It's now commonplace to say nothing will be the same after coronavirus. I suspect those saying that want it to be true.
But, if there was one thing you wanted less of after coronavirus, what would it be?
My wish would be adverting, which is the most pernicious of industries whose only aim is to promote unhappiness through dissatisfaction with our current state of wellbeing.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’m glad you mention advertising!
I’ve actually eradicated it from my living experience by no longer watching broacast tv and using Ad Block Plus at full strength online,
I’ve never felt happier!
I’d be delighted if Corona turns out to have delivered a mortal wound to commercial passenger air travel,
the first time I flew was around 1970 as a small child on a holiday to Majorca, the 2nd time was in 2000,
it went from novelty to commonplace in 30 years, I’m quite happy to never fly again and see it return to a novelty with equal speed.
I’d also be happy to see the end of the modern version of cruise ships,
Venice would be delighted, apparently the water in the canals is clear again and you can see the fish,
we really ought not to be thinking in terms of ‘after corona’, it’s not going to go away, we will have to live with corona and if we don’t disrupt the hyper connectivity of globalisation we can only expect another coronaesque type virus to emerge and spread, sooner rather than later,
has no one noticed that H1N1, SARS, MERS and now SARS-2 have all appeared in a matter of the last 20 years?
Good morning Richard
Hopefully the coronavirus has given us all a time to reflect on this world we live in but for me the linked article below has to be at the top of your list of what could with less of.
https://sourcenews.scot/jonathon-shafi-opposition-to-trident-will-take-on-new-meaning-in-the-post-coronavirus-landscape/
Good one
Thanks Alan.
I had completely forgotten about that particular government project!
Does seem to be even more of a total waste of money now!
Processed food? Factory farming? Fast fashion? All linked to advertising which creates the demand.
“Processed food?”
Perhaps a return of those ‘wet markets’ so common in China?
Really?
Yes, we could do with a great deal less ‘cheap’ and processed food, the cost is too great in lives https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2020/04/22/Coronavirus-and-obesity-Doctors-take-aim-at-food-industry-over-poor-diets
In a word – Tories.
Unable to resist that, but there’s more, of course. Commuting, air travel, sycophants (often masquerading as journalists). Exceptionalism.
This is going to be like an ear-worm through the day…
“promote unhappiness through dissatisfaction with our current state of wellbeing”
And indeed, those of us in the developed world have a pretty good state of well being. Better than at any time in human history. But by constantly advertsing that there are some that have more than others, its easy to make those with much resentful of those with more.
Wow. Good question!
I’ll spend today pondering that one.
Motor vehicles. High speed travel.
“Beyond a certain speed, motorized vehicles create remoteness which they alone can shrink. They create distances for all and shrink them for only a few. A new dirt road through the wilderness brings the city within view, but not within reach, of most Brazilian subsistence farmers. The new expressway expands Chicago, but it sucks those who are well-wheeled away from a downtown that decays into a ghetto.”
“The need for such [speed] limits as an alternative to disaster is the strongest argument in favour of radical technology. Only when the speed limits of vehicles reflect the enlightened self-interest of a political community can these limits become operative.” ‘Energy and Equity’ Ivan Illich (1973) https://safestreetstrategies.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/energy-and-equity-ivan-illich
Including trains?
Yes, ‘and trains’.
Illich’s book states: “A well-developed transportation system running at top speeds of 25 mph would have allowed Fix to chase Phileas Fogg around the world in less than half of eighty days.
Trains can extend the range of travel, but can do so with justice only if people have not only equal transportation but equal free time to come closer to each other.”
Also, the high-carbon construction of HS2 is destroying ancient woodland etc. It will marginally benefit only a few — and those few will in general have to travel significant distances to the limited number of stations. HS2 will never recoup anything like its carbon cost.
