Addiction & Consumer Choice under Neoliberalism
Addictiveness increases consumer retention and engagement in food, pharmaceuticals, social media, gambling, tobacco, pornography, mobile gaming and other industries where companies seek to maximize their profits.
In the realm of food, companies have been known to use additives and flavour enhancers to make their products more enticing and addictive. They carefully engineer the taste, texture, and even the packaging to stimulate and trigger cravings. The goal is to create a cycle of desire and consumption that generates repeat sales and brand loyalty.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers have aggressively marketed highly addictive prescription drugs, such as opioids, without fully disclosing the risks involved. This has led to a devastating opioid crisis in many parts of the world, with severe consequences for individuals and communities.
Social media platforms and technology companies thrive on user engagement and time spent on their platforms. They employ algorithms and design features that exploit psychological vulnerabilities to keep users hooked and continuously scrolling. Notifications, likes, and other forms of instant gratification create a feedback loop that encourages addictive behaviours and constant online presence.
The gambling industry capitalizes on the human propensity for risk-taking. Casinos and online gambling platforms use various tactics, such as flashing lights, enticing sounds, and near-misses, to keep players engaged. The convenience of mobile gambling apps has made it even easier for individuals to develop addictive gambling habits.
This list is far from exhaustive, and companies think in terms of attracting customers and retaining them, which clearly incentivises making products & services addictive. But what about the consumers themselves? Who one might argue should have the freedom to choose what kinds of products & services they want to consume.
The failure of some to enjoy a product in moderation can be construed as a personal failure. Responsible consumers may resent that entire industries are heavily regulated or outright banned, depriving them of what they were enjoying in moderation. The idea of someone else coming into their lives and telling them what they can & can't do can trigger frustration.
To what extent should consumers be free to make choices about what products and services they consume in the context of neoliberal capitalism?
In the realm of food, companies have been known to use additives and flavour enhancers to make their products more enticing and addictive. They carefully engineer the taste, texture, and even the packaging to stimulate and trigger cravings. The goal is to create a cycle of desire and consumption that generates repeat sales and brand loyalty.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers have aggressively marketed highly addictive prescription drugs, such as opioids, without fully disclosing the risks involved. This has led to a devastating opioid crisis in many parts of the world, with severe consequences for individuals and communities.
Social media platforms and technology companies thrive on user engagement and time spent on their platforms. They employ algorithms and design features that exploit psychological vulnerabilities to keep users hooked and continuously scrolling. Notifications, likes, and other forms of instant gratification create a feedback loop that encourages addictive behaviours and constant online presence.
The gambling industry capitalizes on the human propensity for risk-taking. Casinos and online gambling platforms use various tactics, such as flashing lights, enticing sounds, and near-misses, to keep players engaged. The convenience of mobile gambling apps has made it even easier for individuals to develop addictive gambling habits.
This list is far from exhaustive, and companies think in terms of attracting customers and retaining them, which clearly incentivises making products & services addictive. But what about the consumers themselves? Who one might argue should have the freedom to choose what kinds of products & services they want to consume.
The failure of some to enjoy a product in moderation can be construed as a personal failure. Responsible consumers may resent that entire industries are heavily regulated or outright banned, depriving them of what they were enjoying in moderation. The idea of someone else coming into their lives and telling them what they can & can't do can trigger frustration.
To what extent should consumers be free to make choices about what products and services they consume in the context of neoliberal capitalism?
Comments (71)
Quoting RogueAI
That's true, but people's decision-making within the context of addiction could be construed as being compromised, and that the poor decision-making of addicts is a primary cause for concern with addiction. What's your view on this?
Governments could reduce the potential for addiction by regulating or banning the use of substances or tactics proven to cause addiction. Laws could incentivise the reduction of addictive tactics such as a sugar tax or warning labels. Limiting advertising. Limiting how many stores can sell such products within an area, or laws against establishing casinos in city centres or other hot spots. Reducing serving or cup sizes for unhealthy foods & drinks.
Options are nuanced & varied, but the commonality is government intervention since businesses aren't likely to do anything differently of their own accord.
Though I don't want to discuss the merits of the options, each one is complex and multifaceted. I am
investigating the conditions under consumer health trumps consumer choice, or vice versa.
Quoting Judaka
To me its less about freedom to choose as it is about whats presented for choices.
