Materialism is a con.

[James T]

And we are mostly falling for it. The game is about being sure that people can always buy more than they can afford, always! This is managed by an elite. They do this because it keeps the masses productive. The more productive the masses the more for those who manage the process. Why do they do it, trapped in the same materialistic trap they have created for the rest of us perhaps. At any rate, it is easier to extract our labour as a percentage of every transaction if you make sure there are lots of transactions. And if people stop at what they require, rather than at what they desire, there are less transactions from which to take a cut.

But that's the negative side. Really, the masses would be an unproductive waste of space without this motivation. Perhaps a more useful goal would be to know where the cut goes and to have a greater input to where it should be sent.

 

[Verv]

I think that the freedom of people to produce and to consume should be kept, but I think that as Christians we should be productive but spending our money should be spent on positive things, and not on just mere consumerism. We should think about the things that we need, and go from that point. If we have no purpose fo rsomething, why should we invest in it?

Materialism is definitely not something smiled upon by God, for we are more than the clothes that we are and the food that we eat.

 

[MuAndNu]

And we are mostly falling for it. The game is about being sure that people can always buy more than they can afford, always! This is managed by an elite. They do this because it keeps the masses productive. The more productive the masses the more for those who manage the process. Why do they do it, trapped in the same materialistic trap they have created for the rest of us perhaps. At any rate, it is easier to extract our labour as a percentage of every transaction if you make sure there are lots of transactions. And if people stop at what they require, rather than at what they desire, there are less transactions from which to take a cut.

But that's the negative side. Really, the masses would be an unproductive waste of space without this motivation. Perhaps a more useful goal would be to know where the cut goes and to have a greater input to where it should be sent.

How many material things do you own that you consider quite indispensible that would have been thought of as hedonistic excess 100 years ago?

 

[James T]

You could as easily have said 40 years ago for many of the things I own. 10 years ago for some things I own (mainly in terms of computer gear for this period though).

 

[MuAndNu]

You could as easily have said 40 years ago for many of the things I own. 10 years ago for some things I own (mainly in terms of computer gear for this period though).

Actually, computers were the first thing that came to mind as I wrote that. Doesn't really detract from your point at all, I think. It's just that we have to remember there are no absolutes here either. If taken to extremes, we could justify insisting that nothing but air, food, and shelter are ultimately necessary. Obviously, you don't mean to suggest that. The problem is, where do we draw the line? And does that line drift a little over time and from one culture to another?

 

[Rae]

Anyone interested in living more simply can check out this Web site: http://www.simpleliving.net/seedsofsimplicity/

 

[MuAndNu]

Anyone interested in living more simply can check out this Web site: http://www.simpleliving.net/seedsofsimplicity/

I kinda like their "STUFFication" aims, but I don't, as a rule, join fad causes.

 

[Rae]

I didn't say to join, just to look at it for some ideas. I'm not an SOSer, myself. I'm too poor to be one.

 

[MuAndNu]

I didn't say to join, just to look at it for some ideas. I'm not an SOSer, myself. I'm too poor to be one.

No, I did look. It's interesting. Got some good advice.

I understand the "poor" thing--uh, dadgummit! (They won't ding me for "dadgummit," will they?)

 

[billwald]

You all had better pray that there are sufficient hedonists to keep the system going. If the electronic banking system fails it will probably blast us back 500 years, not to 1950.