Defining Consumerism #1

In recent days I have been spending my lunch breaks with the Oxford English Dictionary. It is a lovely set of tomes. Terribly confusing at times, but delightful to hold and page through.

The OED defines consumerism this way:

1. Protection of the consumer's interest
2. Name given to a doctrine advocating a continual increase in the consumption of goods as a basis for a sound economy

The word consume comes from the Latin con - altogether + sumere - to take up, lay hold of, etc. The idea is to "to take up completely" (the thing consumed no longer exists, it is "destroyed" or "devoured" by the consumer).

And this leads to the OED's definition of consumer:

1. He who or that which consumes, wastes, squanders, or destroys

Of course the meaning of consumer has shifted in the English language. Now the word simply connotes a person who buys something. Today the word consumer no longer carries the stigma of a vice.

Yet much of what we casually consume (i.e. buy) we actually consume (i.e. destroy). I am particularly convicted by the coffee cups I have destroyed the last two days atPeet's Coffee while doing research. The cups are not recyclable and so I quite literally "consume" them by my use. Many products are like this. Many products are consumed (destroyed) when used.

Interestingly the word product/produce comes from the Latin pro - forth + ducere - to lead. The idea is that to produce something is "to lead or bring forth" something. A product is literally a creation, a making of something. This is not all just wordplay. These definitions are helpful.

It is entirely valid to understand our modern economic system as one that produces (creates) things to consume (destroy).

Comments

[sarah]

This is very interesting, Dave. I would think it likely that the connotations of consume have likely shifted because of a change in our values. As consumerism became more af an acceptable way to engage the world, the negative connotations would have been dropped. Funny how the history of words can often double as a history of thought, no?

[MB]

Hi, Dave,

The problem I see with the anti-consumerist position is that it is stuck in the zero-sum economics of Ricardo and Malthus. These arguments get revived from time to time—for a recent example, see this March 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120613138379155707.html

I'm sure you'll find its arguments familiar: We are consuming more than ever, there aren't enough resources to go around, so, sooner or later, something has to give. But the problem with the argument—because it is a fundamentally static argument—is that it does not account for the dynamic, evolving nature of human ingenuity in a liberal, free-market world.

Before you equate consumerism with destruction, consider that consumption and trade have been the driving engines of progress, and of life itself, for centuries. Before 1600, centuries would elapse between important scientific discoveries. It took thousands of years for life expectancy to rise to around 30 years by the mid-18th century. Chronic hunger and malnutrition, disease, illness, and early death were the norm in preindustrial societies. In 1750, around 25 percent of babies died before their first birthday. As late as 1841, only two-thirds of Englishmen could write their names.

Men are now an average of five inches taller and 40 pounds heavier than they were 200 years ago. The world's population has exploded from under 1 billion at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to 6.7 billion today, and is projected to reach 9 billion by 2042. And as our economies develop, so too does our knowledge and our technological capability. We have increased life expectancy in developed countries from the early 30s to the early 80s. We have revolutionized transportation, communication, and education; we have discovered penicillin, nuclear power, DNA, and countless other things; we have invented the computer; and we have put a man on the moon. We are the first societies ever in human history to treat women as men's legal, social, and political equals.

The problem with the anti-consumerist position is that it is a form of neo-Marxism, a continuation of a statist ideology that has been trying to throw wrenches in the works of this liberal revolution since the mid-nineteenth century. By analogizing consumption with destruction and oppression, you only continue that line of thought—which does indeed threaten to derail human progress, potentially for centuries. Ironically, the quality of life that you and your wife and daughters have today was brought to you by the very consumption that you deride! What do you think would have happened if the Marxists had succeeded in shutting down the engines of economic growth a century ago? Would we live in a better world today? And if the neo-Marxists (the environmentalists, the anti-consumerists, the statist leftists) succeed today, will we have a better world a century from now?

Best to you,
MB

[sarah]

MB,

I don't see anything in Dave's post to suggest that he believes all consumption to be bad. Nor do I see anything that suggests that the word "destruction" has the negative connocations you seem to want to assign to it. The cycle of creation and destruction is evident in nature anywhere you choose to look, and only seems negative when we choose to see it as such.