Were free to choose between a Honda, a Ford, a Chevy, etc. Were free to choose Anthem, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Harvard Pilgrim, Cigna, etc. Thats supposed to be proof of the benefits of capitalism. Ditto Republicans and Democrats for that matter.
Very little talk about what most people really want: efficient public transit, a public option for health insurance, etc.
So the idea is: we, corporate America, will present you dumbass consumers with the options weve decided and a couple buttons to push. Thats freedom and democracy. At least its not that great evil, communism.
Aside: In what industries are they NOT seeking to maximize profits?
I prefer to group drug or alcohol use and gambling as additions, and activities like shopping, gaming, social media, exercise. and pornography use as habituating behaviors. Some of the same brain mechanisms are active in both kinds of behaviors, but addiction (e.g., to meth) is a far more severe task master than YouTube.
That said, you are certainly correct in claiming that businesess use both addiction (e.g., Purdue Pharma) and habituation (e.g., FaceBook) to maintain and expand their customer base.
I'm not sure how Neoliberalism figures into the problem of businesses manipulating customers, except that government conducts oversight over the marketplace with fewer tools, fewer personnel, and greater passivity. Getting people to buy stuff they don't really need is fairly hard work requiring a lot of ingenuity and employment of every [not illegal] trick in the book. But... we are all in favor of a vigorous economy (growing GDP) are we not?
I'm not sure about how badly people want a public option for health insurance, but it certainly sounds like exaggeration to claim most people want efficient public transit. Some people do, certainly--I do--but it seems like the reluctance to use public transit -- even when it is efficient and accessible, is pretty strong.
Tobacco is a good example of this. Over the last 50 years, tobacco use has been substantially reduced by a combination of price factors, banning indoor smoking, tighter policing of tobacco sales, and public health education. The unavoidable fact of lung cancer helped. Taxes have helped raise the cost of a pack of cigarettes in some states to over $9. Each cigarette costs at least 45¢ at that price. E-cigarettes have undermined some level of past reductions, and too many young people are taking up tobacco use in one form or another. But the thing is, smoking is much less common now than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
Intensive public health work costs money, and under neoliberal budgets, smoking cessation (and sexually transmitted disease prevention) efforts have been significantly reduced.
68% want a public option; about 65% + favor public transit. Not hard to see why.
I wonder if that has just been offset by vaping and now marijuana. That is, more alternatives.
Drugs have traditionally been through the black market, which isn't part of corporate America. I've heard that many still prefer to buy marijuana the old fashioned way and not at dispensaries.
The point being that addictive substances find their way into the most restrictive of systems, even in prisons. It hasn't been into recently that a legalization movement has been afoot.
I guess you can say that street dealing is the most basic form of capitalism, but I would think that sort of trade would exist even in Marxist system (assuming it is non-totalitarian).
Both can occur. But I was responding to the OP, which includes the following:
Quoting Judaka
Marijuana smoking is more difficult to track because there are no "standard" joints like there are standard cigarettes, and not all marijuana sales are through state-licensed shops. Smokable marijuana is sold in bulk (quite small bulk packages) rather than in standardized joints. Some marijuana smokers share their product with others.
Marijuana does not normally result in emergency room visits, so that data point is out. Doctors and hospitals ask about street drugs; I would guess the self-reports on street drug use are the very model of unreliable.
I think there is an assumption among many marijuana smokers that inhaling unfiltered smoke and holding it as log as possible is somehow without consequences. "Marijuana smoking is associated with large airway inflammation, increased airway resistance, and lung hyperinflation, and those who smoke marijuana regularly report more symptoms of chronic bronchitis than those who do not smoke." NIDA
Although public transportation is a high priority among Americans, only about 5% use it to commute to work. Outside the cities I doubt 65% want to move away from the private automobile.
Manufacturers market to pharmacy wholesalers and to doctors. I can understand how medical staff might not be familiar with a totally new class of drug, but how the hell is it that doctors and pharmacists were not aware that opioids are addictive? Opioid addiction has been around for a LONG time!
Thats nice. Unfortunately I prefer going by polling, not personal feelings. Its also worth remembering about half of Americans have no access to public transit. Theyre not even given the option. Of the transit that does exist, its been systematically defunded over the years and next to comparable countries is a laughingstock. Which isnt an accident.
I guess we can choose to believe its somehow human nature that everyone wants a car, but when looking at the history its just not true. Its been manufactured, like many other things in American life and which the OP touches on.
