The problem with consumerism

[Buttercup]

I personally believe that relentless passive consumption is a bad choice, but I don't have too much issue with people making that choice. I feel it's a form of self-enslavement. People work 80 hours a week to afford $30 vodkas, $3 cups of coffee, an iPod, a high-end entertainment system, a large house in the suburbs, and a $35,000 entry-level luxury car. I prefer my leisure time and a modest lifestyle anyday. Everything one buys has a cost beyond the price tag - time, maintenance, instruction, peripherals, energy, cleaning, &c.

"The things you own end up owning you" - Fight Club

I agree with this angle on the negatives of consumerism also. Recently I saw a survey rating the overall happiness of people's around the world. The US wasn't even in the top 10 yet we have more luxuries available to us than just about every other country. Does this mean our over consumption breeds unfufillment?

 

[Buttercup]

I would like to know the same thing. There is a lot of conflicting research. I find it hard to know which studies to believe. I've found papers that claim that global warming is a lie. So, which scientists do we believe?

It's actually quite easy to find our own proof of global warming. It is fact that the world's glaciers are melting at alarming rates, the ice caps at both poles are verifiably melting or breaking off. In fact, scientists are discovering that polar bears are drowning for lack of places to get out of the water. It doesn't take much looking to find that the carbon monoxide levels over the last 40 years have increased dramatically. Also, the hottest years on record have been recorded in the last 15 years or so. It's all there and more.

Global warming doesn't have to have a disastrous end, we simply need to do something about it soon.

 

[Mathematician]

My three main gripes with consumerism are:

1. The social effect it has on people. Individuals become depressed because their parents didn't buy them that fancy Ps3 this month, or they want something they can't pay for up front so they go out and get themselves entangled with loan sharks, which brings me to my second gripe...
2. Credit. It should be illegal for individuals and our government to pay for something that they don't have the money right then to back up -- this is a classic case of our fast food society ruining our country's future. We want things now, right now, and don't care about the consequences. Of course this would require us to map out a radical plan over the course of the next century, since we're so dependent on credit cards and such.
3. Excessive consumerism leads to environmental problems. We all want the coolest, most pumped out cars at 16, irregardless of what happens to the environment.

I have nothing against capitalism when there are restraints attached. But when three-hundred million Americans are given a blank check and expected to be good consumers about it, and when companies whose only goals are to make more money trash the environment just to make a profit, I think it's time to step in.

 

[krashlocke]

I agree with this angle on the negatives of consumerism also. Recently I saw a survey rating the overall happiness of people's around the world. The US wasn't even in the top 10 yet we have more luxuries available to us than just about every other country. Does this mean our over consumption breeds unfufillment?

A study my wife read over suggested that the people in hunter-gatherer societies had more leisure time - only "working" an average of four to six hours per day. There's been a long and established dialogue on the dangers of industrial society and the consumption that sustains it. I would argue that over consumption itself doesn't create unfulfillment but the lack of leisure time and personal communication resultant from it.

The lack of leisure time is especially ironic, given that we spend so much time working to purchase things that we don't have the time to use.

The personal communication issue is also quite ironic, given the vast array of communication technology available, but in my experience it seems to distance us. The other day I saw two people at a restaurant: each had one ear in the iPod and the other ear in a bluetooth hands-free set. They hardly spoke to eachother. I can't help but believe that situations like this cannot be good for people's mental health.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

In a way you've made my point for me: however, as long as people are content to answer that they are happy with merely having-a-job, being-a-consumer etc, there is going to be an intractable demand for continuity of a system that doesn't work and/or endangers our survival. Right? So how far are you willing to go becomes the question...what sacrifices will we make to right the situation?

Human beings aren't destroying the planet. The planet is going to be just fine. The danger of our consumption of natural resources is a danger that will threaten future generations as we'll no longer be able to feed signiificant portions of our population. There are already hundreds of thousands of people starving to death. However, there is nothing wrong with consuming natural resources and it is reasonable to believe that we'll develop alternative fuels over the next 200 years as we run out of oil. These fuels will be cleaner and safer and Mankind will benefit. But for now, we need to keep consuming and generating world capital in order to decrease suffering now. We need to continue to develop developing nations and we need to continue spreading the wealth globally, which is happening. The vast majority of nations are better off now than they were 100 years ago. People have more food, secure shealters, and longer lives. All these goods are a testiment to the virtues of capitalism. When we run out of natural resources, the capital we've created will be invested into new energy sources and we'll do the best we can. So, in the long term and big picture, I don't see a problem.

Global Warming is happening and humans may be adding to it, but the pros outweigh the cons. More people have homes, food, and longer lives. What more do you want?

