anti-consumerist society?

[Roshni]

If so, why? And how do you pass on something better to your kids in this society that pivots on consumerism and the economy?

That's the spirit Roshni!
DC..am liking what you say. Most intersting.

Im off to the library tomorrow

Dont get any pleasure from shopping-try to avoid it,luckily we dont have many shops here!

Moondog-whats this with Welsh Blankets?!

Does this mean that we would be better off having less available to us?

And does better off mean – healthier or happier? both, or in nature, is healthy the only thing that figures, and happy is just a human luxury?

Oh,I have a terrible weakness for them (very old ones) and just have to rescue them when I find them in junk shops.

We can all make choices.
But there are too many choices.

TWO girlfriends of mine died in ONE year-I am now beginning to get an idea of what i need-them not stuff

Sorry to hear about your friends, Notasheep.

Just puts this whole crap Consumerism into perspective

I think that whatever the outside society, kids will end up with the basic values parents teach them, so agree that teaching kids not to waste/throw away stuff, and teach them about where things come from, is a good idea.

There's a fairytale by Oscar Wilde called the Happy Prince, which is a great way to teach kids about luxury goods coming from sweatshops (even though it's not modern at all, it's beautifully told).

The only other thing we can do is buy less stuff, buy stuff from suppliers who are fair-trade, and committed to sustainability (Germany is light years ahead of us, you can get eco-standard everything, and they still repair things, not chuck them out). What I would really like to see is a fairtrade label for mainstream clothes so you'd have a genuine choice..

Rant over!

Does this mean that we would be better off having less available to us?

Maybe. There seems to be a bit of a consensus amongst anthropologists that we were happiest before we took up agriculture. This formed a bit of a trap. We could feed more people, so the population grew, such that the misery of farming life could not be avoided. Groups that tried to retain hunter/gathering were simply swamped.

Our bodies & minds evolved as hunter/gatherers who worked in teams of 10-20. We enjoy hunting at a very basic level, and have created a variety of poor substitutes, like shopping. The lack of the tough physical exercise is not good for us, and when was the last time you hit anyone ?
In your mind get ready to fight. You form a fist. Pretty much the only animal that's useful against is other people. Fighting each other is a basic part of our biology at several levels.

Living in larger groups is very unhealthy. When we started forming cities and towns, life expectancy dropped, so much so that you can model "civilisation" as a sort of contagious illness.
Only since the formation of modern London (>1850ish) have cities been healthier than the country.
The psychological mismatch is deep. We like to form bonds to a dozen or so people, hence the well known size of most sports teams regardless of the nature of the game itself.
In the Relationships topic even now, someone is fretting over how she should approach a man she doesn't know. Quite nortmal for a human, but if you think of us like animals that shows how out of place we all are.

Consumerism however is not all bad. It works.
The reason it has defeated things like religion in many places, and especially Britain is that you can form desires that can be satisfied. Also coming from groups of 10-20 we have quite deep emotional reactions to deceit.
That's part of the reason for the emergence of modern belief systems like homeopathy, veganism, and the rebirth of astrology. The practitioners of this are better at sounding honest than priests.

Also the size of society can make us feel powerless, and these dippy doctines are attractive not in spite of their obvious stupidity, but because of it. By rejecting all that we know of stars, chemistry, human biology and cause & effect, one does not feel that people who understand these disciplines better than us have power over us. Note how the people who sell this stuff emphasise your personal choices, and use language of the form that your opinion is as good as anyone else's. It isn't. Mine isn't either.

That another reason consumerism has been so successful in providing some happiness. It gives us power. That's why they are called shop "assistants". We take our money away, or give it at our discretion.
That leads to things like consumer boycotts of certain suppliers, and attempts to change society, which is the basis of many people's eating habits.

Thus to replace consumerism, you have to find something that provides tangible power to individuals.
Saying that consumerism hurts people in poor countries, is doomed to failure. It also happens that the statement isn't very true. Indeed agriculture raises it's ugly head here. Supporting western farmers kill more 3rd worlders than AIDS, TB and war. Frankly you could drop a couple of nukes every year on the 3rd world, and still do less harm than the common agricultural policy.