Quoting BC
Indeed, that is how it factors in.
Quoting BC
Haha...
Since the ideas of neoliberalism and liberalism have been purposefully tied together, and the idea of freedom from government intervention also ties into freedom for consumers, I wanted to look at things from this perspective. Regulating industries would mean directly influencing businesses in what products & services they can provide to consumers and under what conditions. So, the freedom to do with your money, health, and time as you will, is undermined by government intervention, hence terms like "nanny state".
Can we draw a line on where attempts to regulate industries are right to be perceived as an attack on individual freedom? When do people have the right to make their own bed and lie in it so to speak?
Quoting BC
To what extent did the effects of second-hand smoking influence political will? Would our liberal societies have been less keen on regulations if the harm of smoking only impacted the smoker themselves?
Perhaps instead of asking where regulation is an attack on personal freedom, the individual lens should be critiqued by emphasising the social cost of addiction.
Quoting Judaka
To what extent are consumers aware that more important than freedom to choose in this context is freedom to refuse? And that, as per your analysis, fostering addiction is the corporate war on freedom to refuse (because that freedom is an existential threat to them). But from freedom to refuse comes the self, so their war is on us and our capacity to understand our situation. Education would be nice but relative GDP is the dominant indicator of a "successful'' society, so it seems we're in a Moloch-type race to the bottom.
Such as, there is no such thing as second-hand alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine, fentanyl, etc? Second-hand smoke helped the anti-smoking cause.
Some people (maybe a very large number) have little sympathy for the problems of addicts whose use is seen to affect only themselves. Until, of course, the deleterious effects of addiction do cause problems for other people. Then the response may not be empathetic.
Second hand smoke is harmful, of course, but the initial effort to reduce smoking was driven by the very high rates of cancer and heart disease among smokers. Second-hand smoke became an actionable issue in the 1980s/90s.
In areas where indoor smoking has been banned for some time, and the number of smokers has been reduced to a low 2-digit percentage of adults (like 15%), there seems to be increased hostility toward the remaining smokers.
What are you trying to do -- cause a world-wide depression? (joke)
I'm not sure that sparse possessions, in itself, builds character. Character may have to come first.
Quoting Baden
We can practice thrift, minimal consumption, healthful lifestyles, and character building through rigorous moral calisthenics, but IF everyone is to be fed, housed, clothed, educated, cared for, usefully employed, etc., we best have solid-enough GDP.
Rather than Moloch, I prefer the view that we have been parasitized by rich people who always require MORE from the working class who always have to put up with LESS. To paraphrase Jesus, "the rich you will always have with you" but we can certainly substantially reduce their number and demands through the usual and customary Nordic democratic socialism, with just the lightest touch of soviet purge.
The US applied the Nordic model after WWII, through cooperation of labor, capital, and government. That happy arrangement lasted roughly from 1945 to 1970, them things went back to suppressing the working class, exalting capital, and neoliberalizing government.
Quoting BC
Another comparison could be of viewing obesity through the lens of the health cost it incurs on the public. The critical factor is that an individual's right to make choices at the cost of their personal well-being could only be undermined in the instance where their personal choices came at a significant cost to others. For smoking, that one's right to smoke infringes upon another's right to health and safety.
Neoliberal supporters often invoke concepts of personal responsibility, and this is the defence given against the regulation of industries. Since children can't be held to the same standards of personal responsibility, that becomes a critical factor in where regulation might be accepted.
Personal responsibility and the right of consenting adults to make their own choices, for me, fail to capture the nature of how processes such as addiction compromise rational thinking. The predominant narrative ignores the addiction aspect, and instead, focuses on the flaws and failures of the individual.
Though, I also disagree with the indifferent acceptance of brutal consequences for those who make bad decisions.
Regulation is often opposed on the basis of personal liberty and is not actually always that popular. For supporters, these issues are thought of through the lens of consumer choice and individual freedom.
bingChat:
Quoting Baden
I'm extremely individualistic, in so far as I oppose collectivist thinking, but individualistic thinking that I disdain is where international, systemic issues are thought of in the individual context. As though, for instance, the obesity epidemic would be solved if people were just less lazy and had more willpower.
That if there was an improvement in the work ethic, wisdom, and capabilities of individuals, such issues would be resolved as people made smarter and better choices.