 

[Buttercup]

Humans aren't destroying our planet

With all due respect Radio X, you need to read more. We haven't destroyed it yet but we are without a doubt in the process of severely changing our climate which is already having devastating results. We can change course and rectify to a degree but inaction or pretending global warming isn't a threat is not the way to go.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

With all due respect Radio X, you need to read more. We haven't destroyed it yet but we are without a doubt in the process of severely changing our climate which is already having devastating results. We can change course and rectify to a degree but inaction or pretending global warming isn't a threat is not the way to go.

There is no proof that human beings are causing global warming. However, there is evidence that we may be contributing to it. Global warming will not destroy the planet. It should lead to a cooling period and everything will even out over 10,000 years or so. The planet will be fine. Life will go on. Evolution will continue. Humans will probably survive too.

 

[MaddLlama]

My point is that all the studies are conflicting, so what do we believe? Who says that this can't possibly be a natural phenomenon? Who do we believe? Have you read any of the conflicting studies?

 

[Buttercup]

There is no proof that human beings are causing global warming. However, there is evidence that we may be contributing to it. Global warming will not destroy the planet. It should lead to a cooling period and everything will even out over 10,000 years or so. The planet will be fine. Life will go on. Evolution will continue. Humans will probably survive too.

Could you point me to some studies that claim humans are not causing global warming? I'm genuinely curious, thanks.

 

[MaddLlama]

You should check out some of the stuff on junkscience.com

 

[Mathematician]

Humans will probably survive too.

You willing to chance it?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

You willing to chance it?

Yes I am.

 

[jamaesi]

My point is that all the studies are conflicting, so what do we believe? Who says that this can't possibly be a natural phenomenon? Who do we believe? Have you read any of the conflicting studies?

Studies on them are not conflicting- however, the coverage of them is.

 

[MaddLlama]

Studies on them are not conflicting- however, the coverage of them is.

How's that?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Studies on them are not conflicting- however, the coverage of them is.

On the question of global warming, we have relatively good science that says, yes there is a global warming trend; but we have very little evidence that humans are the cause of this warming, and almost no way to measure how much of an effect we have on the warming trend itself. Though, there is very good science that we have some effect, but no good information on how much of an effect.

 

[jamaesi]

On the question of global warming, we have relatively good science that says, yes there is a global warming trend; but we have very little evidence that humans are the cause of this warming, and almost no way to measure how much of an effect we have on the warming trend itself. Though, there is very good science that we have some effect, but no good information on how much of an effect.

Global warming and cooling is a natural cycle, yes.

However, from data collected from Antarctic ice cores, carbon dioxiode levels are at the highest they have ever been in the past 650,000 years. This is not natural and above the normal climate change cycle the Earth goes through.

 

[krashlocke]

However, from data collected from Antarctic ice cores, carbon dioxiode levels are at the highest they have ever been in the past 650,000 years. This is not natural and above the normal climate change cycle the Earth goes through.

"... not natural." To our knowledge. Caveat emptor regarding science: it's limited to our perceptions which are flawed at best. 'Natural' is a terrible term filled with unnecessary baggage.

On the same note, if global issues are wrought by humans - who by all rights are natural - are these truly global problems that are unnatural? Are we, and the results of us, part of nature? By extension, are the effects of what we do natural?

 

[Buttercup]

On the question of global warming, we have relatively good science that says, yes there is a global warming trend; but we have very little evidence that humans are the cause of this warming, and almost no way to measure how much of an effect we have on the warming trend itself.

You keep saying this....can you back it with sources?

 

[jamaesi]

On the same note, if global issues are wrought by humans - who by all rights are natural - are these truly global problems that are unnatural? Are we, and the results of us, part of nature? By extension, are the effects of what we do natural?

In the past 150 years is when carbon levels began to dramaticly increase.

In the past 150 years we have had the industrial revolution.


It's clear as day to me and the vast majourity of scientists. This isn't normal for the Earth.

 

[krashlocke]

In the past 150 years is when carbon levels began to dramaticly increase.

In the past 150 years we have had the industrial revolution.


It's clear as day to me and the vast majourity of scientists. This isn't normal for the Earth.

What is normal for Earth? Aren't we a product of it, and therefore, all products of us completely 100% natural? Is a beehive any different from a nuclear reactor? I bring this more as a thought problem than anything. I recognize fully that we make an impact on the Earth insofar as our ability to survive on it but nothing more. A Radio Frequency X quite rightly pointed out, the concern about the Earth has nothing to do with the Earth itself; only our ecosystem and its' ability to sustain our existence.

/totally paraphrased Radio Frequency X