Having read Dave's blog for some time, and others of a similar mind, the issue seems not to be consumption generally, but over-consumption. While it's true that our civilization has resulted in changes in the human condition, I am not sure that all have been positive. Is it better that we live longer? Probably. Is it better that we now have well over 6 billion people living on the planet? I am not so sure about that. Yes, people like to see their children live full lives, but the actual number being larger does't seem to have a value either way - positive or negative.

The issue that Dave seems to be more interested in is the idea that over-consuption does not lead to a greater degree of actual happiness in life, nor does it do anything positive for the world at large. The value of over-consumption is not inherent in a capitalistic, industrial society, as it's only been acceptable for a few short decades.

Nor does the desire to question over-consumption make one a Marxist.

I agree - consumption has driven /some/ progress (not all). I do not agree that the over-consumption we as a society seem bent upon will automatically translate into some kind of new era of well-being an happiness for all. What Dave and others like him seem to propose is to learn a sense of balance. Just like eating too much food can make a person just as sick as eating too little, over-consupmtion can have the same ill effects on a body and a civilization.

The thought that maybe a 4000 square foot home is a little excessive for a family of three is not likely to send us back to the dark ages, as you seem to suggest here. There is a way to move forward with intellegence. Our present eceonomic woes are due, in part, to people blindly spending far more than they earn. This is over-consumption at its finest. I am not sure I can see how this is progress. I hope that you will grant that there is (or ought to be) a reasonable limit to consumption, such that we do not, in essence, drive ourselves off a cliff in a frenzy to "progress."

Just so I am clear on your position: are you suggesting that although our present rates of consumption as a species are such that we will, at some point, run out of resources, technology will enable us to use those resources so effectively that we need not worry? I'd like to make sure I understand where you're arguing from. It seems to be implied here.

Oh, and further: If that is the case (that technology will enable us to our resources more effectively), wouldn't tying this to a responsible use of those resources enable even larger numbers of people to live happy, fulfilled lives? That does seem to be germaine to your argument here, but if I read correctly, you'd prefer that we rely only on technology to alleviate our present situation, and not on any other method in combination or otherwise.

[MB]

Hi, Sarah,

Thanks for your interesting response. I agree that Dave has not tried to argue that *all* consumption is bad; he has only made the case for radical and thoroughgoing cutbacks that he believes will be spiritually and environmentally beneficial. In turn, I have simply asked him to consider the macroeconomic implications of his arguments.

For example, look at how world stock markets dived this week on the news that American consumer spending had declined by 1.2 percent in September. The fears are well-founded: falling consumption means that fewer goods and services are demanded, which in turn lowers GNP, pushes up unemployment, and encourages liberal politicians to hike taxes. A downward spiral is created, whereby faltering consumer spending takes economies into recession, and potentially into protracted depression. My point here is that Dave and other anti-consumerists are arguing for much more dramatic cuts in consumption than 1.2 percent. Some might argue that we should cut consumption by 50 percent, or 75 percent, or even 90 percent. The effects of such drastic cuts on the world economy—and particularly on vulnerable, developing economies that depend crucially on Western markets—would be nothing short of catastrophic, as would be the knock-on effects for political stability and for democracy.

I have noted in a comment to a different post the effects of cheap credit on distorting people's lifestyle expectations. I've resoundingly criticized the irresponsible monetary policies that presidents both Democratic and Republican allowed the Federal Reserve to pursue under Alan Greenspan. And I resoundingly agree that it's time for everyone to pursue a more realistic balance between earnings and spending, so as to avoid the inevitable and painful market corrections we have seen over the past month.

However, I also believe in individual choice—and if a family of three wish to live in a 4,000-square-foot house, or even a 16,000-square-foot house, that's quite honestly up to them. See, I don't think one can easily draw a line between consumption and over-consumption, given how norms have shifted across cultures and throughout history. For instance, Dave's "100 Things" would seem excessive to someone from Ethiopia, or someone to arrive in a time capsule from 19th century America. Does he really "need" his cell phone, his Nike Oregonian watch with built in altimeter, his Bose Quiet Comfort 3, his Tifosi sunglasses, or his Monteverde ballpoint pen? Or are these things just frivolous accoutrements, symptoms of his prior life as a over-consumer?