Trying to push faith as an alternative to consumerism has been tried, and it's generally lost. Note the correlation between poor education and religion across countries.
Thus consumerism has it's problems, but it's better than the known alternatives.
We could reject growth, but without it we end up like the hunter gatherers. If western societies went for "stability" within our children's lifetimes they'd be taken over by the Chinese, Indians or maybe even Africans.

I mentioned civilisation acting like a disease, the disease is of course cancer, with it's philosophy of growth at all costs.
We have precisely one hope in the long term. That is the ability to deliver enough to people that they simply don't want any more. We all have saturation levels, the obvious one is for food. But we all consume less than we might simply because we can't be bothered to buy it.
Populations seems to be stabilising, and the models say we'll probably hit 8 billion than drop slowly down. Of course not all of that drop will be volutary...

DC, you raise so many interesting points, I'm pulled in lots of directions about what to say next. Sorry if it comes out a bit rambly – I'm trying to get my thoughts together and stuff this into a short lunch.

You say that the known alternatives to consumerism don't add up to much. I can see the sense in what you say, looking at the world as it is today. I'd like to look at it from a more theoretical/idealised perspective for this reply. You mention the misery of farming, how anthropologists theorise that we were happier as hunter/gatherers, and later you talk about modern farming policy and its destructive impact on the 'developing' world. But I think that small-scale farming that is community based (allowing us to live in the small groups you mention) would not be miserable. If all of us had some responsibility to produce the bulk of food we eat ourselves, there are many benefits, rather than misery. On an ecological level, the benefits are obvious – less air miles, no need for intensive farming, and so on. On a social level, we get the comminity life we thrive on as humans, in communities sized to suit our genetic and evolutionary makeup. Many people love to grow things – that's in our evolution, too. We'd also live in a more healty natural setting and get the physical exercise we need in a way that is real, not just mindless pumping in the gym. Perhaps something like this could be achieved without going backwards, but with the benefits of technology? (Using technology for genuine benefit, not just for the sake of it, and to produce gadgets that people don't need in order to make profit). This would give us more power over our lives than the empty power of consumer choice (I'll choose this totally useless piece of crap over that one). The rest of our needs are met through trade of physical things rather than currency. Or even simply giving away our surplusses to communities where the things we can supply are in short supply. What do you think of this as a model of living? I know it's a bit idealised star trek, but the direction we are going in now is shooting ourselves in the foot at best, cancer at worst. I guess partly the question is – can we now evolve to develop the restraint an cooperation needed to survive in an already over-populated world, or will we continue to make it uninhabitable until we die out?

Also, what do you mean by

We could reject growth, but without it we end up like the hunter gatherers. If western societies went for "stability" within our children's lifetimes they'd be taken over by the Chinese, Indians or maybe even Africans.
??? What is the "stability" you refer to?

DC, you raise so many interesting points, I'm pulled in lots of directions about what to say next. Sorry if it comes out a bit rambly – I'm trying to get my thoughts together and stuff this into a short lunch.

You say that the known alternatives to consumerism don't add up to much. I can see the sense in what you say, looking at the world as it is today. I'd like to look at it from a more theoretical/idealised perspective for this reply. You mention the misery of farming, how anthropologists theorise that we were happier as hunter/gatherers, and later you talk about modern farming policy and its destructive impact on the 'developing' world. But I think that small-scale farming that is community based (allowing us to live in the small groups you mention) would not be miserable. If all of us had some responsibility to produce the bulk of food we eat ourselves, there are many benefits, rather than misery. On an ecological level, the benefits are obvious – less air miles, no need for intensive farming, and so on. On a social level, we get the comminity life we thrive on as humans, in communities sized to suit our genetic and evolutionary makeup. Many people love to grow things – that's in our evolution, too. We'd also live in a more healty natural setting and get the physical exercise we need in a way that is real, not just mindless pumping in the gym. Perhaps something like this could be achieved without going backwards, but with the benefits of technology? (Using technology for genuine benefit, not just for the sake of it, and to produce gadgets that people don't need in order to make profit). This would give us more power over our lives than the empty power of consumer choice (I'll choose this totally useless piece of crap over that one). The rest of our needs are met through trade of physical things rather than currency. Or even simply giving away our surplusses to communities where the things we can supply are in short supply. What do you think of this as a model of living? I know it's a bit idealised star trek, but the direction we are going in now is shooting ourselves in the foot at best, cancer at worst. I guess partly the question is – can we now evolve to develop the restraint an cooperation needed to survive in an already over-populated world, or will we continue to make it uninhabitable until we die out?

