Comment of the Day: “Scent Branding, Mind-Control, and Ethics”

Elizabeth was the first one to dive into this murky, interesting, science fiction/ “Brave New World” issue that I examined in  “Scent Branding, Mind-Control, and Ethics,” on a topic that confused me more the longer I considered it. What resulted was unusually long, perhaps accounting for the lack of comments, and Elizabeth’s reaction is long as well, but worth reading. There is something potentially sinister here, or perhaps around the corner—or just in our imagination and fears. Scent manipulation, and all it implies, is in the wilderness of ethics, where human nature, science and commerce meet.

Here is the “Comment of the Day”:

“I agree this is a complicated issue.  As you said, restaurant smells (natural, I assume) tend to make people hungry (or more hungry than they really are), as do waiters with large platters of beautiful food which often encourage patrons order more, different, and perhaps more expensive food than what they may have had in mind.  The goal of the restaurant is to sell food:  if memory serves, it’s only been in the last 20 years or so that restaurants had at least parts of their kitchens open to the dining area so “good smells” could waft out from them.  My memory from childhood of elegant restaurants were the multiple green baize doors that completely closed the kitchen off from the dining room.  So was this change intentional or simply simpler and cheaper as restaurant designs?  I don’t know, but it’s different. Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “Unethical Quote of the Week: Walmart”

The Comment of the Day on Walmart’s jaw-dropping justification for its new line of make-up for the under-12 set,  from Steven Mark Pilling:

“… This sort of thing is repugnant by nature. We’ve all seen other clothing lines for kids that reflect this sort of thing, to include sexy lingerie for little girls. This is unrelentingly vile, as it not only sexualizes children further in the eyes of predators, but that it normalizes it in their own developing minds. This is the same argument, of course, that I’ve long employed in my opposition to films employing child actors in R-rated performances. And, I maintain, just as valid. In other words, this is a case of pedophile bait.

“That slickly worded announcement from Walmart that you quoted even resembles that of filmmakers who present such things. The bottom line is profit… regardless of means. The excuse is in shifting the onus onto the parents who, while distracted by other items, will absentmindedly consent to their children (who have been attracted by some colorful, glitzy item- as children innocently are) and indulge them… only to later discover (maybe) the true nature of what they’ve bought. But the damage will have been done.”

Unethical Quote of the Week: Walmart

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/how-young-is-too-young-for-makeup

“The geoGIRL line was developed in partnership with our customers to give parents a healthier, age-appropriate option for their tween girls who ask about wearing make-up. The decision of what is age appropriate to wear makeup rests solely with the parent. The line will be marketed to parents and targets a certain life stage as opposed to a certain age of girl so parents can make informed decisions whenever they feel it’s appropriate for their child to wear makeup.

—-Walmart, in a statement addressing criticism of its new makeup line called geoGIRL that targets “tweens”–or 8-12 year old girls.  The products include a cleanser, blush, eye shadow, mascara, and more. Continue reading