[onlooker]

Great Article by George Monbiot on how
"Pathological consumption has become so normalized that we scarcely notice it. "
And how ""We are screwing the planet to make solar-powered bath thermometers and desktop crazy golfers. "
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/12/10/the-gift-of-death/

[Ibon]

That's naming it for what it really is.... a gift of death.

I have been exploring this theme lately of a time in the future when well being will become unhinged from consumption. This can happen. We just have to allow this death (consequences) to penetrate into real time.

The superficial relationship that we have with stuff we consume is a direct reflection of the superficial relationship we have with our planet and with each other.

We live in a time when Mediocrity rules.

Like I said on another thread I never met a mediocre cheetah or a mediocre gazelle but the vast majority of our species are trash.

We consume trash..... we become trash.

We are what we consume..

Trash

[onlooker]

Yes Ibon, we have all fed this Industrial/Consumption Monster and figuratively and literally been fed by it. A symbiotic relation. But parasitic towards the Earth.

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - Or how about this angle: "So effectively have consumers associated consumption with prosperity and happiness that governments, the media and advertisers dare not rebuke that position and expose themselves to ridicule and, ultimately, rejection.

An easy example: next election some senators run on the promise to add an additional $3/gal to motor fuel. And the Ford Motor Co advertises it will add $10,000 to the price tag of every vehicle it sells that gets less then 30 mpg.

So, do you most American giving the a big pat on the back or ridiculing and rejecting them? Back to the old chicken vs egg argument: who is leading the dynamic: the providers that need consumers in order to prosper or the consumers demanding the providers furnish their desires. Easy for both groups to point fingers at each other.

OTOH every consumer still has a free will so in the end they make the final decision. If one doesn't want a V8 pickup that gets 14 mpg no amount of advertising can force them to buy one.

But back to the "Gift of Death" which reminds of a nasty joke my sick sense of humor "forces" me to inflict on others. Occasionally some gets the nerve to as if my MS is fatal. I tell them "It would be unless I get lucky and something else kills me first". About half get it and the other half look a tad confused. LOL.

So, pstarr, do you think climate change will slowly destroy your life or will get unlucky and be run over by a bus before that happens. Which reminds of another crude line I haven't thought of in many years: The worse piece of ass I ever had? Hmm, still wasn't that bad. LOL.

[Cog]

There is an underlying mode of thinking among those who hate consumption. Namely, You are consuming more than we think you should, therefore it has been decided by our committee that you must be punished for this behavior in the form of taxation or prison or both.

The thought that people should be left alone to decide what level of consumption they are comfortable with is repugnant to them.

[SeaGypsy]

We feel the same, onlooker. I assume it's a first world illness, our human rampage across the planet for silly plastic gifts. It's an outrage.

"So effectively have governments, the media and advertisers associated consumption with prosperity and happiness that to say these things is to expose yourself to opprobrium and ridicule. Witness last week’s Moral Maze programme, in which most of the panel lined up to decry the idea of consuming less, and to associate it, somehow, with authoritarianism(8). When the world goes mad, those who resist are denounced as lunatics.

Bake them a cake, write them a poem, give them a kiss, tell them a joke, but for god’s sake stop trashing the planet to tell someone you care. All it shows is that you don’t."

It is definitely not just a first world disorder, it is the status quo everywhere except perhaps Bhutan & a few monastic micro cities elsewhere. The consumption is less obvious in developing countries simply because there is less ability to consume- less income. The ambition is the same, or worse. At least in developed countries there are 3rd generation middle classers who have seen through the veil & realize happiness is not for sale.

[onlooker]

Yes, isn't that the ironic aspect. That consumerism never really afforded happiness or as I like too see it peace of mind. It really was a sirens song or fools gold. We all should have listened to philosophers thru the ages telling us this

[Ibon]

The thought that people should be left alone to decide what level of consumption they are comfortable with is repugnant to them.

In other words the thought that consumption could be regulated is repugnant to you.

Is this an ideology that can last through the upcoming constraints to resources and peak oil? Let's start with some easy examples:

What about the strategic necessity of a government rationing consumption of gas during war time?
What about when California prohibits residents from consuming water that they pay for when watering their lawns during a drought?
What about when a government makes illegal for you to consume crystal meth?
What about when a government prohibits consumers from ordering drugs from Canada?


I am trying to gauge where exactly your position is in how far you want to take your ideology of the freedom of the individual to cnsume here?