Also, what do you mean by

We could reject growth, but without it we end up like the hunter gatherers. If western societies went for "stability" within our children's lifetimes they'd be taken over by the Chinese, Indians or maybe even Africans.
??? What is the "stability" you refer to?

Oh, and Gemmitygem, thanks for the tip about the Happy Prince. I'm definitely going to use that.

I'd like to look at it from a more theoretical/idealised perspective for this reply.
Good idea, but we must be aware of falling into the trap of socialism. People are people, and the game theory of why we act the way we do can be wildly sub optimal in the large, but makes sense for people individually. Socialism failed because it assumed that people are different to the way they really are, and even when you killed millions of them didn't change.

But I think that small-scale farming that is community based (allowing us to live in the small groups you mention) would not be miserable.

Not stable. Look at community based farming, the word you're looking for is "famine". The variability of climate, pests etc is such that no matter how well you farm, something very very bad lands on you from time to time. Before the British invented modern agriculture famines were endemic every where, the net effect has been to restrict famine to cultures that are going to die soon anyway. The last big famine was ironically caused by the British, in India. Huge numbers died, made contemporary African famines look small.
India was mostly community farms. They died. The British refused to distribute food, and thus killed more people than the Nazis. This particularly harsh example of evolution in action affected mostly "community" farmers.

But since independance, India has avoided famine almost completely, even though it has about doubled it's population. Far fewer "community" farmers, and more efficient distribution when things go wrong.

"Community" farming is an affectation of wealthy societies, like Formula 1 racing. It may be pleasant to do, and many people enjoy supporting it, but is as rational on a large scale as cloning Michael Schumacher to make better cabbies.
You need trade to cover things that people can't do well locally, and to get through rough patches. Storing food and barter is really awful, so you end up with a cash economy of some form. When an area suffers a big flood, or all it's animals die, how do resources get there for rebuilding ? Banks are one solution, there are others, but none of them work as well.

I'm glad you raise Star Trek. The lesson I learn from ST, is that rejecting technology relegates you to the status of victim. The best you can hope for is that the guys with better technology have a Prime Directive, but that was never going to last long.

Who was it that said "you may not be interested in war, but it is interested in you" ?

Using technology for genuine benefit, not just for the sake of it, and to produce gadgets that people don't need in order to make profit
You're one step short of socialism here, be careful.
Who decides what "genuine" benefit might be ?
Mobile phones are great for emergency workers, doctors and in areas where land lines are not practical. What is an emergency worker ? You may or may not be surprised to know that many civil servants are classed as that for instance in the priority for getting flu vaccine. Imagine if your local council could decide which technologies you could use. That wouldn't end well would it ?

You call some things gadgets ? Define one ?
I would bet money that you can't think of one single gadget that doesn't have value for disabled, old, or otherwise disadvantaged people.
I don't believe you are malign, but would you want me to decide which technologies you could use ?

This would give us more power over our lives than the empty power of consumer choice
It has never worked before. Don't forget that even now there are still countries that still practice socialism. You see them on the TV, mostly on pleas for aid from charities. Basic economics tells us that if people make choices for other people they often vary between poor and actively malicious.

The rest of our needs are met through trade of physical things rather than currency.
Ah, now that is socialism. The money isn't real argument, very popular amongst socialists. Was often accompanied by the "if women ran things there wouldn't be any wars", both of which got shot to bits in the 1980s.
I didn't think anyone still believed in the inherent merit of physical goods any more.
For a start, what about medical services ?
How are you going to resource them ?
No tangibles.
Socialist countries tried limiting the pay of doctors, with horrible results. Britain has done the same with nurses and especially midwives. Anyone here think that has worked out well ?
Ever been in high dependency unit for babies ? Which of those devices are “gadgets” ? Barter them for carrots would you ?

