The most immoral thing today

[Mediate]

Didn't you once say you make less than 20k a year??

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great you're committed to not over-consuming...but it's not exactly like you're making a whole slew of sacrifices, is it? It's a bit like a man who cannot afford a car claiming he's "committed" to reducing his carbon footprint. It's not like he had was able to choose a hybrid over an H3 Hummer in the first place.

I can see you don't want to discuss overpopulation, so I'll just make this one point....as long as global population is increasing, individual national population growth rates matter little.

As for the middle class, the reason it gets the political attention it does is more of an economic matter than anything. The middle class pays an enormous amount of taxes, and if it were to disappear a couple things would need to happen to compensate for the loss of tax revenue. 1. The upper class would have to give a larger tax contribution to offset the loss of middle class tax revenue. 2. The "benefits" that the lower class rely on to survive would need to decrease significantly. 3. Of course, some combination of both 1 and 2 would be the most likely result of the loss of the middle class.

Hopefully this explains why there is such political/social concern over the fate of the middle class. I've simplified the issue a bit, but the loss of the middle class would result in massive socio-economic changes in the U.S.. It's got little to do with middle-class consumption rates.

Capitalism by its very definition cannot be capitalism unless there are the successful capitalizers and the resourcefully lesser beings, and as money is the universal resource for all trade money is the resource upon which people strive to ultimately capitalize and monopolize. Money is not a natural resource, but it has been made such an integral precursor to basic amenities as food, water and shelter that we, as ''normal people'', have seemingly no other means of sustaining ourselves. We must work for the man. But I don't believe we can have an end to overconsumption if we are literally trapped in a cycle of existence where we are driven to garner money as a resource to be able to feed ourselves when garnering that money only strengthens the substratum of our current consumption culture, in that the monopolization of currency leads to a situation of poverty against profuse wealth, more-than-sufficiency for some at the cost of scarcity for others.

The few consume ostentatiously while the many feed their consumption and this is probably best illustrated at Azadpur Mandi, the largest food market in Asia. At this market, some traders make millions of dollars per week, and on the market's outskirts lie starving women and children who pick what was otherwise discarded by traders, clean it and put it into bags to sell in order to be able to buy enough food and amenities to survive that day.

This is a market with enough food to feed most of India.

So the argument could be made that money is most of the problem, and that earning large sums of money, and the drive to do that, is perhaps the most detrimental action a person can undertake if they wish to promote, endorse and live by a code of strict anti-capitalist anti-consumption principles. Money allows people to concentrate wealth far more than they could by concentrating non-monetary resources.

If we think about it, we're born into a world that educates us into believing that money is an innate part of human existence, but it's not. Money has become a symbol of status, power, wealth, and the sole means of sustenance for billions. Governments who wish to endow us with the ''skills'' we need in order to survive in such a paradigm force us into state educations with that end in mind and so we grow up believing that the actual ''system'' itself is incontrovertible and inseparable from our being. Were we brought up in natural circumstances away from such societal constructions we would be far more likely to come to a natural equilibrium with our environments. Contrary to popular notion, it is a small percentage of humans who strive innately to capitalize as pathologically as we are taught all humans are naturally predisposed to do. It just so happens that those small numbers of humans are so unnaturally driven as to have engineered over many decades a system of finance and governance where the rest of the planet ultimately suffer for their extravagance.

If people rejected the capitalist-materialist ideology that underpins our entire socioeconomic system (which increasing numbers are wanting to do) then they'd be rejecting the ideology that allows for massive oil profits; they'd be destabilizing the fiat-currency economy that drives capitalist overconsumption and they would be toppling the very foundations of a materialist-consumerist culture that indoctrinates people to consume as rapidly and excessively as in the present.

And contrary to popular opinion, there are better alternatives to fiat-debt consumerist-capitalist cultures. You might ask ''how will I get the house, the car, the wife and the job'', but wanting those things at all is as much a part of the societal indoctrination as the idea that money is the only way to get them.

