10 Shocking Photos of Consumption And Waste

Alex_Spider

Sidekick
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
2,527
Reaction score
0
Points
31
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/29/chris-jordan_n_5035897.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000044&ir=Green

10 Shocking Photos That Will Change How You See Consumption And Waste

As individual and anonymous consumers, it's seemingly impossible to even estimate the physical ramifications of our daily consumption and waste. While our personal imprints may not seem in themselves worthy of alarm, the combined effect of human's habits and rituals is hard to look away from.

Photographer Chris Jordan works with the debris we as a society leave behind, photographing massive dumps of cell phones, crushed cars and circuit boards. Squished together in dizzying quantities, the discarded goods resemble hypnotic puzzles, abstracted color fields and hallucinatory fractals. Jordan compares the complex layers of wreckage to the overwhelming detail of the Grand Canyon.

The series, dubbed "Intolerable Beauty: Portraits of American Mass Consumption," shows the unmistakable imprint of our American culture in all its horror and strange, dark appeal. "I am appalled by these scenes, and yet also drawn into them with awe and fascination," Jordan explained in an email to The Huffington Post. "The immense scale of our consumption can appear desolate, macabre, oddly comical and ironic, and even darkly beautiful; for me its consistent feature is a staggering complexity."

Faced with Jordan's unshakeable images, we lose our ability to shrug off the consequences of our consumption, a small but necessary first step on the way to lasting change. "As an American consumer myself, I am in no position to finger wag; but I do know that when we reflect on a difficult question in the absence of an answer, our attention can turn inward, and in that space may exist the possibility of some evolution of thought or action. So my hope is that these photographs can serve as portals to a kind of cultural self-inquiry. It may not be the most comfortable terrain, but I have heard it said that in risking self-awareness, at least we know that we are awake."

See Jordan's striking works below and watch as dumped electronics morph into something resembling brushstrokes or building blocks. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

And it keeps going on and on...
 
man_vs_mother_nature_540.jpg
 
Those are ironically, awesome photos that look quite good. In trying to shame people about wastefulness, they made waste look like art. :doh:

Good job! :woot::up:
 
The thing is, since all of these photos are collections of the same items, piles of cell phones, etc, they are mostly likely from recycling plants.
 
But then you're taking away the whole point of this. It's not garbage if it's being recycled.
 
The thing is, since all of these photos are collections of the same items, piles of cell phones, etc, they are mostly likely from recycling plants.

Yeah, it might be like that. But still, not all electronic devices get recycled sadly. And there are plenty of them that get dumped for good without any planning and pollute the oceans and air.
 
/recycled an old flatscreen tv today

I do what I can.
 

I get the symbolism there, but it ignores the fact that urban living has less environmental impact than rural. Ideally, we should all live in carbon neutral cities, sticking to a diet of cereals and canned vegetables.

Me neither.
 
Such depictions are so simplistic though so it makes a complicated reality easier to critique when you have these images that widely ignore it and show what you want or think.

The truth is also if every human being in the world were crammed into living as I believe it was either New York City or Tokyo (I'd have to find the citation), we'd fill up a city roughly the size of Texas, meaning that the rest of the planet would be uninhabited. So yeah an urban sprawl totally kicks the ass of everyone spread out taking up massive tracts of land if your idea of a smaller footprint were realized.
 
I get the symbolism there, but it ignores the fact that urban living has less environmental impact than rural. Ideally, we should all live in carbon neutral cities, sticking to a diet of cereals and canned vegetables.

Me neither.

Such depictions are so simplistic though so it makes a complicated reality easier to critique when you have these images that widely ignore it and show what you want or think.

The truth is also if every human being in the world were crammed into living as I believe it was either New York City or Tokyo (I'd have to find the citation), we'd fill up a city roughly the size of Texas, meaning that the rest of the planet would be uninhabited. So yeah an urban sprawl totally kicks the ass of everyone spread out taking up massive tracts of land if your idea of a smaller footprint were realized.

What about this?
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23799590

[YT]J_Vyo3LdMa4[/YT]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_Vyo3LdMa4
[YT]Uou4DiutW5g[/YT]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uou4DiutW5g
Is it possible to create a radically different society? One where material possessions are unnecessary, where buildings are created in factories, where mundane jobs are automated?

Would you want to live in a city where the main aim of daily life is to improve personal knowledge, enjoy hobbies, or solve problems that could be common to all people in order to improve the standard of living for everyone?

