Talk:Procruste: Difference between revisions
(force feeding with what ?) |
(Good points. Maybe we move this discussion somewhere else if it gets longer?) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Well...I | Well...I did not mention it was also a kamasutra position, which "would" have been irrelevant here... | ||
But...I had the feeling it was relevant here, as I believe one of the threat a consumer is meeting is the attempt to reduce him/her to one standard. Such as most food portions being adapted to a family of four. Or directing a whole population to eat one product rather than a variety, or for everyone to eat more salty than before to increase drinks sales. To feed everyone with Mac Donald, even if that require small adaptations depending on countries. hum | But...I had the feeling it was relevant here, as I believe one of the threat a consumer is meeting is the attempt to reduce him/her to one standard. | ||
:[[Homogenity]] is very good for the [[capitalist]] [[market economy]], since everybody will [[work]]/[[consume]] much harder to gain some difference from the rest of the people, if everyone desires the same things. [[Heterogenity]] on the other hand is better for the [[planet]] since people don't have to strive so much to feel oneself as an individual, thus reducing the [[ecological]] strain caused by people. | |||
Such as most food portions being adapted to a family of four. Or directing a whole population to eat one product rather than a variety, or for everyone to eat more salty than before to increase drinks sales. To feed everyone with Mac Donald, even if that require small adaptations depending on countries. hum | |||
:HumHum. The consumers get what they want or they get what the marketing people believe the consumers could be tricked to believe to want. No? | |||
Revision as of 23:29, 6 May 2003
a sort of a troll fighting against standardization...
Shouldn't this article be in Wikipedia. This isn't really relevant to our goal
Well...I did not mention it was also a kamasutra position, which "would" have been irrelevant here...
But...I had the feeling it was relevant here, as I believe one of the threat a consumer is meeting is the attempt to reduce him/her to one standard.
- Homogenity is very good for the capitalist market economy, since everybody will work/consume much harder to gain some difference from the rest of the people, if everyone desires the same things. Heterogenity on the other hand is better for the planet since people don't have to strive so much to feel oneself as an individual, thus reducing the ecological strain caused by people.
Such as most food portions being adapted to a family of four. Or directing a whole population to eat one product rather than a variety, or for everyone to eat more salty than before to increase drinks sales. To feed everyone with Mac Donald, even if that require small adaptations depending on countries. hum
- HumHum. The consumers get what they want or they get what the marketing people believe the consumers could be tricked to believe to want. No?