Identify the Arguments for and Against This View
As China and India modernize and follow different trends, the worldwide generation of electronic waste has hit astronomical proportions; to recycle these kinds of products is dangerous however it is not us in Britain who has do this as you will read below. Economist Vivien Brown (2009, pp. 104-143) states that the parts of consumption that most of us choose not to think about is rubbish. We have to buy things in order to dispose and create waste, but where does it go?Where it goes provides us with a sense of winners and losers; we export some of our rubbish to China, India and elsewhere, when it is received by these countries they sometimes recycle it and re-use; but the electronics have to be taken apart securely due to their toxins; this can be very dangerous to the labourers. In London the rubbish is taken to an incinerator facility and more rubbish is brought up the Thames on barges. Rubbish can also be taken to landfill sites; however landfill sites already cover 109 square miles of the UK with an extra 16 million tonnes of rubbish being added each year.
Some recycling also takes place, though whenever there is any unwanted fridges and other metal goods they are shipped to China for scrapping. Some of this scrap metal returns to Britain to be re-used (BBC Learning Zone Programmes, 2012). We can be seen as the winners and they the losers. Many socialists can see that we are becoming a wasteful society that is damaging the environment and leaving a bad effect not only on us but our future generations, we are creating more costs by the damage we are causing on the environment and it won’t be us paying but our next generations.Michael Thompson wrote in his book ‘Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value’ (1979, in Taylor, Hinchliffe, Clarke and Bromley, 2009, pp. 122-127) that rubbish can be categorised; one moment you decide it is rubbish then you choose that it is no longer rubbish so you keep it, they move from being ‘transient items into objects of durable value’ (Thompson, 1979, in Taylor, Hinchliffe, Clarke and Bromley, 2009, p. 125).
Identify the Arguments for and Against This View Essay Example
Thompson’s theory explains how rubbish can be made and then unmade meaning that some things that are of transient -value can decrease and become rubbish but it can then increase in value over time and become durable – he supports the theory with the example of the Victorian Stevengraph which is shown in figure 4 (Thompson, 1979, in Taylor, Hinchliffe, Clarke and Bromley, 2009, p. 123-4). It shows us the change in an object’s value as it moves from transient to durable via rubbish.The line depicting an objects value first falls then effectively becomes zero, and finally rises. It illustrated how an object moves from transient to durable. Table 1 shows the percentage of the UK household expenditure in the years 1957 and 2006 (Brown, 2009, in Taylor, Hinchliffe, Clarke and Bromley, 2009, p. 110).
By reading the table you can see that the expenditure of luxuries has risen whereas buying food and non-alcoholic drinks has declined, compared to that of 1957 when the expenditure of food was double of what it is now.The majority of services that has risen from 1957 to 2006 are that of non-necessities such as meals out, hair dressing and entertainment. Moreover, Table 1 gives us some evidence of the changes with affluence that brings about mass consumption. The relationship between rubbish and value is a complex and complicated one. The well-known proverb stating that “one man’s rubbish is another man’s treasure” highlights how the standard of value is defined differently by each of us.