‘Ultra Light Rail’ (ULR) on the other hand, can operate on existing tracks or use cheap-to-construct new routes. ULR vehicles can store energy in a flywheel which enables them to stop frequently yet recoup energy efficiently while braking. If low speed proposals were given support similar to high speed rail, they could carry higher numbers of passengers with overall greater passenger distances – and with much better access for those without cars.
High speed trains are very-high-carbon-environment-damaging systems which transfer lifetime from the poor to the wealthy.
I reiterate, we need fewer of them.
The culture war.
Of course this will put the existing culture wars on steroids. But I can hope.
The Tories.
Less of pretty much most things seems to me to be a good idea.
Although, it is too early to be certain about this, a greater respect for other countries that managed the response better and were in a position to do so.
And the realisation that the 1 per cent and their sycophants and apologists are not automatically the most important people in society or role models to be emulated.
Not all advertising is bad. How will I find out who will deliver organic produce, or merino clothing rather than poly-whatever, or what sort of electric bike will suit me now I’m getting older and stiffer? But yes, most advertising.
Less of: the fashion industry, cruising, flying, going round the world to take part in sponsored nonsense, driving, buying a new car every 3 years on PCP, selling junk food, “bogoffs”, supermarkets paying producers a pittance and asking them to finance the “special offers”, (it will mean food & drink will be dearer), holidays in far off places, industrial farming, blood sports, paying obscene wages/compensation, social media…….
It would be fairly easy to establish a rating system
Size of advertising entity
Goods or services advertised
Size of advert
Etc, etc
Presumably this is because you think people don’t know what’s best for them.
And you do?
Only goods and services you approve of from organisations you approve of can be advertised. That comes across as so unsufferably patrician and arrogant.
Actually, I am saying advertisers should not distort what people think is good for them and you obviously think they should
It’s you who is opposing liberty, not me
I’d like to see less – ideally no – advertising that uses emotion to persuade. Adverts saying what foods and service are for sale are useful. Independent reviews and comparison websites are more useful – though always in need of improvement.
One thing? Impossible to limit to one answer…
Less commuting to an office
Fewer hours working
Less fake news (political lies and misdirection)
Less intensive rearing of livestock (less meat)
Less scapegoating of migrant workers and ecological migrants
Less “austerity” or “balancing of budgets“ rhetoric
Less homelessness
Less tax evasion
Less air and road travel
One could continue…
I would include much of the MSM in the Advertising bracket.
Much of its output is just “political advertising”.
Poverty and Extreme Wealth – There’s no need for either in a functioning fair economy.
Walking to work (at least previously), I’ve been staggered to see the growth of the homeless over the last 2 to 3 years.
Some people deserve to be wealthier than others for the services they provide/risks they take but the level of wealth is worrying and wrong.
My wife and myself have been to 40 countries around the globe. All of Western Europe, much of South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, and Southern Africa, Japan, NZ, USA, but not Canada nor Latin America. Our hope was to include yet more – perhaps a visit toEthiopia, North India, Romania, Russia. We like to think we are sensitive to other cultures, liberal, free thinking, and concerned about the environment and nature. My wife was an agricultural scientist, I angeographer/geologist keen to educate ourselves as responsible global cotizens. I had been teaching since the late 70s about global warming, climate change, development in the third world, environmental degradation, and depletion of resources long before they were thrust into the sphere of public awareness. Yes, we have travelled, and enjoyed and benefitted from travelling around the globe and exploring other lands and cultures. But most of the places to which we have travelled have been accessible only by flying. And expending prodigious amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. And we have enjoyed our stays in poor countries as a result of the cheapness of the labour – on Nepalese treks, porters being paid the equivalent of a dollar a day, In Sri Lanka, hotel staff struggling to live on pittance pay while they prepare substantial meals for the rich western guests. While we knew that there was injustice in the world and inequality and exploitation, our knowledge was theoretical until we were able to see for ourselves the conditions in which shanty town dwellers liveds, and the insufficient health care provision in remote rural communities, and the poor sanitation and squalid housing and soil erosion and deforestation – and sometimes the evident inequality in some of those societies, corruption and absence of any democratic process and institutions. So in answer to your question, “What can we do with less of after Coronavirus?” an answer surely must be an end to foreign travel; there must ba an end to driving around Europe or flying across the planet and pumping carbon into the atmosphere. An end to cruises in vast oil burning floating blocks of flats (which we never went on but others do) across the oceans. An end to the whole tourist industry of that exploits cheap labour in third world countries and spews out carbon in developed and less developed countries. BUT there is a dilemma. Ending the international tourist industry may help save the planet – perhaps. But how dependent are so many countries on the tourtist industry? If the guests from the UK and Germany and the US and Australia stop going to Sri Lanka and Nepal and Morocco,m what is going to haappen to the economies of those countries, and what is to happen to the millions of workers around the globe whose paltry incomes nevertheless do give them a living and protect their families from starvation? And extending the argument – if I stop buying cheap jeans and shits taylored in sweatshop factories in Bangladesh, or mobile phones put together in poverty stricken communities in Indonesia, what happens to the economies of those developing counties slowly struggling out of their poverty?