I think this mentality is actually the predominant one, it is perceived as pragmatic and intuitive, even by very intelligent people. Addiction is just another such issue. Unless the circumstance is one where no action could've been taken by the individual to avoid misfortune, any attempt to place blame on something besides them will be viewed as an unhelpful failure to take responsibility. That the pragmatic thing is to learn from one's mistakes and the mistakes of others.
Perhaps this is why cases like oxycodone are viewed sympathetically, because it's understood that victims can't be blamed, as trusting one's doctor isn't a mistake to be corrected.
This has, intended or not, the effect of putting all of the blame on individuals and not companies, and I think that's how we as a culture view it. To counter this way of thinking seems necessary to bring about meaningful change. I personally, see this cultural perception as the main obstacle to change, rather than misconceptions about economics, but I could be wrong.
Quoting Hanover
The key question is if rates of lung cancer are continuing to drop or whether they are starting to move in the wrong direction.
Not sure that's correct: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/27/health/cigarette-smoking-decline/index.html#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20adults%20who,are%20becoming%20even%20more%20popular.
New lung cancer diagnoses continue to decline because of a decades earlier and continuing decline in the number of active smokers. If, tomorrow, smoking became as common as it was 60 years ago, the pattern of lug racer would not change for maybe 20 or 30 years; then it would start to rise again.
Earlier detection and better treatment has reduced the certainty of death from lung cancer, but it is still the leading cancer in the US.
I'm not saying I know of any solution better than the Nordic model either. Which is what? Consumerist lite? I will continue to loudly complain though. :smile:
Quoting Judaka
The approach is always on one level self-contradictory and on another totally consistent. Self-contradictory in that the solution tends to be dominated by some or other consumer context (buy a gym membership or low fat foods or this diet book or do this ad-laden online course etc) the logic of which is to process real willpower (freedom to refuse) into freedom of choice--while being saturated in talk of willpower. And totally consistent in that that is just what consumerism is, an attempt to process the will / freedom away to create malleable and reliable consumers that are as predictable, manipulable, and 'free' as farm animals.
The information on middle and high school students use of e-cigarettes is depressing. Tobacco smoke (well, any smoke produced and inhaled under similar circumstances) produces a rich mix of chemicals, none of which are beneficial to health. Vaping doesn't involve incineration, but the fluid in which nicotine is delivered is chemically complex and not healthy. I don't have any information on long-term consequences of vaping (aside from nicotine addiction).
We could blame obesity on sloth, gluttony, and greed IF it were the case that fat people were uniformly lazy, gluttonous, and never satiated. They are not. Further, the obesity epidemic slops over into places that have no right whatsoever to have many overweight people (given the relative poverty of the place). It is estimated that 2 billion people are overweight / obese. Why? Bad food: high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt, energy-dense, and micronutrient-poor foods, which tend to be lower in cost. These are the kind of "foods" purveyed by many corporations in the food business.
Households can be found with children who are both undernourished (in terms of essential nutrients) and are overweight.
We can dream. Anyhow, I saw something cool today that's a propos. Some graffiti downtown read "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?'' Someone had written on a post-it note stuck up next to it ''Because I'm smart.''
:love:
Cancer surgery and covid helped me lose weight I was happy to be rid of, but I can't really recommend either one of those options. Those sorts of things can lead to one's weight being reduced to a couple pounds of ashes.
It's especially perplexing where people have access to, and can afford healthy food; where they have access to pleasant outdoor spaces, and where they can exercise; where they have access to and can afford information and medical care. There are all sorts of groups and products to help. But losing the weight--and not regaining it--remains damned difficult.
They should be free to make those choices, but it is an unfortunate fact that consumers are heavily exploited for commercial gain.
The problem is a philosophical one. There is no countervailing ideology to consumerism, because there's no philosophical or social framework that recognises anything other than consumption and material goods. There have been many such cultures and probably still are in some pockets of society, but the overwhelming ethos of consumer capitalism is - well - consumption. And it's going to take a lot more than political persuasion or good intentions to change that. Perhaps something like having to adapt to global shortages and wide-scale resource depletion. 'The beasts', saith Heraclitus, 'are driven to the pasture by blows'.
It's a cultural issue, and removing the root problem from one's life is challenging in the West. Even if one is determined to remove the processed junk and sugar from their life, they're surrounded by it, and it's what they're used to, and it's addictive.
