Chernobyl disaster cleared the area of human beings which is good for the flora and tha fauna. The data is there, the animals are there and they are thriving. The nuclear scare of the cold war and the industrious lobbies of Greenpeace and other airheads has created an image of everything that radiates as something profoundly evil, toxic and deadly. The misinformation and emotionally charged marketing has lead to reactions which well-informed adults would not have as individuals. A mass is another thing and an internet crowd probably one where the least amount of rational processing can be detected.
Now it seems that a radiation catastrophy is far less danger to the biosphere than the civilisation that caused it.
Which again leads to think that the dystopias of Margaret Atwood ( a brilliant Canadian writer!) hit closer to the mark the we would like to admit...
As for the hystery for better and better equipment, –photo, audio or whatever– it is driven by artificial needs. Artificial in this context meaning 'man made'. Would somebody 'need' a 50 MB sensor on his camera without the babble of the pixel peepers so abundant on all of the photographic sites on the Internet?
So now you can count the feathers of a squeekbill you photographed in the Northeastern territories near dark, half a mile away.
Who or what instance on this planet needs those feathers to be counted?
You do it because you are in a position to want it and you have the means.
Now, looking at the situation you can analyse the flowcharts of causality many ways one of which has to do with genuine ornithological interest, another has more to do with social status and still a third one would have the positive feeling of mastering the medium in its center. Somebody has a 'situation' at home that necessitates time out somewhere where the silence is broken only by the gentle 'squeek' from the weeds. Surely, there are other motives there as well but the well-being of the squeekbill does not rate very high in any of them.
People think they need so many things. The economy that is based on 'fiat' money, loans, interests and speculation, needs constant growth.
this is the economy we have now and it seems that it is the only kind of economy that our money people in their glass and steel temples are willing and able to provide us with. Everything we buy loses at least a fifth of its value once it leaves the shop. Make an exception here with gold, silver and some collectors' items. Most of the commodities go down while only a few go up...the lucky rich get filthier and richer while those who pay for their ticket, lose money.
And we are many.
This is the deep nature of our economy.
In the photography market we see it in small scale. The lenses I bought ten years ago now have their new versions out and they have become obsolete and very difficult to sell at any price at all. Which would be a problem if I had not bought them to take pictures, of course. Good Canon stuff that 'nobody' seems to want. They want the newest and the best, with top MTF curves and DxO ratings.
Why do you think there is such and institution as the DxO if not to boost sales. I cannot think of any other reason. How many times have you been in a situation where your picture is unacceptable because your LENS was not up to the job?
Well, another rant. I hope to be able to get home from here soon...
PS. The Ethylotest one has to pass before posting is a brilliant idea.