I agree that much travel has to go
And trade should be in added value goods, not bargain basement ones
To compensate?
Remember aid?
Mike.
As you are well traveled, I thought you might like to take this test.
It only takes a couple of minutes. I found the results very interesting and has changed the way I look at the world.
Enjoy
(I hope the link works)
http://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018
Vinnie – I got halfway through the test, then the link shut off. I’ll try again later.
Mike.
Sorry the link didn’t work.
It’s worth trying to find it on the internet, if you have the time.
I’d put pollution at the top of my list, followed by use of fossil fuels. And I’d argue that those are THE priorities that all nations should be focussing on.
Rolling 24 hour news. One good thing is it has stopped me watching tv.
And anything with a Tory minister!
🙂
I’ll go for 1 macro & 1 micro – Neoliberalism & single-use plastic.
Definitely less road traffic. The then and now pictures in the Guardian that illustrate the effect of reduced air pollution are instructive. The peace and quiet is so enjoyable. The freedom to cycle safely is really useful. Walking and talking to others, at a distance, is so uplifting.
But, how we can ensure a reduction in road traffic, I have no idea. It would require a complete re-organisation of society.
We could do with less law being created without telling anyone. It’s been noted, with justifiable concern, the Tories have now made it an offence to be outside without a reasonable excuse. Formerly, it was simply an offence to leave your home without one. Now, they’ve changed it, and you need a reasonable excuse for staying outside too. Law used to say “During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.” It now says “During the emergency period, no person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.” Spot the difference? This never went anywhere near Parliament. We are now to a degree imprisoned within our homes, and this is by ministerial decree, Parliament having no hand in it. We could do with a bit less of that, now and forever.
I guess if I had to pick one, it would be fossil fuels.
Though I agree with most of the other suggestions above.
Or maybe exponential growth!
Waste
🙂
Does that include of words?
Markets, at least those that have little to no grounding in the real world. With so little real business going on, how come markets haven’t fallen more? Probably because they’re expecting governments to bail out asset values.
That
And the fact that they do not see any challenge to their rent seeking monopolistic behaviour coming along soon
Any financial support for any business at this stage should include assessment of its effect on the environment.
So that rebuilding of the economy and the necessary environmental protections, primarily re climate change, are in the same direction, not contradictory.
With fossil fuel use so low, this is the chance we’ve been given.
But I don’t think Johnson is anywhere near up for the challenge on climate change any more than he has been on virus. There is no way we can afford this idiot.
We agree Linda
Dominos pizza
Social media influencers. Of course they are just product placement opportunities for marketing companies, but apparently they are the first marketing budgets to be cut. I don’t think this horrible, fake lifestyle advertising contributing to consumerism and mental health problems will be missed very much.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52362462