Friday, March 23, 2007
I don't even know where to start
with this story that ran yesterday in the New York Times. On the one hand, I have sympathy in mass quantities for anyone who tries to control their consumption of fossil fuel, and these people are clearly doing a much better job of it than I am. On the other hand, the fact that they find going without toilet paper a better lifestyle choice than giving up their Eames furniture (and while getting to keep the Fifth Avenue apartment and the book contract) seems nothing short of precious. I don't know of a single local food activist who thinks it's important to go without salt or cinnamon--trade in spices and condiments has a much smaller impact on the environment than several of the Beavan-Conlins' practices and has a millennial history. Sheesh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It is an exceedingly odd story. I think it's at least halfway making fun of that family.
I think the toilet paper thing is a PR move to get everyone's attention (and of course, it worked). Because you can compost toilet paper ....
Scrivener and Jo(e)--I think you're right, but it pains me. Voluntary simplicity is already such an easy target ("naive idealists," "eccentric killjoys," "elite hypocrites") that despite having leaped onto the bandwagon with my post, I'm a little depressed that the Times picked out people who are so fun to make fun of.
Post a Comment