Quoting Wayfarer
Wow, I'm not usually one to be outdone in cynicism. What do you mean by this? Surely, consumerism is a large part of Western culture but how can there be no philosophical or social frameworks outside of it? Are you approaching this from an anti-capitalist perspective?
Got any examples in mind? Any particular cultural forms you can point to?
They should be 100% free to make choices about what products and services they consume for the simple reason it is no one elses choice. Not only that but it invariably raises the question of who should decide, and those answers are always undesirable.
It's funny how this principle works to prevent regulation of companies, but somehow doesn't do the same for women's pregnant bodies, for example. In practice it always seems to protect companies, and never seems to protect individual humans at all.
Minimalism is growing in scope. It's generally secular and tends to eschew consumerism and owning lots of objects. I have been an informal and not very focused minimalist for many years. I am currently working to get rid of my car - I lived without heating and cooling for many years and own few appliances. I have noticed over decades that many people who profess spirituality are curiously tied to consumerism and seem to love their creature comfort - pools, cars, clothes, appliances, holiday homes, overseas trips, interior decoration, etc.
Consider the Kumbh Mela festival in India. It celebrates renunciation and draws literally millions (I think I read the last was the largest assembly of humans in history, but then, theres no shortage of people in India.) But the point here is that in Indian culture, renunciation is recognised as a virtue and not just on a personal or individual level. May not be a very practical example, but it represents a very different kind of social philosophy.
Yes. I think the more recent interest in Epicureanism is heading in this direction. It seems capitalism and marketing rule the world - not just in terms of consumerism, but models of reality and human behaviour. I recall a huge movement of countercultural, anti-consumerist philosophy back in the 1970's, some of it was not aligned with Eastern beliefs, it was just anti 'the man' and anti spending on 'rat race' nonsense. Much of this seems to be aligned with aesthetics and oppositional world views.
What would you consider to be an example of a robust philosophical foundation for a frugal lifestyle (as opposed to religious asceticism)?
But it needs something much more profound than a counter-cultural movement, although maybe Im speaking out what I myself most need to do :halo:
Bingo. :100:
Aren't there political, moral, cultural, economic, social and personal views and ideologies that fall outside the scope of consumerism? Don't people value being able to spend more time with their family, their physical & mental well-being and having free time to spend on hobbies etc? It's possible I misunderstood you, so feel free to clarify if that is the case.
Also, I'd say that some of these industries I've mentioned aren't simply about consumerism, such as gambling and social media, or at least, they seem more complicated than that. These industries control our social sphere and entertainment, and I'd imagine even those opposed to consumerism culture might use social media or consume addictive food.
The only western institutional practice of asceticism of which I am aware is the practice of poverty among some religious. Most nuns and monks may have little personal property, but collectively they have access to substantial material resources. There are a few monastic communities who are poor by choice, poor in resources, poor in food, clothing, and shelter. Their lives are quite restricted, mostly spent in prayer. A related institution might be the Catholic Worker Movement which was/is, in some ways, monastic but was deeply engaged in working with the poor and does not involve any profession of vocation.
There are also the occasional preachers of voluntary poverty (which can be entirely secular) and simple living. Voluntary poverty, if embraced fully, involves operating on really pretty marginal resources. The problem with this approach is that in cold climates, shelter and heat are required. Paying rent and heat (and other fixed expenses) requires some level of income. The requirements of employment for income run counter to the practice of poverty, so it's a difficult act to pull off, particularly individually.
Some religious groups practice counter-cultural lifestyles -- the Amish and maybe some Mennonites. But the Amish aren't trying to be poor. They're trying to live at their preferred level of modernity which is roughly what prevailed 150 years ago in rural America.
In sum, I agree -- there are damned few alternatives to consumerism.
The standard for overriding personal choice is usually public safety (as in the limits of the right to privacy) or the public good. This begs the question of who decides what is the public good. No matter what regulatory policy is put in place, it is guaranteed that some group will reject it. Some people feel that it is inherently safer to open-carry firearms than to restrict them. So asking "should people be free to open-carry firearms" is a loaded question, so to speak, since it is really about having a fundamentally different standard of reason.
Isn't it the same in other countries? Basically, if there's no choice but poverty, then consumerism is unimportant, but if it's an option, it's always chosen. Nations such as South Korea, Japan, Singapore, China & many eastern European nations all show the same thing.
