The landscape is littered with pundits and advocates who have perfect records of failure. They are always wrong, in obvious ways, and when finally forced to admit error just reinvent themselves with a new set of predictions and causes to advocate.

There was an example of this in a recent post that quoted Bruno Latour lamenting that his deceitful practices had been hijacked by his opponents and used against him.

I myself have spent sometimes in the past trying to show the "lack of scientific certainty" inherent in the construction of facts. I too made it a "primary issue." But I did not exactly aim at fooling the public by obscuring the certainty of a closed argument–or did I? After all, I have been accused of just that sin. Still, I'd like to believe that, on the contrary, I intended to emancipate the public from a prematurely naturalized objectified fact. Was I foolishly mistaken?

Bullshit. The arguments were instrumental and he has no complaint that they have been turned against him. Had he been honest from the start he wouldn't have handed this weapon to his opponents, and wouldn't be tainted by having done so.

The commoditization of "green", which has now become a form of fashionable consumption having nothing at all to do with "green" as it purports to be, is another example of failed advocacy. That was perfectly obvious from the beginning, and that the consequences are worse than they would otherwise have been can't be dismissed as error on the part of the public, since it is the work of advocates.

. . . the vast majority of the green products around us are, at best, a form of advertisement for the idea that we should live sustainably, a sort of shopping therapy for the ecologically guilty.

There was a time when that was great -- back in the early days of the Viridian design movement, when we were out to strike a blow for the cause of proving that green and stylish could be synonymous. But that was a decade ago, when we knew less and could do less. Now, the point's been made.

Bullshit. Good ideas don't need deceitful pimps to advertize them. It is only bad ideas that need such, and so it is no surprise that there are adverse consequences. Viridian was always a bogus hustle, but had a certain ditzy charm, an over the top campiness that made it entertaining in a dim green sort of way - green noir.

Even worse, the glut of green shopping opportunities is overshadowing the most basic message of all, which is that the most sustainable product is the one you never bought in the first place.

So, should we give up on trying to spend our money in ways that could do some good? Absolutely not, but we need to start getting better at buying in ways that make an impact. We need to begin to practice strategic consumption.

Out of the ashes of a bad idea that crashed and burned rises yet another bad idea. Sustainability has nothing at all to do with consumption patterns, it has to do with production methods - technological capabilities. As time passes we learn better methods that use resources more frugally, which allows an ever larger share of an ever larger population to live long and well. At every point along this path we can look back and be thankful for progress, and look ahead and see that much more is needed. We get better without ever becoming good enough. That's life.

Advocacy is merely politics. It achieves no useful social purposes, it just exploits popular concerns to gain wealth and power. It's parasitic, squandering some part of the energy and will society could otherwise use to improve circumstances.

You might argue: hey, they're a business like others, just blokes trying to get ahead, competing for mind and wallet shares like any other enterprise. This is perfectly true, but we should be quite clear about that. They are not trying to do good works, they are trying to make a profit. They may take their pay in diverse currencies - power, fame etc. as well as money - but they are in it for themselves, not for you and yours.

They don't have useful ideas that will help with socio-ecological-ecomonic progress, they have bad ideas that can be exploited for profit for a while. If your true concerns are for good ideas that will achieve useful social purposes, then you need to find better vendors.

It is legitimate to seek to accelerate progress. Methods that have had success include such things as offering prizes for invention, funding researchers, educating children, and establishing open societies that facilitate or at least do not stifle change. Fashionable consumption has nothing at all to do with this since fashion is a following indicator, not a leading indicator. Truly superior products and ideas - affordable enhanced functions - fly off the shelves since it is obvious to anyone that they have value, and become subject to intense competition from various suppliers, each hoping to be better, faster and cheaper than the others.

It isn't that such exploitation can be stopped. They are like drug dealers, religious evangelists, politicians and the like which compete with one another to siphon off some of the energy and resources of society. Stopping such exploitation would be even more harmful. Like disease germs they are pervasive, but sterilizing the environment to rid ourselves of the pests is even more dangerous, leaving us more open to future infection. What we can do is to practice a bit of neatness and hygiene, and have a realistic attitude to their predations. They are always selling illusion, and that has limited value. It can be entertaining sometimes, or even comforting when things are very hard, but has no intrinsic worth.