I was thinking a bit more about this. Consumers never were prohibited from buying asbestos products, DDT insecticides or fluorocarbons. What happened is that the government made these products illegal so that consumers never experienced a restriction in their freedom to consume these products since the manufacturer was regulated in these cases, not the consumer. That might give us a clue how non essentials will actually one day be regulated, not from the consumer side but the manufacturer side.

Regarding Onlookers article let's move down the road to a time when resources really start getting tight and constraints start to bite. Let's say the US government applies tarrifs of say 300% on all made in China disposable junk that was non essential. The consumer could still buy the wall mounted singing large mouth bass he just would pay triple for it. His freedom to consume would be unrestricted. A luxury tax is another idea on non essentials.

We can have a lot of nostalgia for the times not long ago when individuals were largely unregulated by their governments. We really can't hold out much hope for any major deregulation to happen up ahead if we understand the ecology of resource constraints and energy. We are going to be having multiple bottle necks to get through, to imagine a government remaining passive in allowing unregulated consumption during these times is pretty fool hardy.

If you want to get ahead of the curve drop this silly ideology that consumers are these all powerful individuals who should be left alone to their own devices. They haven't been for awhile actually in many areas and my crystal ball says we can expect much more regulation rather than deregulation up ahead. The market alone will not resolve all the external forces coming our way.

Unrestricted markets were a luxury during an abundant unrestricted resource base. Once the resource base becomes restricted it is just logical to assume that the market will be restricted and more regulated. This is not communism by the way Nor is it some leftist ideology against consumption. It is not ideological at all in fact. Just common sense.

These are the forces that will reduce mediocrity and indolence as well by the way, a big fringe benefit.

[SeaGypsy]

Onlooker- those were generally of the same set, grown up wealthy enough to afford the luxury of full linguistic development, philosophy, time to write, life long enough to have something to write about. Easily dismissed by the 'battler' classes.

[onlooker]

Onlooker- those were generally of the same set, grown up wealthy enough to afford the luxury of full linguistic development, philosophy, time to write, life long enough to have something to write about. Easily dismissed by the 'battler' classes.

Yes, Sea I was being rhetorical there. In fact, for most of our evolution conspicuous consumption was reserved for the privileged few. I guess, in College via the liberal arts and humanities, not many took to heart, the reading material containing the admonitions that came down thru the ages about consumption.
As for the freedom to consume, its practice surely will veer 180 degrees opposite both because people will be too poor to consume and because given future circumstances and unpleasant outcomes, I expect humans to adopt a draconian stigma to consumption and waste

[SeaGypsy]

I don't. There's no economic model to replace it with, i just see growing disparity & government acting to protect the wealthy from the increasingly desperate poor.

[Ibon]

In ecology there is a threshold where a species is "functionally extinct" even though there still are some individuals present. The last few passenger pigeons were "functionally extinct" Some of our top predators are functionally extinct because the few survivors are separated in fragmented habitat and the remaining populations are inbreeding which is genetically dooming the species to a certain extinction.

This idea of being functionally extinct as a concept can also apply to cultures. Consumption culture is essentially "functionally extinct"

This idea is great to apply to ones own ideology and beliefs. Some of us may desire for example the future of an unregulated government where the individual's freedom is maximized. Under the lens of peak oil and resource constraints this ideology is actually "functionally extinct"

Live frugal, exploit the cracks, stay out of debt, bend but stay legal, and sit back and watch the vast majority of today's global citizens following a culture which is "functionally extinct".

Ask yourself if you are holding on to ideologies that are "functionally extinct"

[Cog]

You can have Stalin. I'll take Jefferson.

[Ibon]

You can have Stalin. I'll take Jefferson.

Related to this thread what would Jefferson say if we zoomed him from the past and put him into a Walmart at the check out counter watching the shoppers and looking at what they are buying?

You know that would be an awesome movie, taking the founding fathers and zooming them to the present and having them observe and comment on American Culture today what we all turned out to be since they laid down the foundations.

Somebody should make that film!

[Ibon]

Good stuff Ibon! But you really have no obligation to humor Cog. He's doesn't want your love and attention.

Thanks Pstarr. I am always addressing a wider audience when I post. Or I am trying to figure something out for myself and using all the wisdom on this site as a sounding board!

[Cog]

Jefferson would be of two minds if we brought him into the 21st century. He would be amazed, and I believe well-pleased, at the access to food and technology that even the least of the citizenry has access to. That was not the case in his time. He would also be appalled at the cost, in the terms of governmental interference in our lives, that permitted that to happen.

[sparky]

.
Consumption is controlled by spending ,
there is no consummation problem , there is a spending problem and a debt problem