 

[True Scotsman]

I may be a lone wolf, but culture war issues like same-sex couples not being able to enter a government-sanctioned marriage contract are some of the last things on my mind. Sometimes I think that such issues are deliberately used to distract us from the real problems facing humans. And I think that when those issues are resolved the "progress" that people talk about is the biggest, most destructive illusion.

The most immoral thing today is overconsumption in the West.

I do not have actual numbers, but it would not surprise me to find that the U.S. middle class has been responsible for the overwhelming bulk of resource depletion. Extremely wealthy households consume a lot of goods and services, but there are not very many extremely wealthy people. I doubt that low-income households are enough in number and have enough income to consume as much as the middle class. Yet, we are told almost every day that if the American middle class does not remain intact the whole Earth will implode.

And apparently there are growing middle classes in places like India that want the same standard of living as the American middle class. I do not see how it is ecologically possible for the American Dream to be globalized.

Of course, somebody is going to bring up overpopulation. Well, fertility rates have declined in the West. So we have fewer people consuming a greater amount of goods and services. And in Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism Richard H. Robbins shows that the population explosion in the Third World is a myth. Fertility rates in the Third World have been steady, he shows. What has changed, I recall him saying, is that rates of consumption have increased.

Americans, maybe the most self-congratulatory people ever, like to remind themselves how industrious, resourceful and innovative they are. Yet, sustainability, learning how to be happy with less, etc. are things that Americans seem to be incapable of attempting, let alone realizing. Consuming less is never part of the equation, no matter what problem, issue or controversy is being addressed.

I have little power or clout, so I can't do much to address the problem. But I am doing my best to take responsibility for my role in the problem and minimize my contribution. It does not leave much time, money or energy for splitting hairs over things like abortion, same-sex marriage, evolution vs. creation, can there be morality without God, etc.

I don't see over consumption as a problem but I do see all of the proposed solutions to this non problem as extremely destructive. That is because all of the solutions involve less freedom and more central planning. Who decides what is enough consumption. It would have to be someone else imposing his or her idea of what is enough on everybody. The only practical solution to this problem, if it is a problem, is education, persuasion, reason, not violating individual rights. We have ample evidence of what happens when individual rights are not respected. You want to see environmental destruction, go to any communist country.

On the problem of depleting natural resources, it's not a problem. As a certain resource becomes more scarce, the price will go up and this will naturally lead to less consumption and the creation of alternative resources. Another solution is private property. When property is owned collectively then there is far less incentive to take care of it. You know this. You take far better care of your own property than the town park. Beyond that we have a whole solar system with vast untapped resources. We will never run out of the things we need to sustain and improve our lives in a billion years and that ignores the rest of the galaxy.

 

[Mediate]

I don't see over consumption as a problem but I do see all of the proposed solutions to this non problem as extremely destructive. That is because all of the solutions involve less freedom and more central planning. Who decides what is enough consumption. It would have to be someone else imposing his or her idea of what is enough on everybody. The only practical solution to this problem, if it is a problem, is education, persuasion, reason, not violating individual rights. We have ample evidence of what happens when individual rights are not respected. You want to see environmental destruction, go to any communist country.

On the problem of depleting natural resources, it's not a problem. As a certain resource becomes more scarce, the price will go up and this will naturally lead to less consumption and the creation of alternative resources. Another solution is private property. When property is owned collectively then there is far less incentive to take care of it. You know this. You take far better care of your own property than the town park. Beyond that we have a whole solar system with vast untapped resources. We will never run out of the things we need to sustain and improve our lives in a billion years and that ignores the rest of the galaxy.

Yes, we should have a right to consume. In fact, we need to consume. We do not, however, need to overconsume (hence the word ''overconsume'' and its excessive connotations) and nor should we feel entitled to overconsume just because our socioeconomic paradigm allows us the opportunity.