I find it amazing that you say the number of people on the planet doesn't have any value, positive or negative. Would it be better, in your opinion, if there were 6 million people instead of 6 billion? Or maybe a global population of 600,000 would be more optimal, since we would collectively use fewer resources? I simply can't agree with this. Personally, I see every human life as precious and vital, and I regard every new addition to the world's population as something to be celebrated. On a collective level, the more people we have, the more potentially inventive, imaginative, artistic, and resourceful minds there are to benefit us all—not only now, but for the future. Had we not had a critical mass of people, we may never have had a Shakespeare, a Mozart, an Einstein, or a Churchill.

You also state that "our present rates of consumption as a species are such that we will, at some point, run out of resources." This is the Malthusian zero-sum logic that I referred to above. If we run out of a resource, how do you know that we can't replace it with another? We might well run out of oil, for example, but we can take energy from the wind, from the sea, from the sun, and from nuclear power, if we have to. Human history thus far has shown us that we can overcome almost any limitation through ingenuity and technological advance. By the end of this century, humans will likely have walked—if not lived—on Mars. We will likely have made unimaginable advances in medical technology and genetics research that will eliminate much of the human suffering we see in the world today. The Malthusian catastrophists have ALWAYS been wrong. And yes, I do believe that they will continue to be wrong.

Finally, on the subject of anti-consumerism being a form of neo-Marxism (or at least Marxism Lite), see this Reason article:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27795.html

Best to you,
MB

[sarah]

Hello MB,

Thank you for the thoughtful response to my comment. I should amend one of my statements. You're correct - it's certainly possible that while we may run out of /some/ resources, with the help of technology, we may find alternative means of fueling our society, both literally and metaphorically. I was playing a bit of the devil's advocate there. What I am more personally concerned about is that the rate at which we use the resources we choose to use may have a deleterious effect on our ability to live on this planet. Even if things do not progress to that level, I am concerned that the world will be a less beautiful place than is has been. While this might not be important to some, and probably not essential to our survival as a species, it's important to me spiritually. I don't want to live in an ugly world.

And I agree: while some anti-consumerists may be neo-Marxists, I think it would be difficult to argue that any form or degree of "anti-consumerism" makes one any sort of Marxist. As you ask Dave to consider your position, I ask that you be careful not to pidgeon-hole anyone who might suggest we consider a different approach to life.

For example, I would qualify as an anti-consumer in the sense that I don't believe the purchase of things is as vital to anything (the economy, happiness) as advertizers and politicians would seem to like me to think. Instead, I prefer to spend a reasonable amount of money on creating experiences.

I am, as you are, interested in choice. I would like to some of the energy focused on getting people to amass objects shifted to other pursuits, ones that engender a greater sense of community and personal responsibility. I am supportive of Dave's enterprise because he has made a choice. He feels that the life he led, governed by what he considers to be over-consumption, was doing harm to himself and his family. He is choosing to try something else. Will it succeed? Will there be other, negative, side effects? Possibly.

You seem concerned that a small group of people advocating an alternative lifestyle may bring economic and thus also social collapse. I don't think this likely, as there is usually some movement of this kind, hanging around the fringes of civilization. These groups (and others like them ) can be an important source for new ideas and innovation - something you seem to find very important. Just as it's important for our survival to maintain a diverse gene pool, so too is it important to maintain a diverse pool if thought.

Remember, too - a critical mass of people also gave us Caesar, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Yes, I am hesitant to unilaterally declare a larger population better. There is good with the bad, like anything. You seem to imply here that when it comes to people, more is /always/ better. Am I understanding you correctly?

I think we actually agree here more than we disagree. I believe you and I want to see the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. We just disagree on the exact method for providing that. I would not say that consumerism is bad. But I do believe that like anything, too much can be a bad thing (as can too little). Would you agree?

Again, I thank you for taking the time to respond. My brain needed some exercise.

