Editorial

In defence

Being discerning is our last defence in the fight for

Alex Braun, staff Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, leading philosophers of the group of researchers known as the Frankfurt school, defined their idea of the culture industry in their landmark 1947 book Dialectic of Enlightenment. The gist of their take is that, in the modern world of culture, our cultural desires are manipulated by industry, which acts as a conglomerate in tandem with the interests of government and capital.

The two argue that we no longer choose what we want to consume. Rather, we are given things to consume and told that we want them, becoming subjects to the views and desired worldview of our overlords.

In Adorno’s words, “the culture industry intentionally integrates its consumers from above.” Through this integration, the powers that be can reproduce and naturalize existing ideology, using art and culture to trap us in existing capitalist thought structures.

Right now, I think it’s hard to dispute that we are being increasingly told what to watch or read, and when to watch or read it. The most popular means of cultural consumption — Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Netflix, etc. — all work using algorithms, shovelling content slop into the mouths of the user based on our tolerance of things that they shoved at us previously.

Even outside of digital algorithmic platforms, film and television have become increasingly dominated by a few mega-corporations. Disney is the most wellknown example, spending the past few years gobbling up other studios and then paring their film releases down to a carefully selected array of blockbusters based almost entirely on existing properties.

In 2019, Disney released only 13 films, and of those 13, four were remakes and five were sequels. The few original properties were released directly to streaming rather than being given a proper theatrical release.

Even worse, the most popular of these films, the ones being seen by millions and millions of adults, are films for babies being enjoyed by legions of adult children — superhero movies, remakes and sequels for animated films drenched in nostalgia for the ’90s kids now in adulthood.

In music too, there has been a harsh critical turn over the past 20 years toward “poptimism,” a movement that aims to praise and celebrate the most popular music rather than promoting and searching for new, small, experimental acts. Another cultural push to homogenize and consolidate cultural capital to the domain of the mega-corporations.

This is all to say that we are being given very little choice in the culture pellets we are given, and more and more the culture industry is tightening its grip around us. Which is why I say that being discerning in your cultural diet, being a snob, is an act of self-defence and radical self-respect.

Along with our dumbed-down, repetitive and undemocratic cultural landscape, there is an increase in anti-snob rhetoric. Social media is full of calls to “let people enjoy things,” as if skepticism and critique of popular cultural products is an attack on the people who enjoy the products. I say the opposite is true — being angry at the low-quality slop being fed to us in culture is an act of love for my fellow human beings, who are made to smile when they consume the slop.

We all deserve better than what we are being given, and respecting ourselves enough to say so is a morally good and righteous thing. And if you’re unhappy with the way of the world politically, as you should be, pushing back against the culture industry is a push against the dominant political ideology as well — a hand pushed in the face of mega-corporations trying to control your mind.

The way I see it, political action and revolution is a process of creativity, and one that is fostered by being shown new views of the world through exciting, new and independent art. If we can imagine these new perspectives, we can imagine new ways of life and new systems of societal organization that can get us out of this mess.

So, be a snob. Don’t go see the new Marvel movie, or listen to the new Drake album just because you feel like you have to. Don’t click on whatever is number one on Netflix, or at the top of your “for you” page on TikTok.

Take a second, think about what you deserve and what you want out of life, and search for the good stuff. Read art criticism, think critically about what you’re consuming, expand your cultural horizons. It’s good for your health!

editor@themanitoban.com

Historic environmental agreement struck at COP15

Lucas Gomes, volunteer

The 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, hosted by Canada in Montreal, Que., concluded on Dec. 19 with the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Representatives from 188 governments worldwide reached the agreement — its defining characteristic being the commitment to protect 30 per cent of the planet’s land, coasts, inland waters and oceans by 2030.

The need for a post-2020 biodiversity agreement was in response to Earth’s palpable loss of biodiversity and the failure of governments’ past commitments. A 2020 United Nations international report looked at national governments’ efforts from 20112020 to fulfill the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets agreed upon at COP10 in 2010. The report concluded that no targets were fully achieved, and only six were partially achieved.

The need for a new and improved agreement has intensified. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report of 2020 recognized loss of biodiversity, specifically human-driven loss, as one of the most urgent threats facing our planet.

The 2022 agreement stipulates 23 environmental targets for governments to achieve.

Target 3, the protection of at least 30 per cent of the Earth’s ecosystems by 2030, is unprecedented, as currently over 17 per cent of land and 7.7 per cent of oceans are protected.

Other targets, such as number 10, seek governments’ assurance to sustainably manage fisheries, agriculture, aquaculture and forestry, in order to maintain food security without depleting ecosystems’ functions and services.

The commitments to these targets from all 188 representatives did not come easily.

Joseph Onoja, a Nigerian conservationist and director of the Nigerian Conservation Foundation, pointed out the hypocrisy of colonial countries that built their wealth upon the exploitation of resources around the globe telling developing countries to cease development in order to preserve the environment. He argued that these same countries should be held accountable for their past environmental actions.

