I made this photo book 2 years ago and never printed it--but I got a note saying they're discontinuing this book and would I like to share it--so here it is. This whole social networking thing is outta control!
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Sustainability for the few
What type of message does it send when the price tag, on what has been framed as the most effective sustainability technology, is so ludicrous?
The $60 light bulb.
The $60 light bulb.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Friday, May 06, 2011
french fries are good for you...
Since I've been back in school I've started a small collection of ads from the big Ag companies. I don't come across them too often in my daily reading material...but when I do...oh man.
This troubles me exceedingly.
This first ad campaign comes from ADM and has the tagline..."you're body can't tell the difference." They are currently being sued over this ad campaign (US District Court) by sugar distributors, disputing that claims of High Fructose Corn Syrup being equated to real sugar is false advertising. This campaign is a jumpstart for the rebranding and relabeling of HFCS as corn sugar to deal with all the bad press it has gotten. Imagine when all the packaging changes from saying HFCS to 'corn sugar' how the consumer imagination will change.
Frankly, I can't worry too much for ADM, since corn syrup and HFCS are in a plethora of processed foods (as this picture gently reminds us), and people are unlikely to give those up anytime in the future. Although the 'real coke' and 'throwback pepsi' campaigns, which feature cane sugar probably have the execs shaking in their boots.
This next one hits a number of levels for me.
First, the idea of "fitter french fries"...that's right up there with heart-healthy cocoa-puffs. That getting rid of that 'trans-fat risk' is all that is needed to make it possible to eat french fries all the time.
Second, the normalized sounding altruism around this campaign, which is targeted at keeping people interested in fast food through explaining the use of new "non-hydrogenated oils" in the creation of that french fry we all know and love.
Third, the idea that tampering with canola seeds on a genetic level is the answer.
Fourth, the idea of growing more canola to accommodate this new 'non-hydrogenated demand' (yes, yes it's an edible oil, but think of what foods we could be growing instead)
Fifth, that once again, technology (whether it be through different processing methods, genetic manipulation, chemical use whathaveyou) is the answer to issues related to food and agriculture.
And my all time favorite, from Monsanto. This was a full page ad spread in the New York Times, which I now have taped to the wall of my office. Again, the claim that Monsanto has anything to do with sustainable agriculture makes my skin crawl. Campaigns like this speak to the desire of global ag to convince its audience that we have used up our available resources (land, water, soil) and must turn to technology to create greater yields, efficiencies and fixes to this problem.
Nevermind the fact that the industrial processes perpetuated by big ag are largely the culprit in water pollution (including salinization), soil degradation (read: topsoil loss, desertification, toxicity) and the use of large tracts of land for the production of corn and soy that goes to feed meat and cars.
Again, the altruism that this campaign speaks to, "improving farmers lives" absolutely slays me...as if putting the "latest science-based tools in farmers hands" is an amazing feat to counter the twin issues of climate change and the impoverishment of farmers worldwide.
Lest we forget, profit is the bottom line here.
Accumulation for the sake of accumulation
This troubles me exceedingly.
This first ad campaign comes from ADM and has the tagline..."you're body can't tell the difference." They are currently being sued over this ad campaign (US District Court) by sugar distributors, disputing that claims of High Fructose Corn Syrup being equated to real sugar is false advertising. This campaign is a jumpstart for the rebranding and relabeling of HFCS as corn sugar to deal with all the bad press it has gotten. Imagine when all the packaging changes from saying HFCS to 'corn sugar' how the consumer imagination will change.
Frankly, I can't worry too much for ADM, since corn syrup and HFCS are in a plethora of processed foods (as this picture gently reminds us), and people are unlikely to give those up anytime in the future. Although the 'real coke' and 'throwback pepsi' campaigns, which feature cane sugar probably have the execs shaking in their boots.
This next one hits a number of levels for me.
First, the idea of "fitter french fries"...that's right up there with heart-healthy cocoa-puffs. That getting rid of that 'trans-fat risk' is all that is needed to make it possible to eat french fries all the time.Second, the normalized sounding altruism around this campaign, which is targeted at keeping people interested in fast food through explaining the use of new "non-hydrogenated oils" in the creation of that french fry we all know and love.
Third, the idea that tampering with canola seeds on a genetic level is the answer.
Fourth, the idea of growing more canola to accommodate this new 'non-hydrogenated demand' (yes, yes it's an edible oil, but think of what foods we could be growing instead)
Fifth, that once again, technology (whether it be through different processing methods, genetic manipulation, chemical use whathaveyou) is the answer to issues related to food and agriculture.
And my all time favorite, from Monsanto. This was a full page ad spread in the New York Times, which I now have taped to the wall of my office. Again, the claim that Monsanto has anything to do with sustainable agriculture makes my skin crawl. Campaigns like this speak to the desire of global ag to convince its audience that we have used up our available resources (land, water, soil) and must turn to technology to create greater yields, efficiencies and fixes to this problem.
Nevermind the fact that the industrial processes perpetuated by big ag are largely the culprit in water pollution (including salinization), soil degradation (read: topsoil loss, desertification, toxicity) and the use of large tracts of land for the production of corn and soy that goes to feed meat and cars.
Again, the altruism that this campaign speaks to, "improving farmers lives" absolutely slays me...as if putting the "latest science-based tools in farmers hands" is an amazing feat to counter the twin issues of climate change and the impoverishment of farmers worldwide.
Lest we forget, profit is the bottom line here.
Accumulation for the sake of accumulation
Friday, April 22, 2011
...dog new tricks
I've just come off a week at the annual professional conference for geographers. I lost my voice due to sickness the week prior and was still recovering, which made me sound as though I'd been chain-smoking since birth and was rather uncomfortable...all things considered. I gave a talk, I used powerpoint. Other people gave talks, they used powerpoint. Because this conference allows any paper to be given that is submitted, I've learned that it is largely a networking opportunity rather than a moment for critical feedback on your own work. But I digress....
I have nothing in particular against powerpoint (except for people who use it to display the full text of their paper, while they read to you). But I want to step out of the linear style of presenting...I have reasons, empirical evidence and other anecdotes to this effect (I won't bore you).
I'm giving a talk (peer reviewed!) at a symposium in Berkeley this coming week and to that end, I took precious hours to teach myself how to use prezi today.
I'm not a particularly expressive/visually creative person...but I think my first attempt is alright. In fact, I'm obnoxiously giddy about it. Tomorrow I will test it in front of my colleagues (which is sure to bring me down to normal). A full report will be forthcoming...
I have nothing in particular against powerpoint (except for people who use it to display the full text of their paper, while they read to you). But I want to step out of the linear style of presenting...I have reasons, empirical evidence and other anecdotes to this effect (I won't bore you).
I'm giving a talk (peer reviewed!) at a symposium in Berkeley this coming week and to that end, I took precious hours to teach myself how to use prezi today.
I'm not a particularly expressive/visually creative person...but I think my first attempt is alright. In fact, I'm obnoxiously giddy about it. Tomorrow I will test it in front of my colleagues (which is sure to bring me down to normal). A full report will be forthcoming...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)