The health of the Earth and whichever measures need put in place to secure the sustainability of its future for the next million years are what we should consider the threshold for consumption. It is abundantly clear that, for instance, the unhindered proliferation of fossil fuel powered anythings leads to a continued governmental need to secure oil routes and oil sources hence wars and numerous agreements dictating the price of oil not in line with the decrease in its availibility, headed by industries and individuals who stand to profit substantially from such operations. This obviously has catastrophic consequences for our environment and for the future of not just the human species (or at least a very large part of it) but also for numerous other lifeforms on this planet. It also does not jive with your frankly rather naive assumption that when something becomes rare its price hike alone will stop people from using it or hurry them into finding better alternatives. The truth is the price of oil goes up, countries invade oil rich nations, kill millions, secure oil routes, cap oil prices and weapons manufacturers and oil barons profit handsomely at the expense of the planet's health.

Is that not a problem that needs to be genuinely addressed? At the moment it is being addressed only on the ''symptom'' level, and really nobody with the power to tackle this at its most root causes is doing much in that vein.

If energy companies and governments had invested half as much in renewable energy as starting wars and securing oil trades we'd be most of the way beyond the need for oil by now.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All these problems are related to human nature. No amount of education, or cajoling will change that.

That said we don't need drastic changes, just a few minor adjustments to the way we do things. For example, in my city the recycling compliance rate is only 83 per cent. The 17 percent who don't comply create a huge mess in the recycling system. So we are dealing with a minority of people that are creating the majority of problems.

Another example came from a county police officer who revealed that if a dozen crooks known to them could be put away 75 percent of the 'unsolved' crime in the county would disappear.

Once again a small number of bad people making a big mess for everyone else.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

That's not what I said at all. Go ahead and reread what I wrote, if you're still having trouble with it, I'll try explaining it again.

It could, but that wasn't what you said. You simply said you gave up football...which didn't make much sense. If I'm watching the food network, does that mean I'm giving up the golf channel?

Arguably, entertainment is an important resource. Lowering stress has all sorts of health benefits, so while I haven't seen a direct study of it...I could see the possibility that people who find an entertaining way to unwind may end up using far less health resources than the person who focuses entirely upon work....

Clarification is needed. This all started when it was suggested that people with low incomes are not sacrificing anything and are not able to sacrifice anything to promote sustainability. Is that not what is being said?

And nobody said that people should substitute work for entertainment. Giving up the National Football League was used as an example of having a low income yet making sacrifices to promote sustainability.

If all of the products of the entertainment industry in the U.S. are truly needed, nobody seems to be producing any evidence for it. On the contrary, all of the evidence seems to show that Americans spend too much on entertainment and things like relationships, physical health, sense of community, participation in civic life, etc. suffer.

Sure...I guess? I'm not sure why you'd want to attract more women who are interested in you for your money...but I guess there's no arguing that by attracting gold-diggers you'd have a larger pool of women to choose from...

It is not about money. It is about a difference in values and priorities.

If almost every person one meets in the dating market thinks that a good life is doing a lot of partying and traveling and consuming a lot of the products of the entertainment industry and he/she thinks that a good life is consuming as little as possible, he/she is not going to have many choices.

A person could have a lot of money but say, "I am not going to spend it on vacations in Hawaii, I am going to spend it on humanitarian aid", and not attract gold-diggers.

The article is interesting... and I'm not saying that consumption isn't a more pressing issue....but ultimately, dealing with consumption without dealing with population growth is just a matter of kicking the can down the road. To illustrate, the article claims the lowest consumption rates are a mere 7% of the highest rates. Supposing that we could somehow magically reduce consumption to the same levels as the lowest peoples... what happens when that population inevitability grows to 14x their current size? Even at the consumption rates of the lowest consumers....we'll be consuming the same amount of resources we currently are. Whether population growth is high or low...as long as population is increasing and not decreasing... the problem remains...