Or even simply giving away our surpluses to communities where the things we can supply are in short supply.
Why, realistically would people produce surpluses if they got nothing in return. What would stop some not bothering to produce enough ? What if people pretend not to have enough so they could consume too much ?

What do you think of this as a model of living?
I don't think of it as a mode of living, I see it as a suicide pact.

I guess partly the question is – can we now evolve to develop the restraint an cooperation
People are good at cooperation, far better than most animals, certainly better than any other mammal. You can't do war without cooperation. 99.9% of war is working together and self sacrifice for a common goal. Attempts to fight wars when your side had divisions have often gone very badly wrong.

We are evolving, and humans suffer a bit from the recent rapid evolution we've had, but "rapid" in this context is thousands of years.

needed to survive in an already over-populated world.
All the modelling I've seen shows growth rapidly declining, leading to either stability or rapid depopulation.

??? What is the "stability" you refer to?
Lack of economic growth or advanced technology. There are technologies within the next 50 years that will make nukes irrelevant. Beam weapons, tailored virii, exotic software, and at least as many things I know nothing about.

In many ways agriculture was the weapon of mass destruction of the Brits during the growth of their empire. Brits were better fed than their enemies, and man for man the British soldier was simply tougher than the half starved savages he fought. Of course the Brits were more savage than anyone they fought. British soldiers had good technology, but in things like Rorke's Drift (film: Zulu), they could beat absolutely anyone in hand to hand combat with blades. Even today to be trained in bayonet usage is a matter of fierce pride to British soldiers who are openly contemptuous of foreign soldiers who only leqrn guns.
The hippy Nazis in their gay 1970s nightclub gear never managed to build one single weapon of mass destruction. If you are ever tempted to believe in Arayan superiority, read of their attempts to build heavy bombers or nukes. (hint: gassing the people who understand physics is not wise) The Brits were ready with Anthrax which was rejected by Churchill not on humanitarian grounds, but because it would leave "too many survivors".

Same applies to China, India et al.
We're about to start actively improving the human race, not the fuckwitted Christian nonsense of the Nazis, but genetic engineering, electroneural implants, smart diets and zygote selection. Some westerners have superstitious fears of genetic engineering, and many think an electron is about the same size an colour as a small pea. The Chinese & Japanese don’t have those inhibitions. The variable is who is running the new technologies, not whether they happen.

Already people in civilised countries are notably more intelligent than those in the 3rd world. Sad fact is that if you don't feed people properly, the brain using 25% of our static energy budget is very vulnerable. And yes, American intelligence seems to be going up in line with their gross obesity...
50 years from now, we will be a lot smarter than 3rd worlders. Also the smarter end of western nations are optimising their immigration policies to suck in people from crap countries but good brains.
Of course who are “we” in that context ?
Brits are ignorant compared to our peers, but this compensated by a deep pragmatism that alienates us from otherwise similar but more idealistic European cultures.
The not-We will be outsmarted and relegated to somewhere between livestock and zoo exhibits. I’m not keen on this as an outcome for my grandchildren.

You paint a grim picture of the human mind, DC. I've no doubt that those in power are as 'soulless' as you describe the human race to be, but you don't seem to be taking into account (or perhaps are dismissing as stupid and irrelevant), the part of the human spirit that is less aggressive, grabby, hell-bent on not just survival but supremacy. My experience of your average person is that they just want to get on with their own life. They may want a bit of superiority, but on the whole they want to be in peace with their surroundings. I hope our grandchildren don't have to cope with the terrible life of striving to be a "we" to avoid being a zoo exhibit. Neither seems a comfortable way to live. The world as you see it is very confrontational and dog-eat-dog. I know it is like that for many people, but is that really what the majority of people want? Does it have to be that way? I think you'll probably say yes, but I think (and I can't believe I'm saying it, usually being the most cynical person in the conversation when it comes to human nature) that I have a less cynical view of people than you do.

Yes, it's more complex than I describe. I wouldn't want someone deciding for me what I did or didn't need.

But in terms of small scale farming, distribution problems and famine, why can't technology help us make ecologically sustainable methods of farming more successful than they were in the past?

You paint a grim picture of the human mind, DC.
I'm sorry but I see it as a work in progress, I think we have huge potential.