[Dave Bruno]

I feel sheepish contributing to this excellent discussion :-)

Let me just add a few things to clarify and muddy the points already made.

First, even though I have not had time to read the Reason article on the connections between anti-consumerism and neo-Marxism, I don't buy it. There have been plenty of expressions of ascetic or thrift lifestyles long before Marxism.

For example, in my own religious tradition, Christianity, illustrations range from monasticism to Quakers; from the asceticism of the Church Fathers to the thrift of the Puritans. All examples produced thriving local economies and even contributed to larger economies.

And yet, like all things, it is not so simple. Most scholars agree that the beginning of suburbia began outside of London with the "Clapham Sect," a group of well-off Christians committed to addressing the issues of their times including abolition and other social reforms. These people lived nothing like an ascetic lifestyle. And if they were generally financially responsible, they were hardly thrifty in the manner of Quakers or North American Puritans.

There are of course post-Marx critiques of consumerism that are hardly Marxist. G. K. Chesterton wrote a good deal about the problems of consumerism. Chesterton was not a Marxist. And of course, it would be down-right silly to call Pope John Paul II a Marxist even though he penned Centesimus annus.

It is quite possible to offer up criticisms of consumerism without being a Marxist. I strongly resist that connotation.

Secondly, while I am considerably untrained in economics, still I am willing to put my assertion to the test. Again, my claim is that "resources and money used well is always good for an economy." I do not believe this is sum-zero economics.

(I've just deleted a few paragraphs. This point will have to be fleshed out in additional posts.)

Third, I completely agree that there have been many benefits to industrialization. Advances in health, as MB sites, are a great example. But consumerism has provided the catalyst for many abuses. The healthcare industry is ripe with examples of inappropriate marketing of drugs that prioritize profit at the expense of the public's well-being. Do such abuses implicate all pharmaceuticals? Of course not. And neither do the positive results of medical advances absolve the corporations that abuse the system.

Well, that's enough for my yammering on tonight. Thanks for the great comments MB and Sarah.

[MB]

Hi, Dave,

I fully acknowledge that non-Marxists have promoted the value of ascetic or thrifty lifestyles. They have done so because they believe that the accumulation of possessions led ultimately to an insidious form of entrapment, a loss of human freedom or spiritual integrity. And they have chosen to live different kinds of lifestyles that eschew the warping lure of "stuff."

However, if you visit the website of the premiere anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters.org (the organizers of Buy Nothing Day and Buy Nothing Christmas), you will find an article lauding the Marxist dictatorship of Cuba ("In Havana they have a different kind of advertising. Instead of billboards selling fast food, designer jewelry and beer there is graffiti promoting peace, love and socialism"). You will find a woman ranting against "the bald, blatant, oppressive, damaging, misogynistic forces" that resulted in her giving birth to her son in a hospital, with an epidural, and with the assistance of modern medical technology. You will find a caricature of the American flag that replaces the stars with brand logos. And much more.

In other words, the goal of Adbusters.org is not to promote asceticism -- but to advance Marxist attacks on capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and technology. Adbusters does not promote thrift as an individual choice; it venerates statist, socialistic systems that would force all of us to live in a certain way, whether we like it or not. This is not freedom, or choice!

Dave, you say that "Resources and money used well is always good for the economy." However, no two people will agree on what it means to use resources or spend money "well"! How does one arrive at a definition of "well" that accommodates the needs and preferences of a diversified and heterogeneous population?

You criticize pharmaceutical companies "that prioritize profit at the expense of the public's well-being." Such complaints about drug companies are common—they are seen by many as evil profiteers who exploit the sick, the vulnerable, and the elderly by charging exorbitant prices for necessary medications. But note that many of these medications would never have been discovered in the first place in the absence of a profit motive! The research and development, clinical testing, and approval processes are lengthy and expensive, and all have to be accommodated in the ultimate price of a drug. I would also argue that the very discovery of an important new breakthrough drug for Alzheimer's or arthritis *is itself* a vital contribution to public well-being. We should actually be thankful for the pharmaceutical companies—because we all would be a lot MORE vulnerable without their ceaseless desire to generate profits by curing illnesses. :)

Hope you're well!
-MB

[Somebody]

MB, I find your argument basically flawed, mostly because of one reason only.

