"celebrities set the model for material good consumption which requires every human rights abuse you can think of, and is additionally the LEAST sustainable, LEAST environmentally-friendly mode of existence there is. "
Great point. A life of substantial, conspicuous consumption, complete with jetting across the world and dining out at pricey restaurants, is quite the opposite of 'sustainable' and environmentally friendly. The simplest index of your 'environmental impact' is your cost of living. A higher cost of living means more energy expended keeping you afloat. Hollywood celebs are among the first to draft a class of servants dedicated to their every whim, with an array of personal chefs, nannies, butlers, gardeners, drivers and personal aides. You tell me who is more sustainable, a family of four living out on the prairie, where the mother cooks, cleans, sews, teaches and raises the kids, or a Hollywood family of four with a team of indigent servants tending to their home and children (a very common scenario, I can assure you)? And those servants have several children of their own.
Great point. A life of substantial, conspicuous consumption, complete with jetting across the world and dining out at pricey restaurants, is quite the opposite of 'sustainable' and environmentally friendly. The simplest index of your 'environmental impact' is your cost of living. A higher cost of living means more energy expended keeping you afloat. Hollywood celebs are among the first to draft a class of servants dedicated to their every whim, with an array of personal chefs, nannies, butlers, gardeners, drivers and personal aides. You tell me who is more sustainable, a family of four living out on the prairie, where the mother cooks, cleans, sews, teaches and raises the kids, or a Hollywood family of four with a team of indigent servants tending to their home and children (a very common scenario, I can assure you)? And those servants have several children of their own.