Useful term I discovered this week: “toxic mimicry”. It’s the pattern of substituting systems/organisations/services that look superficially like they fill a core societal need but in fact act to take up the space that a genuine system would fill, and only provide virtual nutrition.

Examples:
- 6pm TV news mimics public discourse
- Malls mimic public spaces
- Daycare mimics collective child rearing

I like the term as it suggests something predatory and insidious.

Another couple of examples I personally am interested in are :

- how the “fitness industry” and gym culture mimics the human need for regular variety and skill development in movement.

- too many to count in the area of food and nutrition.

I want to add the disclaimer that I don’t think the term has value as a reactionary “I don’t like the modern world” sort of thing, but more in analysis to point out the subtle pattern of “thing that looks like it helps but fundamentally doesn’t/can’t, usually for ideological reasons”.

Alexander suggested “predatory mimicry” as an alternative term, and I really like that for situations where the intent is clearly to substitute a false solution when a real one is demanded.

An example might be “plastic recycling” as waste reduction. Most plastics can’t be recycled profitably but we built massive “recycling” systems that till recently shipped the plastic to East Asia (mostly China), where they landfilled most of it.

https://merveilles.town/@cblgh/109599305387546392

Alexander Cobleigh (@[email protected])

@[email protected] or perhaps "parasitic mimicry" to really swing home the predatory and insidious bits

Merveilles
@dznz Until recently I have been “we need plastic recycling in NZ, why doesn’t someone do this and the govt help set it up”. Now I know, it’s all false hope and green washing to give us less guilt. The only way to win is not to buy plastic in the first place.
@mikemcmurray even then, we're all made complicit via the packaging of the things we buy etc. Bottom line we need systemic shifts of the materials used in production of all sorts. New material technology (e.g. biodegradable) and old (glass, twine, wood, cardboard).
@dznz Agree. If products have non-renewable materials this needs to be called out, ratings, etc. But then it all gets passed into the consumer as additional cost anyway. Big players and consumer groups have to want to make it happen with genuine desire for a better world, and I am too cynical to expect that. But I hope for it.
@mikemcmurray I’d argue it needs to tightly regulated, just as we should regulate food production better than we do. Of course this is easier said than done when it comes to trade agreements and imported goods, and of course there’s no political will for meaningful change. So it goes.