I grant that you're able to list numerous real advances in our material reality. Then, however, you seem to toss all that aside, and confuse increased consumption (of material resources) and GNP *as such* (together with increased population) as measures of "progress", completely ignoring the material reality we live in.

Yes, I'm perfectly willing to denounce the zero-sum game straw man that you manage to slay. But that doesn't mean we can fully ignore material reality in the way you seem to do.

Forgive me for saying this, but you make an absurd assertion by basically saying that an increase of population is always a good thing, no questions asked.

I quote, emphasis added:
"Would it be better, in your opinion, if there were 6 million people instead of 6 billion? Or maybe a global population of 600,000 would be more optimal, since we would collectively use fewer resources? I simply can't agree with this. Personally, I see *every human life* as precious and vital, and I regard *every new addition* to the world's population as something to be celebrated.

On a collective level, the more people we have, the more potentially inventive, imaginative, artistic, and resourceful minds there are to benefit us all—not only now, but for the future. Had we not had a critical mass of people, we may never have had a Shakespeare, a Mozart, an Einstein, or a Churchill."

I'm willing to agree on the first, humanist, claim that every *life* is precious, purely on philosophical grounds.

However, what I object to is the (unqualified) claim that every *addition* to the global population is valuable. (Or, as you seem to imply, even *necessary* as "resourceful minds" "to benefit us all", perhaps to be able to create solutions to our problems.) It simply doesn't hold water.

By your logic, extending your figures in the other direction, if the globe (and Mars) can sustain 6 billion people, it can equally well (or even better, considering all the resourceful minds added?) sustain 60 billion, 600 billion, or 6000 billion people.

(All of them living in your "16,000-square-foot houses" too, should they so prefer. Or, quite frankly ("that's quite honestly up to them"), why not a bit larger - there just seems to be no practical limit to your claims.)

Do you really want to say what it looks like you're saying?

That there are *absolutely no* reasonable limits to our consumption of *material* (real) resources?

(I'd also like to ask you, how may the hundreds of millions of "resourceful minds" who just happen to be born in poverty, without any possibility of decent education, ever use their full potential to become what they can, to fulfill what you envision as their glorious fate?)

*

This is the basic problem with your argument, the "limitless growth" argument, where you seem to confuse money (GNP) or well-being or inventive, artistic etc. quality with material consumption.

Yes, through innovation and ingenuity, we can use material resources and energy more efficiently, to produce growth, in other words to produce more "money", more room for inventive, artistic etc. qualities in life, more "well-being" even. Of course.

But our use of material resources can not grow beyond what the planet will allow* and what the ecosystem will sustain, all things considered.

*) All things considered meaning that we can of course bring in resources from space as well - that's an even longer discussion.

The point I want to stress is that "progress" does not equate to "increased consumption of material and ecosystem resources". Consumption here being of the kind indicated by the word's etymology, in the sense that when something is consumed, it is destroyed.

*

So yes, once more, our ingenuity may do a lot of good for us.

It may improve our material well-being, as you've demonstrated.

It may also improve our ability to use the material resources available to us more efficiently, to produce more well-being out of the same input.

What it doesn't allow, however, is for us to consume (that is, destroy) limitlessly.

You say that "we can overcome almost any limitation through ingenuity". I'm inclined to agree, to an extent, but I've decided to focus on the crucial qualifying word in your statement, "almost". There are limits, and they are very real, and I wouldn't like for us to ignore them.

I am willing to defend everyone's personal right in their own lives to *choose* what they think is important for them. And equally well I will denounce anyone's right to oppress others.

But what I'm not willing to accept is destruction of means of living from others in the name of "personal liberty for everyone". Because that is not anymore deciding "on and in their own lives" only, but encroaches very seriously upon others and others' lives, and that is the worst kind of oppression towards those who are denied their means of living or living well, including future generations.

*

As I said, I will and have denounced the "fundamentally static argument", because life isn't static.

