In a remote wilderness loggers and environmental activists must join together to survive against zombies resulting from a logging company’s genetic experiments in an attempt to increase lumber production which will in theory lead to a 15% increase in profit.
Y’know, I’ve seen companies turn people into zombies for a heckuva lot less.
Somehow I’d missed the sustainability/eco-luxury angle to this controversy.
The ethics of Twin Towers imagery is an interesting issue. Take, for example, the erasure of the Towers from movies filmed before 9/11. Is it better to erase history to avoid sparking emotional reactions, or is doing so akin to the politically motivated photo-disappearances in, say, Stalin’s Russia?
That, at least, is the deep philosophical question that kept coming to mind a couple weeks ago I was watching the Towers-redacted version of The Muppets Take Manhattan.
Creased prints, poorly reproduced images, frayed publicity materials—not what one expects when one enters a fine-art gallery. “It is not a documentary image, but the documentary mode that we see here on journal pages and exhibition walls,” Maren Stange writes in her introduction to the catalogue for “Social Forces Visualized,” on view at the Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Art Gallery at Columbia University.
The 19th century’s social enterprise: scientific charity. Efficient, modern, driven by metrics and rigorous analysis—these were the stated advantages of the new strategy grounded in social science.
Ironically, this charitable infrastructure established by these reformers is what many folks now consider traditional and ineffective compared to social strategy today, which, in contrast to the past, aims to be efficient, modern and driven by metrics and rigorous analysis.
Lots of virtual people die in first-person shooter war games — as of January, 62 billion virtual people had died in COD: Black Ops, according to game maker Activision, and it’s surely way more than that now.
Another interesting statistic: “virtual people” death tolls.
The follow appears in the most recent Deal magazine. Note especially the last four words. The attitudes and perspectives described in this paragraph are quite revealing—in fact, they point the way to understanding why charity continues to be important, not to mention undervalued.
For the past decade or so, the term “social entrepreneur” has emerged as favorite jargon in development and philanthropic circles. The term has about as many definitions and applications as it does practitioners. Generally speaking, it implies new ideas to solving social problems, approaches that are ethical and compassionate but rooted in pragmatism and real-world business practices. And, say most in the field, social entrepreneurialism must have as a goal economic growth and sustainability. If not, it’s merely a charity.
"The idea behind it is that it’s more than fashion, it’s a fashion statement …. Everything has an inspirational message that reflects the global cause that we donate to. It’s about more than clothing. It’s about style and looking cute, but it’s really about making a difference and making a global impact together."