Programmed obsolescency

La obsolescencia programada es una de las más flagrantes manifestaciones de la hipocresía de las naciones capitalistas.
El hecho de que la industria fabrique productos diseñados para fallar, estropearse u obsolescer en uno u otro sentido al cabo de determinado período de tiempo -nunca demasiado largo-, y que lo haga con todas las bendiciones de la ley (o, en el mejor de los casos, con su mudo beneplácito), pone en evidencia la indefensión a que los ciudadanos están expuestos como consumidores, eliminando además de raíz no ya la eficacia, sino el sentido mismo de todo el aparato de defensa del consumidor, con sus oficinas, sus funcionarios y todas las leyes pertinentes; aparato que, para colmo, costea el propio consumidor con sus impuestos. Es decir, que no sólo pagamos por productos legalizados para estropearse, sino que además soportamos los costes de un servicio falsamente destinado a protegernos de dicha obsolescencia. La defensa del consumidor, ¿no debería empezar por una normativa de calidad mínima? ¿y, en todo caso, no debería ser sufragada con los impuestos procedentes de quienes se lucran con el comercio?
La obsolescencia programada pone igualmente en evidencia el engaño al que estamos sometidos como miembros y participantes de una sociedad que se dice a sí misma popular, que se declara consagrada al individuo en cuerpo y alma, pero que no titubea en incurrir en la contradicción que supone, por un lado, declarar al ciudadano como último interés supremo y, por otro, permitir que constantemente se le vendan a éste productos deliberadamente perecederos.
Pero, por último, lo más sangrante de este fenómeno es la escandalosa hipocresía que supone la existencia de una cadena de producción que esquilma y derrocha desalmadamente los escasos recursos del planeta, al tiempo que se promulga toda una pomposa política de ecología, energías renovables y reciclaje de basuras. ¡Qué soberana tomadura de pelo! Por cada tonelada de basura que llega al ciudadano, susceptible de ser reciclada, hay diez toneladas (es un decir) de materiales que se le extraen sin piedad al planeta. La ecología bien entendida empieza por minimizar el consumo, y no por fomentarlo para, luego, pedirnos que reciclemos las migajas. Pero, claro, esto último no complacería al gran dinero; a esas empresas que, al fin y al cabo, son las que mantienen el “crecimiento”, ese monumental error. Quizá algún día entre en nuestras cabezas la idea de que es imposible crecer infinitamente en un mundo finito. Pero, entonces, será ya demasiado tarde.
Programmed obsolescency is one of the most glaring exhibits of capitalistic nations’ hypocrisy.
The fact that the industry produces stuff designed to fail, break down or become obsolet after some time -never too long-, and the fact of this happening with all the blessings of the law (or at least with its silent acquiescence), evidences the citizens’ defencelessness as consumers, not only rendering uneffective the consumer protection system, but also depriving it of any possible sense, with its offices, its staff and all the pertinent regulations. I. e.: we not only pay for legally “self-breakable” (excuse my bad English) products, but also for a service untruly assigned to protect us from that. Consumer protection, shouldn’t it start with a mandatory minimal quality of the staff?, or at least, shouldn’t it be financed mainly with the taxes of those who most profit from the commerce?
Likewise, programmed obsolescency evidences how deceived we are as members of a society which claims to be for the people and devoted to the individual, but which doesn’t hesitate in falling into the blatant incongruity of stating -on one hand- the supreme importance of the citizen, and -on the other- letting these to be constantly offered purposedly perishable products.
And last but not least — actually the grossest indecency of this question, is the alarming deceit involved in simultaneously a) maintaining a production chain which mercilessly exhausts and wastes the scarce resources of our planet, and b) enunciating shamelessly an ostentatious policy about ecology, renewable energies and waste recycling. What a gross mockery! For every ton of waste the citizens can recycle, there’s ten times more stuff ruthlessly extracted from Earth. Well understood ecology starts with minimizing consumption, not with encouraging it and, then, asking us to recycle the crumbs. But, of course, this wouldn’t please the “big money”, those businesses which, at the end of the day, are supporting the “growth” – that colossal mistake. Perhaps some day we’ll understand that it is impossible to grow indefintely in a finite world. But then, of course, it will be too late.
If you want to know more about this topic, please take a look here:

Being too smart…

… is the fastest way to stupidity
And that’s what happens with the Blogspot crew. They think they’re so smart!
Let’s say you’re spending some months in Ukraine, and let’s say you fancy creating a blog in What do you do?
Of course you type in your browser and… what do you get?
You get a webpage in Ukrainian (which certainly you don’t understand) without any possibility of changing the language.
How smart seems that, doesn’t it?
They think they’re soooo smart as to guessing your language, just because they think they know your location.
But how smart it really is? Actually quite stupid, because…
…what do you do?
You give up on Blogspot and opt for creating a blog in WordPress, where you can choose the language.

Facebook and government

Finally I’ve decided on writing a brief note about this interesting topic, as a continuation of my recent wall post.
Sure, the “controlled Facebook” idea hadn’t crossed my mind before my friend -too fond of conspiracy theories- suggested it (well, actually he didn’t suggest, but affirmed): “Facebook belongs to the CIA”, he told me. My inmediate thought, for the first few seconds, was that of “Oh, my God!, people are so crazy about these fantasies of global conspiracies for controlling the planet, and such”. But somehow, a moment later, the idea struck me as a very plausible, reasonable and even logical one.
But before further writing, let me make clear that the words in which my friend put it are, for me, an oversimplification. It’s not necessarily that “Facebook belongs to the CIA”. Theoretically, it belongs to Facebook, Inc, but this one may in turn “belong” to any other corporation, private or governmental, civil or military, USAn or Israeli or NATOish… It may have started with the private initiative of its supposed founder (and Zuckerberg, isn’t that a jewish surname?), but… was he independent? And even if he was, once the project took off, can’t it have been taken over by some much more powerful corporation?
However it all begun, now Facebook exists, and who can categorically affirm, who can be totally sure, that it’s not used and/or even controlled by one (or several) of the suggested organisms? Only think of it for a moment: a database with more than 400 million people’s profiles, constantly, personally and willingly updated by ourselves, our most recent pictures, complete albums, where have we been, where we are, where are we going, who are we connected to, our phone numbers, email addresses, IM users, home address, school, college, opinions, family, thoughts, the letters we write… all that information, present and past (who guarantees that whenever we “delete” something from FB, it gets really deleted from the database?), is probably as vast as any country’s police/military/intelligence/governmental classified files, and surely more accurate and trustworthy. Which agency would resist the temptation of taking it under control?
More yet: wouldn’t it be, from the point of view of the responsible ones, the “people up there”, the big bosses, Uncle Sam, call it however you like, wouldn’t it be an unforgivable (and punishable) negligence NOT TO control Facebook? Well, if I were one of those allmighty ones, I think I’d crucify a bunch of subordinates if they couldn’t put in my hands the reins of such power, the keys of that treasure…
As a side argument, it has all the time struck me, since I joined Facebook, how little publicity there is in this website. Where do the “owners” get the money from for this huge project?
Of course, all this is but a reflection. I’d love to hear of any sensible argument pro or against this ideas of mine…