Now, *fully embracing the dynamic argument*, but also keeping in mind that we do live in a material reality, with material constraints, I would like to ask whether you're willing to entertain these few thoughts:

- That we (currently, or at the point you project, in 2042 with a population of 9 billion, or at any other point in time) may be doing damage to the ecosystem faster than our ingenuity can find ways to avert this? (As sarah points out, in a dynamic outlook, it's a question of "rates", and if / whether we're able to remedy what possible damage we do.)

- And that, consequently, limiting our destruction of material resources (what may also be called consumption), to allow us relatively more time to develop ways around the problems, might be a wise course of action, all things considered?

- And lastly, the point that brought us into this discussion - that using money to *produce* employment and well-being for people does not absolutely "need" to *destroy* (consume) as much material resources (or energy) as it does?

- Or, in other words, that we can possibly produce more well-being (for ourselves and others) and less damage (to the parties involved, including the environment) by applying more consideration towards what exactly we use our money on (and if yes, that doing so would make sense)?

*

As a postscript, I'm afraid parts of my comment may come across as harsh or even hostile - that is not my intention (and I may not master all the subtleties of expression to make it clear otherwise). Nothing personal is intended, but instead it does seem that I found that some of your points deserved to be disagreed upon rather forcefully. I may however agree with you (and have) on numerous other points.

[MB]

Hi, Sarah,

I somehow missed your very thoughtful and interesting response above, but I'm glad I had the opportunity to read it!

I do of course agree with you that it is better to live in a beautiful world than an ugly one. I live a fairly ascetic life myself, but my most important motivations for doing so are aesthetic and psychological. I really cannot stand clutter, since too much of it makes me feel bewildered, disorientated, and even depressed. I prefer things stripped down to their essentials, which frequently are extraordinarily beautiful in themselves. I do believe deeply in beauty, both man-made and natural. But I also believe in human progress, individual freedom, global democracy, and the superiority of economic systems organized around such virtues.

When I talked about economic collapse, I was imagining (hypothetically) that Dave was wildly successfuly in getting people to sign on to his pledge to consume far less than they now do. I agree that the world has always had fringe groups that choose to live a life with relatively few possessions. However, I was asking Dave to consider that anti-consumerism is not itself an unqualified good. Taken too far, it could destroy economies and even create global political chaos.

The question of population size - specifically, how many people the planet can feasibly support - is an interesting one. The problem with debating it, though, is that we act as if we can exert some kind of control over human reproduction, something only the most totalitarian regimes would even try to do. Look at communist China's efforts to control family size, for instance. Even if we decide that 6.5 billion people is too many, what do we do about it?

In the meantime, my stance is that if the planet can support all these people and more, then let it do so! I do believe that the Malthusians will be proven wrong in the end.

I do think we agree; I want to see as much life, liberty, and happiness as possible, and I think you do too. :) And yes, I do agree that too much consumption - especially when it is consumption that creates uncontrolled indebtedness - is an awful thing. We do need to regain some sense of sanity in how much we spend, and we also have to recover the impetus to save and invest.

Thank you for responding!

MB

[MB]

Hi, Somebody,

Thanks for your comments, and I appreciate the points you make about my arguments. As regards the possibility of limitless population growth, I do not, of course, have a crystal ball -- but based on recent history, I would caution against making "ceteris paribus" arguments about science, technology, and ecology. The last hundred years alone has seen advances that someone living in the nineteenth century would never have imagined possible. So who is to say what the 21st and 22nd centuries will bring? Almost certainly we will see unparalleled revolutions in producing energy and food. We will see incredible advances in genetics and medical science. And we may even see human beings colonizing other planets. This is entirely within the realm of possibility.

As to whether we have irreparably damaged the Earth's ecosystem -- the short answer is that I am not a scientist, and even if I were, I wouldn't have a defined answer! The global warming argument popularized by Al Gore is widely accepted as truth, but it contains innumerable questionable assertions. Experts agree that the climate is changing, but there is disagreement as to whether all, some, or any change can be attributed to anthropogenic factors.

