>This sounds something like an astroturf for a brown chemical drink which sure as eggs is eggs will rot your teeth and kill you sooner than if you drink clean water (or moderate amounts of wine for that matter).
...Did you just make that up on the spot?
>We can make the globalisation and connectedness point a lot more clearly and ideologically neutrally without promoting useless Lowest Common Denominator products that merely waste our resources and do not add to the total sum of human happiness.
Oh, good grief, I responded to your exact type of comment by another person further down, but I'll repeat the summary here: Your comment makes no sense.
I don't know if you're just the type of guy that needs to cut down everything to justify your ego, or maybe this is just a form of the engineer humble brag, but honestly, "Lowest Common Denominator products that merely waste our resources and do not add to the total sum of human happiness." Really? You going to stand by that? Did you even read the article?
I'd say the fact that it requires all of the distribution and production means describes in the article to keep up the demand of its product a tick in the "Brings Happiness" column. I myself very much enjoy having a Cherry Coke Zero when anytime I visit the theater. Have I, along with the rest of the world, been deluding myself? I didn't actually enjoy that product, and got no happiness or enjoyment out of its consumption? Who knew!
Further human happiness is a strange thing to use as a measuring stick for a product's "worth." What is the 'level' of human happiness that a product must bring before it is of value in your book? Obviously, being that coca-cola product represent 3% of all beverages consumed around the world (I looked it up), we need something that, what, hits that 4% mark before we can acknowledge that it actually does deliver some marginal level of happiness to the population?
What is your opinion on restaurants? Those seem to provide the same type of happiness as a coke. Maybe we should tell all those people to go out and do something worthwhile that gives actual happiness. Whatever that fuck that actually means.
I read the whole thing. Yes, wow, impressive supply chain. But then the supply chain for something useful like an aircraft, or mechanical digger would be a lot more useful.
I'm a very positive person... for things which improve the su of human happiness and creativity, in the spirit of the Bay Area, rather than just selling sugar for the sake of finance.
wrt your ad homines, I'd examine the psychological projection of your own ego onto ohters: why get personal when this is jsut an interesting deate about values, economics, production and globalisation? Have a lovely day!
>But then the supply chain for something useful like an aircraft, or mechanical digger would be a lot more useful.
By what metric? Please, do explain. What does it mean to be "useful." Is a chef useful? Is an artist useful? Comments like yours get under my skin because they seem purposefully vague, which allows plenty of room for high browing, and faux elitism.
>rather than just selling sugar for the sake of finance.
Ok, so what is your cut off? Should all food manufacturers switch to aerospace engineering so they can finally contribute something useful? Bakeries? We should probably laud them as well. After all, they are, pretty much by definition, sugar in return for profit. Art is probably out too, I suppose. The film industry, despite is fantastically complex tool chain, at the end of the day, isn't really "useful." It contributes a kind of arbitrary happiness. Feel free to let me know if I'm off base, or if you feel as though I'm strawmanning. It's just that "sum happiness" and "useful" are so vague and poorly defined that I have no idea what you mean.
>jsut an interesting deate about values, economics, production and globalisation?
Dismissing something without reason is not a debate. That is the issue I took with your comment. "sum happiness" means nothing at all.
...Did you just make that up on the spot?
>We can make the globalisation and connectedness point a lot more clearly and ideologically neutrally without promoting useless Lowest Common Denominator products that merely waste our resources and do not add to the total sum of human happiness.
Oh, good grief, I responded to your exact type of comment by another person further down, but I'll repeat the summary here: Your comment makes no sense.
I don't know if you're just the type of guy that needs to cut down everything to justify your ego, or maybe this is just a form of the engineer humble brag, but honestly, "Lowest Common Denominator products that merely waste our resources and do not add to the total sum of human happiness." Really? You going to stand by that? Did you even read the article?
I'd say the fact that it requires all of the distribution and production means describes in the article to keep up the demand of its product a tick in the "Brings Happiness" column. I myself very much enjoy having a Cherry Coke Zero when anytime I visit the theater. Have I, along with the rest of the world, been deluding myself? I didn't actually enjoy that product, and got no happiness or enjoyment out of its consumption? Who knew!
Further human happiness is a strange thing to use as a measuring stick for a product's "worth." What is the 'level' of human happiness that a product must bring before it is of value in your book? Obviously, being that coca-cola product represent 3% of all beverages consumed around the world (I looked it up), we need something that, what, hits that 4% mark before we can acknowledge that it actually does deliver some marginal level of happiness to the population?
What is your opinion on restaurants? Those seem to provide the same type of happiness as a coke. Maybe we should tell all those people to go out and do something worthwhile that gives actual happiness. Whatever that fuck that actually means.