with the greater American culture. I think this is where the world is headed.
-Jim
Jim, I don’t agree that culture serves people — it’s not the kind of thing that serves. Culture is the description of people, as they are. Cultures change as people lean this way or that. But it’s not like culture has a purpose – it’s not that kind of animal.
> If it serves people better to adopt our culture, they will.
Often to their own detriment! We do not always make the best choices for ourselves and are easily seduced by shiny objects.
> Again, I don’t see that cultural change is bad, because ultimately culture is an artifact of what people want.
But it’s hard to argue that monkeys drinking Pepsi is not bad. And it’s easy to see why the French want to banish the encroachment of McDonald’s. If it were value-less change/evolution we were talking about, sure, but most of the change discards quality for convenience. Cultures are losing SO much.
> since usually those most interested in preserving a culture are the ones whose power base is threatened by the change.
And those who simply care that quality not die in this world.
I’m sure you’re right about the ongoing homogenization, lessening of difference between cultures.