I've noted above in my reply to Sarah the problem with debating what population size is right for the planet -- it assumes that we have some degree of technocratic control over human sex and reproduction, which we don't. The same goes for debates about "limiting people's consumption." How would we actually do this, without assuming some degree of autocratic control over their lives, à la the former Soviet Union?

Thanks for your response!
MB

[sarah]

Wow, looks like I am missed a lot of excitement here the last couple of days!

@Dave - I don't think you should ever feel sheeping about contributing a discussion you started. I think there is some kind of rule about that.

One thing that occured to me, as I read your list of non-Marxist critiques of consumerism is that with the possible exception of Chesterton (whom I understand was a Christian), share one major assumption with Marxists, and that is that the form of life ought to be set by some outside authority (whether it be God or the State). I would be curious to know if, during your readings, you've come across any critiques of consumerism that are not based either in religion or Marxism. I can't think of any off-hand, but then this is not my area of expertise.

Your point about pharmaceuticals is an interesting one. I don't know much about the industry, but I do sometimes wonder if there isn't a certain degree of conflict, health advances being in private hands. I have had some personal experiences to support this (namely an allergist who prescribed five different medications to treat my various symptoms - I was able to get the same relief using a single over-the-counter drug only occasionally). The doctor in question mentioned "working with drug companies," and that makes me wonder now if "working with" meant something more like "working for." Not necessarily an indictment of drug companies themselves, as this could all be pinned on the doctor and various salesmen. But I do think that Americans do tend to be over-medicated. I have, of course, absolutely no evidence to back up this feeling. I think it's another symptom of our over-indulgent lifestyle, though. Too much spending, too much debt, too many pills, etc.

@MB - According to the Adbusters website, they aren't simply anti-consumers. They're anti-anything-that-qualifies-as-mainstream. As such, I am not sure they're a good example of either Dave's position or what he's ultimately trying to accomplish, particularly since much of his motivation seems to come from his faith, something the Adbusters folks would probably frown on. They appear to be much further out in left field than Dave and most likely the majority of his audience here. I am not sure it's fair to conflate Dave's goals with those of Adbusters. I am not even sure if Dave qualifies as an anti-consumer, as he doesn't insist that people stop shopping altogether (unless I missed that post, which is possible). As radical as Dave's 100 Thing project might be, even he has given it bounds - it's a one-year experiment. He's even encouraging consumerism by selling off some of his possessions to get to 100 things. (I hope, by the way, that you've passed some of your criticism along to the Adbusters folks. They look like they could use a little reining in. Also, I respond to your second post below.)

@Somebody - In taking MB's argument to its logical conclusion, you've demonstrated some of the flaws in his line of thinking. Unfortunately, I think you've missed a factor that MB has stated a couple of times, that would change the outcome you're painting. MB has not advocated /increased/ consumption. Nor has he advocated that we continue to consume at our present rate, strictly speaking. What he seems to be concerned about (and I am assuming you're male, MB, forgive me if I'm wrong) is that just like our freedoms are being curtailed as a result of our fear of terrorism, our freedom to choose may be further curtailed by a fear of "running out." MB states quite clearly that he believes technology will result in the more efficient use of resources. This would result in lower rates of consumption, not greater. And his point stands - how do you balance the percieved needs of our species (we're running out of resources) with what we assume to be our rights as humans (to choose the manner in which we live). This seems to be your issue as well. Am I correct in understanding that you're concerned that some people will need to have their right to choose abridged so that others can have increased choice? I am not sure I understand how you would propose to protect the rights of, say, an Ethiopian without impinging upon the rights of, say, a German. This is a difficult question, and if you've any ideas I'd love to hear them. I hope I have not misunderstood you.

I believe you and I agree, at bottom. It appears to me that our citizenry engages in too much thoughtless consumerism, which has led them into unsustainable lifestyles (too much debt being a major issue). I do believe that people ought to be a little more careful about what they spend their money on, but also agree with MB that taken too far, a decrease in spending can also have negative effects. As we seem to have a tendecy for overdoing things, as a people, there is definietly some validity to MB's concerns.