As frustrations culminated, representatives from Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia walked out of meetings.

Despite these frustrations, financial support was eventually determined. The agreement stipulates that by 2030, developed countries should be providing US$30 billion in annual biodiversity-related funding to developing countries.

Canada itself announced $255 million to help developing countries combat climate change, protect the environment and support their economies, adding to an already announced $350 million of funding to support biodiversity in these countries. During the conference, Canada signed the Canada-Yukon Nature Agreement. The agreement is set to advance conservation and protection across the Yukon, with Indigenous leadership having a guiding hand.

A similar agreement has been struck involving Canada and the Manitoba provincial government, as well as a partnership of four First Nations known as the Seal River Watershed Alliance. These groups will take steps toward implementing an Indigenous protected area within the Seal River watershed, located in northern Manitoba. The area is one of the world’s most significant carbon sinks — an area that absorbs more carbon dioxide than it releases.

To show their commitment to the new biodiversity framework, the Canadian government has implemented immediate change. Effective Dec. 20, 2022, the import of certain harmful single-use plastics such as checkout bags, cutlery and straws has been prohibited in Canada. The government projects that this will lead to the elimination of 22,000 tonnes of plastic pollution over the next 10 years.

Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault compared the COP15 agreement’s significance to the Paris Agreement on climate change, signed in 2015.

While ambitious, the agreement struck at COP 15 is a positive step forward in the international order, and hopefully the conference will set the tone of world affairs when dealing with environmental issues for decades to come.

graphic / Jenna Solomon / staff

Supercars and inflated egos

How the cars you choose and idealize impact the planet

Sarah Cohen, staff

I’ve been to a number of car shows and car meets across Southern California. While I didn’t go by choice, I’ve found that there is a lot to learn at these events if you observe the right things. However, the thing that stands out above all else is that supercars are stupid.

To name a few, supercars are all the multi-coloured Aston Martins, Lamborghinis and Corvettes that race around barely half a foot from the ground with stupid-rich people inside.

Supercars are a collector’s item, allowing the one per cent to bask in their wealth and put it on display for the general population to view. I have no clue what this experience is like for the people who own the cars. My many mornings at the Malibu Country Mart with Jay Leno’s cars lined up against others gave me a glimpse into that world, and I can’t understand it.

I can’t lie, though. There was one holographic-wrapped Lamborghini that always caught my eye, and my general attitude was, “that colour is nice.”

All kinds of cars contribute in some way to the climate crisis our planet is facing, and that’s impossible to deny. When people talk about emissions and why they’re bad for the planet, they are talking about the amount of gaseous waste such as carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere. Like a greenhouse, those gases keep heat inside our planet’s atmosphere.

A typical car emits, on average, 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide every year. Manufacturing cars can have a carbon footprint of anywhere from six to 35 metric tons per vehicle. Either way, cars are bad for the environment. Especially if you are buying them for show and tell purposes.

Electric cars help the world because they don’t use gasoline, and so do not produce tailpipe emissions. Hybrid cars help the world because they are more fuel efficient than gas-only vehicles. Supercars don’t help the world at all, aside from boosting the egos of rich people.

As the world saw last month, infamous influencer Andrew Tate took to Twitter to boast about his collection of cars and their emissions to climate activist Greta Thunberg.

Misogyny and sexism seem to be on the rise on social media, and people like Andrew Tate — who has said that women are the property of men and bear some responsibility for being sexually assaulted — feed that with their misogynistic messaging.

Many of Tate’s followers fail to see his anti-women rhetoric, and believe that there is an agenda against “truth-sayers” such as Tate. Tate’s mesBe conscientious sage to his target audience about the cars you purchase and the reasons you choose them of primarily young men has the power to expand misogynis tic oppression. Some of that messaging is subliminal, and sometimes it sounds like genuinely encouraging young men to be good people. The more followers Tate has — even if those followers just want to check out his collection of supercars — the more power Tate has to spread the dangerous rhetoric or actions that he puts into the world. In the Twitter feud between the two, Tate commented that Thunberg was probably sitting bitterly in a cold room. Ironically, Tate was arrested a few days after the exchange — though not because of the tweets, as internet sleuths have speculated — and is now being held in custody in Romania. If he could only see himself now. There is and was no need for Tate or anyone to buy supercars for any other purpose than to boost an image and ego. Humble yourselves. Be conscientious about the cars you purchase and the reasons you choose them, and be critical of who you follow on social media. Remember that as individuals, we have the power to reduce our own carbon footprints and think for ourselves.

At the end of the day, supercars inflate the egos of misogynists, and are also bad for the environment. We’d all be better off on a bike, using public transportation or a trusted Prius, rather than driving some misogynistic millionaire’s version of a Barbie car.