That's the Landscape in Vermont.
I've probably got two times as much unpublished blogging in the drafts folder as I have in the published column. It's hard to write as an unpaid amateur. But it's harder for professional writers to write about recycling and other trades accurately and meaningfully.
We occasionally get a rare hybrid, like Adam Minter, who (because he grew up as a child of scrap metal businessparents) had previous exposure to the trade before getting a degree and becoming a writer. And we have trade journals, like Recycling International, Resource Recycling, and Recycling Today and Waste360 and Scrap, which (if they retain a writer long enough) build enough reference points to amount to expertise. But they also have paid advertisers.
And we get opinionated profit seekers. I'd point fingers, but know that same finger has been pointed at me. When most of your money comes from either export or shredding to prevent export, you have expertise and you have bias.
Does anyone play a game they don't intend to win something for?
Black Sabbath. Clash. Neil Young. Woodie Guthrie, perhaps?
This year I decided to improve the quality of the blogs, and as a result I have fewer posts and a bigger "draft" folder. The drafts are particularly heavy when I decided to attempt something grand, like the "Game Theory" blogs.
"Game Theory" blog drafts have some of the most insightful writing I've had all year, but it's difficult to make it actually readable. I had about 12 blogs worth of "game theory" insight, weaving the psychology of self-interest into the morality claims on both sides. It led at times to a rather gruesome truce, more of a free market than fair trade. If everyone has a way to "win" the game, anyone can try to influence the rules to make them more likely to win.
Game Theory draft blogs were about how people make decisions to do stuff based on their own situation. At times they factor in the behavior of other people. In the "e-waste" trade, the decision Africans make is to "get access to mass media". The way to get TV and computers on a limited income is to buy used product. It's exactly, exactly the same as the game theory which predicts USA teenagers buy used cars unless their wealthy parents by new for them. Africans buy used display devices unless they have wealthy parents buying them new ones.
The theory that the trade is driven by avoided pollution costs in the UK or USA has been completely disproven, but the theory itself has "game theory" value for certain players.
1. Planned Obsolescence
2. Big Shred
3. Dictators (who oppose affordable internet)
4, Regulators (who want a "crisis" to inflate their budget)
5. Reporters and Conference Holders (who make money on the "sizzle", not the steak)
It's a powerful set of players. "Evil minds that plot (device) destruction..."
s h r e d p i g s
 |
| view from the vermont office |
I've probably got two times as much unpublished blogging in the drafts folder as I have in the published column. It's hard to write as an unpaid amateur. But it's harder for professional writers to write about recycling and other trades accurately and meaningfully.
We occasionally get a rare hybrid, like Adam Minter, who (because he grew up as a child of scrap metal businessparents) had previous exposure to the trade before getting a degree and becoming a writer. And we have trade journals, like Recycling International, Resource Recycling, and Recycling Today and Waste360 and Scrap, which (if they retain a writer long enough) build enough reference points to amount to expertise. But they also have paid advertisers.
And we get opinionated profit seekers. I'd point fingers, but know that same finger has been pointed at me. When most of your money comes from either export or shredding to prevent export, you have expertise and you have bias.
Does anyone play a game they don't intend to win something for?
Black Sabbath. Clash. Neil Young. Woodie Guthrie, perhaps?
This year I decided to improve the quality of the blogs, and as a result I have fewer posts and a bigger "draft" folder. The drafts are particularly heavy when I decided to attempt something grand, like the "Game Theory" blogs.
"Game Theory" blog drafts have some of the most insightful writing I've had all year, but it's difficult to make it actually readable. I had about 12 blogs worth of "game theory" insight, weaving the psychology of self-interest into the morality claims on both sides. It led at times to a rather gruesome truce, more of a free market than fair trade. If everyone has a way to "win" the game, anyone can try to influence the rules to make them more likely to win.
Game Theory draft blogs were about how people make decisions to do stuff based on their own situation. At times they factor in the behavior of other people. In the "e-waste" trade, the decision Africans make is to "get access to mass media". The way to get TV and computers on a limited income is to buy used product. It's exactly, exactly the same as the game theory which predicts USA teenagers buy used cars unless their wealthy parents by new for them. Africans buy used display devices unless they have wealthy parents buying them new ones.
The theory that the trade is driven by avoided pollution costs in the UK or USA has been completely disproven, but the theory itself has "game theory" value for certain players.
1. Planned Obsolescence
2. Big Shred
3. Dictators (who oppose affordable internet)
4, Regulators (who want a "crisis" to inflate their budget)
5. Reporters and Conference Holders (who make money on the "sizzle", not the steak)
It's a powerful set of players. "Evil minds that plot (device) destruction..."
s h r e d p i g s