What is responsible for that population growth?

I think it's our economy that isn't sustainable. I'd rather sacrifice my opportunity to become insanely wealthy and keep a government which represents the needs of the people than keep the slim chance of astonishing wealth and live according to the whims of a few wealthy elite.

It seems to me that our political institutions are embedded in our economic system. The nation-state exists to regulate the system known as capitalism.

 

[stevevw]

I don't know about immoral, but I do agree that it's a serious problem.

I think it is immoral in that it is based on greed. Its a self things and centered around what I want and what makes the individual satisfied.

I think it's weird that you're excluding extremely wealthy people from responsibility here. If we're looking at this on a per-person basis, wealthy people consume far more than others, often by owning more than one or two of an object or upgrading said objects frequently. How many automobiles does a movie star need? Honestly none, they could probably get someone else to drive them around if they wanted, whereas a middle class family might legitimately need two cars for both parents to get to work.

The wealthy people are the pinnacle of a system society buys into. The movie stars and other celebs to a lessor extent are the ones who are put out there as the gods of that system. Magazines and entertainment shows are built around them which have millions of followers. People dream of being them. Now we have the reality TV and everyone wants to be a star. Many think they can have a Hollywood or celeb lifestyle.

But this is just the result of a system that makes money and material things its gods. Profits become more important than people. Companies will overlook unethical behavior to make money and the shareholders will go along with it. Those in the west will consume tons of stuff while others go without and die and nobody hardly blinks an eye. But we have seen some of the cracks start to appear in this system with the GFC. Its been a boom bust cycle for a long time and each time the bust gets bigger. Any system that puts money and things before life is doomed to fail.

And I don't think poor people can be excluded from this either. Yes, the value of the things they consume is lower, but the amount is higher because those items are more cheaply made and wear out faster. On the food side, when your choice for a meal is one dollar for an apple or one dollar for a hamburger, you're going to go with the hamburger, even though there's much more packaging and waste behind its creation and the only reason it's so cheap is because the ingredients are mass produced and low quality.

This is part of consumerism. It doesn't worry to much about waste. We have become more environmentally focused recently but that has been something were have been forced to do because of the consequences. The people in the poor countries follow what the west has done. They want what we have. So they will inevitabily consume more in the end. We see this with the multi nationals moving in on the poor countries as new frontiers for growing their empires. They dont care about people really just profits. They will have marketing gurus who will brand themselves to look good. But at the end of the day its all about money and the exploitation of people and this planet.

There are actually many Americans trying to be sustainable and less consumptive. Unfortunately they (we) are often characterized as ultra-liberal anti-capitalist tree-huggers. Sustainability is something I would really like to see become more of a bi-partisan value, but it is undeniably an anti-business attitude.

There is still a big divide about climate change and going green. It is really the pro business people against those average people who are more in touch with environmental issues who have no axe to grind. But sometimes there can be groups who go overboard with green issues and this is what polarizes people. It then becomes an almost religious battle.

Our entire economy is built on consumption. Cover everyone's houses with solar panels that require very little maintenance and supply 90% of the power we need? Out goes our coal and natural gas industries. Encourage hydroponic gardens and locally sourced foodstuffs? There goes your food processing companies. Create a culture where everyone doesn't feel like they need a wider, flatter, higher resolution TV or phone? Goodbye Apple, Samsung, Android. Make people content with the the clothes and belongings they already have? No more Walmart, Target, or Khol's.

Change is hard to accept and there is a cost in moving over to alternative industries and lifestyles. I agree that we can go overboard and not make the transition smooth. Peoples lives are destroyed and some people have little choice in what they can do. But part of the problem is we have got use to consumerism and dont know any different. All we really need is food, cloths, and shelter. But some want better cloths and more food than others. The system is wrong and its doomed to fail. It creates haves and have nots and when economies collapse many suffer.