I've no doubt that those in power are as 'soulless' as you describe the human race to be,
I know a variety of people with varying amounts of power. They are no less soulless than a vapid green shouting rubbish and threatening scientists.

the part of the human spirit that is less aggressive, grabby, hell-bent on not just survival but supremacy.
Don't think I did. I tlaked about armies and how higher qualities are necessary for them to function. My point in using armies was that people can be honourable, self sacrificing and honest, yet be part of terrible things.

My experience of your average person is that they just want to get on with their own life.
I see where I went wrong by "power" I meant the ability to make decisions. A lot of that is your own life, but in any society large or small you can't exercise personal choice without exerting power over others. One person's freedom to choose can easily be oppressive of another.

I hope our grandchildren don't have to cope with the terrible life of striving to be a "we" to avoid being a zoo exhibit.

I't coming. Hard to work out the timescales but the process has started. Some of the stuff you can buy in the shops now.

Neither seems a comfortable way to live.
No, it isn't. Didn't say it was. I was prediciting, not advocating.

The world as you see it is very confrontational and dog-eat-dog.
Yep. But I would regard it packs of dogs vs packs of dogs.

I know it is like that for many people, but is that really what the majority of people want?
I think only mad people would want the future I describe. I don't like it either. Wishful thinking however is a poor way to plan.

Does it have to be that way?
No, we migh make ourselves extinct first. But otherwise yes.

I have a less cynical view of people than you do.
Maybe.
Actually I se myself as an optimist. I bleieve in people, but I understand the constraints under which we live.

why can't technology help us make ecologically sustainable methods of farming more successful than they were in the past?

It has. The same way horse shoes today would seem almost magical to a blacksmith of Shakespeare's time. Doesn't mean it can be made to work. Even if it did someone else would come and trash you.
Even if they didn't,the normal variation of the climate et al would trash you.
Even if that didn't who would make all the constant stream of technology you'd need ?

So we're just fucked?

DC: was the war/women thing blown away by thatcher...why she was a surrogate man if ever there was one

am v v interested in your posts....do you think there will be a sort of warp speed like shift in human evolution? or do you really think we are f*cked?

are you a man or a woman?

you are interesting....

great great thread roshni....

We can't turn the clock back, and we can't build some kind of Utopian community: People in affluent countries won't swap their good lifestyles, and people in the 3rd World, understandably, want a good life for themselves and their families.

We live in liberal democracies with lots of tech and a high standard of living. We're extremely lucky! I'm only too glad I'm not a subsistence farmer who has 10 kids and no medical care. I think the way forward is, as Roshni suggests, to use tech to try and make our lifestyles more sustainable, and eradicate poverty. We're a very clever species, so I'm sure we could manage it. If we don't, the eternal misery of poverty will carry on, and we will destroy the planet, which would be a pity; it's so beautiful! So educating kids and being creative and committed, using tech and putting into practice democratic values would all be key.

I must object to some of your arguments, Dominic. Firstly your comment that "Brits were better fed than their enemies, and man for man the British soldier was simply tougher than the half starved savages he fought."

As far as I understand it, following the Industrial Revolution of the 1830s-1850s, the Brits and other European working class became horrendously underfed and stunted. The average soldier in WWI was about 5'4". If most of us think back to our grandpas, they tended to be smaller than our Dads, for example. Charles Dickens in Hard Times and later Richard Hoggart in 'The Uses of Literacy' wrote poignantly about the physical ffects of malnourishment and overwork which effectively created a physical underclass in Britain, only remedied later in the 20th century (though now we have a class of poorer people who struggle with obesity, diabetes and heart disease so perhaps the problem is ongoing..)

Your second point I must take issue with is

"The hippy Nazis in their gay 1970s nightclub gear never managed to build one single weapon of mass destruction. "

Depending on how you define it, I would say they were extremely capable at constructing the world's most efficient machine of exterminating human beings en masse: the concentration camps.

Nope sorry DC, don't agree at all, for several reasons. Sociaism is a fairly good model. Those "gay hippy nazis" (and actially I seriously object to any idea that the nazis behaved as they did because they were gay, think this is homophobic) were well on their way to developing nuclear weapons and in fact their technology was used in the us/ussr space race.

