Since nobody seems to pick up on my sarcasm--and forums don't add a thing to expression or communication--let me say first of all that I am a huge fan of many forms of art.
Been thinking about this thread yesterday & this morning. Noticed you guys who talk about waste never mention art. But there is possibly no greater "waste" on this globe. Unless you narrowly define waste to fit things you disagree with. But art contributes nothing to food, shelter, or reproduction, so why not attack it? You want to look to nature as a model, correct? So humans are the only "animal" that expresses itself through art. The "waste" of art would make "over-packaging" look like an unobservable blip on the environmental radar. Think of the extent and grandeur of the budgets expended on art: just music-->
Musical instrument production inputs, millions of hours wasted practicing, university professors dedicated to its instruction, opera houses, radios & radio stations, home theater systems, sound studios, mp3 players, cds, Nashville, Seatle, Halls of Fame (Country, Rock, etc), dancing (gotta have music), wind chimes, etc.
What about the other forms of art? Painting, drawing, sculpture, architecture, theatre, fiction, and the biggest "waste" of all (which I actually happen to agree is waste)--Hollywood.
Can we even comprehend the billions if not trillions of dollars & resources poured into these each year? But, the left will never attack art as waste.
Not until they have a foothold, that is. Socialists wait until they have a choke-hold on their people before they start to rid the land of art. We witnessed this in Germany in the 1930's.
Want an example--the collective--called public schools--used to teach all sorts of things (shop, choir, drama, Latin, etc.)--now art programs, of all sorts, are nearing extinction. They teach what they're being tested on, and they teach it and test it to death. But art is waste--at least to public school boards/budgets across America.