Some may think it is idealistic, but 97-year old architect Jacque Fresco is convinced his vision of the future is far better than how we live today.
 
Last edited:
I get the symbolism there, but it ignores the fact that urban living has less environmental impact than rural. Ideally, we should all live in carbon neutral cities, sticking to a diet of cereals and canned vegetables.

Me neither
.

Just curious, if you had it your way, would you prefer the current world of a constant state of decay and corruption, over the one you described above, that is clearly better and more ideal?
 
An ideal world is just that: an ideal. I don't think human nature's going to let us come close to it. Or, remain there once we attain the ideal.
 
An ideal world is just that: an ideal. I don't think human nature's going to let us come close to it. Or, remain there once we attain the ideal.

Yeah, I know, that's why I said "a more ideal world", although it isn't the right word. You can replace it with "a more improved", "more civilised", "more peaceful" etc.

You know, there is no greater convenience for the upper class that exploits this planet and generates wars to acquire as much as possible, to make us believe that the human nature is the one to blame.

No it isn't human nature the problem. I don't even get what that term really means. All I know is that we are born pure and innocent to seek love, food and shelter. So many we should change the rules of the game that require us to pursuit more wealth at any cost and pick up sides to fight for, killing each other.

There's no choice really. The way I see it there will be two paths for humanity in the future. Either we end up in a dystopian post-apocalyptic world of dictatorship or worse a nuclear wasteland and be forced to eat each other, or we come to our senses, make politics and armies irrelevant and let science and technology guide us into a new Age of Enlightenment that will take care all people and this planet.
 
Last edited:

I found a similar picture.

ScOF-Superman-Bulletproof_zps08f8eb19.png


If you think modern civilization can kill the Earth, you're wrong. We're a parasitic skin infestation at worst. The most we can do is make the host inhospitable for us.
 
I found a similar picture.

ScOF-Superman-Bulletproof_zps08f8eb19.png


If you think modern civilization can kill the Earth, you're wrong. We're a parasitic skin infestation at worst. The most we can do is make the host inhospitable for us.

Yes that's how it really is :up:
 
We 've always lived without enough, so there's always have been people that would have to steal. There's always been a reason for corruption. The system we have today, has corruption built into it because of scarcity. And most of the abhorrent behaviour we see today, comes from an environment that leads to it, through a lack of access to what we need to survive.

Sue Everatt talk at TEDx about The Venus Project and RBE
[YT]rGssow2I7kY[/YT]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGssow2I7kY
 
Just curious, if you had it your way, would you prefer the current world of a constant state of decay and corruption, over the one you described above, that is clearly better and more ideal?

An ideal world is just that: an ideal. I don't think human nature's going to let us come close to it. Or, remain there once we attain the ideal.

That addresses the point I was making. Of course I would rather that the world was saved, but it should be acknowledged that a loss of freedoms and quality of life in pursuit of that would be unpalatable for most people. For that reason, it would probably have to be enforced. A totalitarian city state enforcing a vegan, low carbon lifestyle does not sound quite so ideal.

But, yes, if I was given that clear choice, of course I would opt for the okra and filtered urine diet.
 
That addresses the point I was making. Of course I would rather that the world was saved, but it should be acknowledged that a loss of freedoms and quality of life in pursuit of that would be unpalatable for most people. For that reason, it would probably have to be enforced. A totalitarian city state enforcing a vegan, low carbon lifestyle does not sound quite so ideal.

But, yes, if I was given that clear choice, of course I would opt for the okra and filtered urine diet.

loss of freedoms? totalitarian city state? It doesn't have to be like that you know..
 
I think it probably does, ultimately. People take any infringements on their liberties very sorely. Look at the US, where sections of the public practically revolt if it is suggested that they should not be able to keep guns that they do not even need. I can imagine household fuel consumption fraud and a black market for meat, if we were all legally obliged to preserve our environment by making small sacrifices.
 
I think it probably does, ultimately. People take any infringements on their liberties very sorely. Look at the US, where sections of the public practically revolt if it is suggested that they should not be able to keep guns that they do not even need. I can imagine household fuel consumption fraud and a black market for meat, if we were all legally obliged to preserve our environment by making small sacrifices.

Then sir we deserve whatever happens to us in the future for not wanting to progress the way we live, out of fear that we might lose some small conveniences and pleasures that satisfy our ego.
 
I don't think egos really come into it so much as comfort but, yes, people are bad at making sacrifices. That is what makes me believe that a general prohibition of environmentally harmful lifestyles would require enforcement.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"