I want a society where as many people as possible have long, healthy lives. Technolgy can help us do this.

Right now we're not doing that, only for the west. We have a huge array of crap on the shelves of our supermarkets and homes. Meanwhile majority (3rd) world women and men work long hours for crap pay, never seeing their families, to enable us to consume cheap goods.

Want to post more but can't-kids need attention.

problem is big companies with more power over goverments than many small countries. We could change this by changing company law/renationalising.

agree about big companies.. I guess the only way is pressure on them through exposure, 'consumer power', and a free press, as well as education. My friend teaches a course for kids where they are taught to pick apart different sorts of advertising and propaganda and understand what it aims to do..

what a fab course gemity. Thats what they should be teaching in these citizenship classes.

I read No Logo 4 years ago and have never found anything nearly as good.

Keep meaning to try noam chomsky but am too lazy, it looks too hard!. Any reccomendations?

Have read no logo, DH has the Noam Chomsky but haven't read it..

Trouble is I tend to prefer fiction and all the factual books always get left till last!

So we're just fucked?
No, we are in a period of great change, there will be great advances and some serious tragedies.
The critical point is whether "we" adopt nuclear power in time. There is not chance of maintaining our civilisation long term without it.

The "death camps" actually provide good ammunition for holocaust deniers. They are an amazingly inefficient way to kill people. Why ship them across a country who rail system is constantly being blown up ? Why not just take them to the local police station and shoot them ? Huge numbers of soldiers guarded and moved Jews, Gays et al. Very wasteful.
A lot is of course said about the evil of the holocaust, but it was mostly just dumb.

As for their technology, the Nazis did inherit some technology, but things went downhill very quickly. Yes they built rockets, but again they were inefficient. We still use aircraft for dropping most bombs because it's cheaper with a reusable plane. A use once weapon only makes sense when your planes are shot down more than about one flight in four.
The Nazi attempts to build an atomic bomb were laughable, their heavy bombers killed more Germans than Brits and the early jets were screwed because they didn't have the metal technology to make them work for more than a few hours.

Many people beleieve that NASA's adoption of the dumb booster was a terrible mistake.

As for Nazis being "gay" I was merely disparaging their fondness for lots of leather, tight fitting trousers, lots of shiny badges, "male bonding" activities, and generally like a vicious form of the Village People.

As for companies having too much power in 3rd world countries that is true. Whenever you merge commerce and government you get terrible corruption and grotesque inefficiency. That applies to Rwanda as much as it applies to PFI in the NHS.
Narionalisation makes it worse, not better. Government needs to be out of the job of generating wealth, an d strong enough to make sure companies behave. Note that the worst behaved companies in Britain are deeply entwined with government. We have Capita who has screwed over tens of thousands of people on benefit, the nuclear industry with it's sloppy safety record, the appalling low pay of nurses and sexists disparaties of pay in the NHS. The army has horrible levels of bullying, and racism in the police is not exactly eradicated.
This is because there is a conflict of interest.
The government cannot be an efficent regulator of any enterprise and at the same time promote it's activities. That applies to healthcare or running railways.

Just quickly, and going off topic now.

Don't agree that the concentration camps were 'inefficient'

• Killed 6 million! Pretty efficient!
• Mass murder on this scale did indeed require mass facilities.
• The Holocaust isn't just about the death camps. It is also about slave labour in camps or ghettos, vital to the Nazi war effort. It was an enormous efficient machine, planned and operated with the collusion of a very large number of ordinary people.
• No one was bombing remote areas of Poland and Germany, none of the camps were near very major population centres, the rail system was intact.
• There was a whole system of stripping people of everything they had and reusing it, from hair used to stuff bus seats, to gold teeth. This mass process could not have been done comfortably in the 'local police station'
• You could not murder an ethnic minority locally because there might be ethical concerns by local officials, interference by other people, not to mention mass panic by those about to be killed, who might organise and spread dissent. That's why they shipped them away to the caps.
• Many of the Jews killed were already living in Poland and Eastern Europe eg Ukraine. So the camps were located quite logically in places they could be transported to quite easily.

So don't agree! But sorry for hijacking thread because it wasn't originally about the Nazis or the Holocaust...