@MB - It sounds like you and I have more in common that it initially appeared. I too am not fan of clutter. It makes me feel a bit anxious.

I don't have an answer to this question myself, as it only just occurred to me. I was wondering what you might think: you said that you believe in "human progress, individual freedom, global democracy, and the superiority of economic systems organized around such virtues." I note the plural systems. I know very little about economics myself (but am glad to learn, if you can shed some light). I assume that you would count capitalism as one of these systems, and that you would consider our American system capitalistic. What other systems would qualify here? Are they in practice anywhere?

Also, and this is a thorny question - I would like to believe in progress, but I am not sure that I can define such a thing. Can you describe to me what you would consider progress? (Not trying to be argumentative, just looking for some insight into a question I have often struggled with myself.)

Regarding population size - as I understand it, reproductive rates tend to drop with education, economic well-being, and equal rights (particularly for women). In answer to your question, then, the best way to control population isn't to /take away/ the right to bear children, but to give them the opportunity to do something else that's meaningful, via education and access to opportunity. As you seem to advocate this generally, it seems you've already got the solution. And one that doesn't involve controlling sex and reproduction. Perhaps this can serve as an example of one of the ways in which increased knowledge (of which technology is a byproduct) has served to help ease the pressure that some people feel the planet is under.

Very interesting stuff!

Sarah

[sarah]

*sigh*

My kingdom for an editor. Sorry you guys had to stumble over my errors. I'll try to do better next time.

[MB]

Hi, Sarah,

Thanks for your many interesting thoughts!

About Adbusters: I wasn't at all trying to align Dave's 100 Thing Challenge with their politics. I suppose my point was that those of us who oppose consumerism and the accumulation of "stuff" for non-Marxist (or even nonpolitical) reasons should be wary of groups that are engaged in wider campaigns against capitalism and liberal democracy.

When I referred to "systems" in the plural, I was talking about the different hybrid systems currently in place throughout the free world, which are invariably part capitalist and part statist. The Index of Economic Freedom ranks countries according to their scores on various economic criteria, such as fiscal freedom, monetary freedom, government size, property rights, etc., and usefully indicates those countries that have most embraced freedom alongside those that are most hostile to it. Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia top the listings, while Libya, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and North Korea are at the bottom.

The American system, like most others, is a system of "managed capitalism." But I don't know that I would consider it capitalist, especially with the government making (or planning to make) such huge interventions in the financial and health care sectors, and levying ever-higher taxes. An income tax means that the government partly owns your labor; a property tax means that the government partly owns your home. How much more of their freedom Americans are prepared to give up remains to be seen—but we are about to see a liberal supermajority not experienced since the 1930s, which will inevitably empower the public sector at the expense of taxing, regulating, and further weakening the private sector. Over the longer term, I see the balance of power shifting towards the emergent economies of Eastern Europe and Asia, which are doing a much better job of promoting education and prosperity.

As for progress—I would measure this by humankind's movement toward greater freedom, knowledge, health, prosperity, peace, and well-being. I see progress as continuing the journey that led us from the ancient world to the Renaissance, to the Enlightenment, and to the economic and technological miracles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This is by no means a linear journey, and involves variously overcoming superstition, ignorance, tyranny, autocracy, communism, and other movements hostile to the idea of humankind's self-realization. I hope that's not too vague!

I agree that family size tends to drop when people (especially women) become better educated and more politically free. Obviously having access to contraception matters greatly as well. The problem we now see, though, is that fertility rates in some countries, particularly in Western Europe, have fallen far below replacement (defined as an average of 2.1 children per woman). With the European Union as a whole having an average fertility rate of only 1.5 children per woman, the native population of those countries is shrinking at a rate of one-third with each passing generation. Meanwhile, women in the developing world often have many more children—Mali and Niger top the list, with fertility rates of 7.34 and 7.29 children per woman—and so the balance of populations continues to shift. These demographic changes will create many challenges for the world to come.

Hope you're well!
MB

[sarah]

MB,

Thank you for taking the time, once again, to elaborate. You've given me some interesting things to think about. I can see I need to do some more reading up on this topic.

I hope I will see you here again, in the comments.

Sarah