Here are my questions:
With what is known about the negative environmental effects of photography, how must we act to protect it? Even those who have all their work done at a lab have this responsibility, (since there are chemicals involved one way or another) so what are we to do?
Secondly, does the reward outway the risk? it it reasonable to give up the art in order to protect the environment? What about switching to full digital?
I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say about this. Thanks
No we do not. If that were the case, Japan would no longer exist. But last I checked, it does. We have the power to make life on earth unpleasant at most. This is the driving factor for most of us. Why pollute what we rely on to give us what we want?
anyone else?
Why do WE need to take care of nature? It seems to have done well on its own for billions of years before we got here. Maybe I am getting off topic a bit (need to keep this to photography). So, I do see your point of the photographer or videographer playing a major role in the awareness of the beauty of nature.
And to get those photographs, the photography "scene" has to be alive and well, which means people have to be allowed to - and not feel immoral or anything - photograph whatever they like.
Because unlike others in the past we really have the means to turn our planet into a wasteland =p
Also there are many beautiful places that have been defaced/destroyed by people out for a quick buck or just lacking the foresite to see how their actions may effect the future.
It's all a matter of degree.
Making one motor car pollutes 3 Olympic sized swimming baths full of water. So give up your car.
Or we could all go naked and live in the woods on nuts and berries.
As humans everything we do has consequences - we just need to all accept the consequences of our actions. As long as we as consumers prefer to not be a part of the process manufacturers will continue to follow the cheapest option. Which means pollution.
It is entirely possible to manage pollution and reduce it to a minimum - it's just that it is expensive and as consumers we prefer cheap and as shareholders we want profit.
the next step is to reduce doing these harmful things and it seems logical to start by axing things that aren't mandatory for human existence.
Who determines what is needed for mandatory for human existence. Can we have jobs, can we watch TV, do we have a government? Would human existence be worth is if you cant do the things you enjoy. Having watched Survivor on TV last night I see no need for life, if that is what it would be like, and that is my opinion. People live a life like that and love it. I enjoy my life and the things I do, so while I will try to help the environment I will not sacrifice my livelihood by reduce doing these harmful things and it seems logical to start by axing things that aren't mandatory for human existence.
PS You just hurt the environment by posting again.
If you compare the amount of pollution it creates with the sensibilisation to ecology it propels, i think photo does more good than bad, at a very reasonnable ratio.
But I'm a fervent ecology propagandist. Going all-digital would be a very acceptable solution, imo. Informatisation will easily replace prints and that would save huge amounts of paper and therefore trees.
Actually I have an Idea! After all, we're TPF and we rock like hell, so we've gotta do something! Why don't we organise, say an eco month or something of that kind? the idea would be to basically encourage environment-friendly thinking through our photography, which would of course have to be digital. That would make everyone on TPF go eco and we could get some advertisement around it to get more people to hear about it...
I'll make a separate thread for this, though i dunno in what section...
Anybody in? :D
Also the common misconception is wer'e "hurting the world". No we are not, the eartyh will be fine we will die. It's made of rock and metal it needs a lot more than pollution to do anything.
Also farting doesn't deplete the ozone layer.
Also there are many beautiful places that have been defaced/destroyed by people out for a quick buck or just lacking the foresite to see how their actions may effect the future.
take a picture of that ;)
it's tough to make decisions like that in the modern world, almost everything produces a waste nowadays... removing my camera wouldn't make a dent in the waste i produce regardless of personal expenditure...
that said, we can always revert back to 2000 year old art techniques and sculptures for our "visual image" fix
or learn the techniques of those courtroom sketchers, though they produce waste too
But more to the point here. I, having graduated with an environmental science degree, and photography minor and philosophy, find it quite arrogant to think we can change the world. Our rock survived far greater adversaries than humans, and will shrug off our impact as we shrug off a fly. Our actions will not kill this planet, we may decrease our numbers or wipe out other species but the world will continue – with our without us – with our without our film canisters. Nature has a way of adapting and throughout natural history, species become stronger when the environment changes – or die off because they are weak and could not adapt. So are we doing a disservice to this planet by not encouraging the strongest to survive? - Just a random thought.
This is not to say we should go back to the 70’s and before, where the mind set was to just dump everything. I believe we have made great progress. For me living in the jungle would be all I needed if it were not for the family life I choose.
Over dramatic sarcasm seems to make a point.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |