Monday, November 2, 2009

response #6

I think what Lasn means by “unhealthy” of the “American” culture, is that our ways of consuming, and our materialist tendencies are unhealthy to our bodies, mentally, and socially. For instance, due to our tendencies in consuming fast processed food that is high in fat content and our lack of exercise, this lifestyle has become harmful/unhealthy to Americans, thus making America an obese country. Even in consumerism and materialist tendencies, such as in fashion, and the way we perceive ourselves, this standard in our American culture of beauty is unhealthy to the mindset of women and men mentally, as well harmful to our bodies physically by trying to keep up with the latest fads such as with diets and steroids.
One example that I think is still relevant to 2009 is about the automobile industry. Owning a car has been a sign of luxury since its first invention, and the American dream is that everyone will have the comfort and access to owning an automobile. Therefore, since the accessibility of cars and the time they save, American society is experiencing what Lasn quotes as cars “have eroded our sense of village and the vitality of our neighborhoods” (Lasn, 82). In other words, Lasn is stating that American’s lifestyle have changed according to the comfort that cars as the main type of transportation has provided. People still develop relationships with their cars due to the instant mobility it provides, to the social status image that it creates, as well as speed and trust/independence, which almost every young adolescent wants. Also, I do believe that cars are one of the many destructive things that humans have developed that will cause Intergenerational Remote Tyranny to our future generation of cleaning up the pollution that is being caused by automobile emissions everyday.
However, one point that I thought was too generalized was the point he made about how after years of advertising on television that instead of actually fixing the problem of the ecological damage that automobiles are causing, they are promoting a false idea that the automobile company is “eco-friendly.” I thought that this point was too generalized because I believe that because of some of the ecological damages that can be seen, some automobile companies are really trying to promote an eco-friendly automobile product. It still may be that the corporation is still trying to make consumers feel the need to have one to protect the environment, however, technology has improved the way cars are manufactured. For instance, Toyota was one of the first corporations to develop a hybrid vehicle that will use less gas and more battery powered energy to lessen gas emissions into the air. There after the huge success of this idea, almost all other companies are trying to become “eco-friendly” through introducing solar powered to electricity powered automobiles as well.
My family at one point purchased a Hybrid Toyota Prius when it was relevantly new to the market. The sole purpose of purchasing this vehicle was to save money on gas due to the rise in gas prices. I think that it is due to the rise in gas prices that Americans felt the need to actually take action to become eco-friendly in to process of finding a way to lure consumers into buying a vehicle with the illusion that it will save them a considerable amount of money annually. I noticed this over the past ten years when I was younger and gas prices were only about 90 cents per gallon. It was the American dream to own a car and during this time, I remember people bought more and more SUVs and concentrated on buying luxury cars, which used a large amount of gas. However, I think that Americans did not realize the amount of ecological damage we were inflicting onto nature. It wasn’t until that gas prices went against consumer’s supply, demand, and interests that corporations truly started to find other ways of making people buy cars so that their business will not file bankruptcy.

Lasn, Kalle. "Culture Jam: Howe to Reverse America’s Suicidal Consumer Binge-and
Why We Must". New York; Harper, 1999.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.