Except for a mattress, I haven't bought a new piece of furniture or clothing in over two years and I try to minimize my energy consumption. On the other hand, my job right now it to design and produce cheap pool toys and camping gear, stuff that is often thrown away after just one summer of use. I don't like it, but if I didn't have this job... if other people weren't willing to wastefully consume this crap... I wouldn't be able to eat or pay my (very modest) rent.

I am the same. Everything I do is around recycling. If I do buy cloths its from charity shops. I dont own a car and my sons car is a cheap run around which he rarely uses. I dont buy anything to expensive because to me there is always a cheaper alternative. But I dont buy anything unnecessary either and only buy the basics that I need. And I am as happy as a pig in .

So maybe consumption is like an addiction our society has. We've been on the drug so long, we can't survive without it. I would like to kick the habit as much as anyone, but the withdrawal could literally destroy our economy and wreak havoc on our society.

Yes thats one way to look at it. But I think peoples lives are based on what they have and what they do. They think there is not much else to life. Its all about looking forward to that reward or thing that will give them a lift. Or that something that will give them comfort or a thrill. The media and those in charge keep promoting this as well. Everything is around winning the lottery to make your dreams come true. Having money to solve your problems. Companies are constantly bombarding people with you have to have their products or you are missing out or it will improve your life. Others are trying to convince you that what they have is the answer to your problem in life. Its all about hope, peace and joy in our lives. But I'm afraid its all false promise that lets people down in the end.

 

[True Scotsman]

Yes, we should have a right to consume. In fact, we need to consume. We do not, however, need to overconsume (hence the word ''overconsume'' and its excessive connotations) and nor should we feel entitled to overconsume just because our socioeconomic paradigm allows us the opportunity.

The health of the Earth and whichever measures need put in place to secure the sustainability of its future for the next million years are what we should consider the threshold for consumption. It is abundantly clear that, for instance, the unhindered proliferation of fossil fuel powered anythings leads to a continued governmental need to secure oil routes and oil sources hence wars and numerous agreements dictating the price of oil not in line with the decrease in its availibility, headed by industries and individuals who stand to profit substantially from such operations. This obviously has catastrophic consequences for our environment and for the future of not just the human species (or at least a very large part of it) but also for numerous other lifeforms on this planet. It also does not jive with your frankly rather naive assumption that when something becomes rare its price hike alone will stop people from using it or hurry them into finding better alternatives. The truth is the price of oil goes up, countries invade oil rich nations, kill millions, secure oil routes, cap oil prices and weapons manufacturers and oil barons profit handsomely at the expense of the planet's health.

Is that not a problem that needs to be genuinely addressed? At the moment it is being addressed only on the ''symptom'' level, and really nobody with the power to tackle this at its most root causes is doing much in that vein.

If energy companies and governments had invested half as much in renewable energy as starting wars and securing oil trades we'd be most of the way beyond the need for oil by now.

Who decides what is over consumption? How could anyone determine what is someones fair share of the resources of the planet? It is impossible.

Here is exactly how much I have a right to consume: exactly as much as I produce and not one jot more and not one jot less. Now I happen to be a person who lives very simply. I don't need a lot and as a woodcarver I turn waste wood from urban trees into products that sell for a pretty penny. I create wealth literally out of trash. So I'm very environmentally conscious, but I am not a sacrificial animal either. the idea that government should limit my right to produce, keep and dispose of private property in the name of the good of others is an abomination. The answer is not to violate individual rights but to advocate freedom and private property rights and reason. I mean actually teach people to reason from their earliest years instead of every kind of anti-reason philosophy that we have had for the last 200 years. Teach people rational egoism in place of altruism. Teach reason instead of mysticism and people will naturally take care of things without being forced. Any who do real harm to others can be handled in the courts where real damages can be proved. That is the only moral solution to the problems we have with the environment.

As far as invading countries for oil, the free flow of oil at market prices is in our own interest, so that is a legitimate reason to go to war. We should never go to war for any other reason than our own interests. Any other reason would be sacrificial. Besides we have proven that we don't need to do this because we can produce all we need right here if the government will just stay out of the way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Clarification is needed. This all started when it was suggested that people with low incomes are not sacrificing anything and are not able to sacrifice anything to promote sustainability. Is that not what is being said?

And nobody said that people should substitute work for entertainment. Giving up the National Football League was used as an example of having a low income yet making sacrifices to promote sustainability.

If all of the products of the entertainment industry in the U.S. are truly needed, nobody seems to be producing any evidence for it. On the contrary, all of the evidence seems to show that Americans spend too much on entertainment and things like relationships, physical health, sense of community, participation in civic life, etc. suffer.









It is not about money. It is about a difference in values and priorities.

If almost every person one meets in the dating market thinks that a good life is doing a lot of partying and traveling and consuming a lot of the products of the entertainment industry and he/she thinks that a good life is consuming as little as possible, he/she is not going to have many choices.

A person could have a lot of money but say, "I am not going to spend it on vacations in Hawaii, I am going to spend it on humanitarian aid", and not attract gold-diggers.









What is responsible for that population growth?









It seems to me that our political institutions are embedded in our economic system. The nation-state exists to regulate the system known as capitalism.

"Is that not what is being said?"

Not at all. I was merely pointing out the less you can sacrifice, the less effect your sacrifice has. These things need to be changed from the top down, not the bottom up...though your willingness to give up football and women is admirable.

I still have no idea what giving up football has to do with sustainability. If you'd like some links to stress and it's effect on health, I'll gladly provide.

What is responsible for population growth? There's a lot of factors, but I'd say evolution plays the biggest part.

Our political institutions could just as easily exist under another economic system.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I still have no idea what giving up football has to do with sustainability...

My perception--and the perception of a lot of people, it seems--is that the NFL and NCAA FBS football have become big empires that are destroying our culture and have plans to expand into markets like Europe. Look at all of the conference realignment in the NCAA the past several years. All of that conference realignment is about Americans' appetite for the bread and circus of football, and it has been done at the expense of the student athlete, the academic missions of institutions of higher learning, etc. Subscribers to cable TV, satellite TV, etc. who have no use for football are having to pay higher rates so that Americans' appetite for the bread and circus of football can be satisfied. The National Football League sat back and watched generations of players health and quality of life be destroyed by the repeated head trauma that they sustained to satisfy Americans' appetite for the bread and circus of football.

I believe that football is part of the spectacle--part of our denial--that Chris Hedges talks about in Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

If you'd like some links to stress and it's effect on health, I'll gladly provide...

If Americans need something as destructive as the National Football League to reduce stress and maintain good health then Americans are more pathetic than I have ever imagined.

A long, quiet walk always works for me.

What is responsible for population growth? There's a lot of factors, but I'd say evolution plays the biggest part...

If a person is going to be able to effectively address overpopulation he/she is going to need something concrete to respond to. Is overpopulation due to, say, women in the Third World giving birth to more babies than before? Or is it due to changes in medical care and sanitation resulting in people living longer? What is responsible for this exponential population growth that we are hearing about?

Our political institutions could just as easily exist under another economic system.

What other economic system? Capitalism has been the dominant system for the past five centuries. How do we know that things like the nation-states of that time would meet people's needs in another context?

 

[Booko]

Capitalism has been the dominant system for the past five centuries.

This seems to require an overly broad definition of capitalism. There weren't even proper banks five centuries ago.

How do we know that things like the nation-states of that time would meet people's needs in another context?

Nation states were useful in their time, but times have changed, and national sovereignty is not more of a hindrance to humanity than a help. I don't suggest getting ration of nations as much as not having them be the pinnacle of human political organization.

Our problems are not global level and we need global institutions to deal with them. We have some nascent ones, but it's something we could stand to improve on.