"I measure my success by what I own" by country
"I feel under pressure to make a lot of money" by country
These were some very quick examples I found, but I'm confident that they're not misrepresentative, this phenomenon is real. Western nations aren't particularly materialistic, the countries are just generally richer and people can afford more stuff. Isn't that correct?
Yes. I am close to a couple of Catholic sisters and for each of them, everything they own fits into one suitcase. They essentially have a couple of changes of clothing and a few personal items. Of course the church helps with accommodation. Both have jobs in the community which help pay for the order's running costs.
I am envious of anyone who can fit all they own into a suitcase. All my stuff would fit into a small room, but I still have much to learn about minimalism.
Sorry I hadn't noticed this question. See below.
Quoting Judaka
It's not specific to any country - I was referring to modern liberal democratic cultures generally. I'm not anti-democratic or anti-scientific, but at a deep level, liberal democracy is predicated on the idea that material well-being and economic growth is the only meaningful political aim. And in some ways that is true - modernity has lifted massive populations out of agrarian subsistence into relative affluence. India, for example (and also China, although that is not a democracy, but has absorbed many of the aspects of industrial capitalism under single-party control.)
But the fact is that we are moving into a resource-constrained, over-populated world, where it isn't possible that whole populations can consume at the level that the developed world has been taking for granted. But there's no cultural rationale for anything other than that. This is what counter-cultural economics and philosophy has been saying for a long while, but it hasn't really sunk in. In a secular culture, it is difficult to envisage a philosophical rationale for renunciation, which was traditionally associated with ascetic spirituality.
A couple of books on the subject - Prosperity Without Growth Tim Jackson
The Value of Nothing Raj Patel
Okay, I understand now. These issues occur within capitalism and government policies such as ones characteristic of neoliberal capitalism. Businesses are motivated by profit and are incentivised to prioritise it, focusing on their own survival and success over the common good. To prevent practices that go against some greater good, the state would need to regulate their behaviour, unless they owned the industries.
People do care about things like climate change, they care about their health and mental wellbeing. Businesses talk like they're going to act responsibly, they always say the right things, because what people want from them. They just don't follow through. They're too concerned about their competitors gaining an edge over them.
The businesses that succeed, and those who make it to the top within those businesses, aren't representative of the culture overall. They're being selected by their ability to generate profit and grow. A moral way of doing business means not choosing the optimal path to profit, and will thus be outperformed by competitors.
There's also a strong geopolitical aspect, a strong economy means a strong country. A model of non-economic growth would require a less competitive view of geopolitics.
There are many factors involved in this, but it seems like a global phenomenon, and culture hasn't been a key factor behind it. Do you think consumerism is the primary factor, a primary factor or a motivating influence for these other factors, or just generally, where does it fit in for you?
For me, concerns about climate change, pollution and other environmental factors, as well as issues such as worker pay, home affordability, wealth equality and issues such as my OP, are all examples against the idea of "progress at any cost". It's a bit more nuanced than being "against" consumerism, but could you explain how such ideas fit into your perspective?
As I wrote earlier, minimalism (simple living) is defiantly one example. It's a significant, worldwide anti-consumerist philosophy and I know quite a few folk who follow this practice. I met one person recently who refuses to own more than 150 objects - including clothing. She is a successful writer. YouTube has many videos on minimalism, from personal journeys in anti-consumerism, to lengthy documentaries on the benefits of minimalism. Some of it is virtue signalling tosh, but you'll find this anywhere. I've been a minimalist myself in a modest way for many years.
Quoting Judaka
I think business, politics and science all need to involve themselves in this. It's something deeper than culture - it's an ethos, a life philosophy which recognises an alternative to constant entertainment and consumerism. I'm sure that's not necessarily an easy thing to pursue. And to be totally upfront, I'm no advertisement for such qualities, I'm a retirement-age boomer not particularly frugal in my ways. I think the younger generations, the Greta Thalburgs and her ilk, are the ones who will be driving it. And you can probably find examples of corporations attempting to embody such an ethos. (After all, Steve Jobs, who founded Apple Computer, has been described as a 'billion-dollar hippie'.) But there are also plenty who don't. Reminds me of one of those great 1960's slogans, 'be the change you want to see in the world.'
Quoting Tom Storm
Good tip, I'm going to look into that. I'm ideally placed to do it, really, just got to find the enthusiasm for it.
I see. I got it wrong, I'm as usual, indeed the cynical one here.
For me, the effectiveness of culture, morality, law and other corrective influences inversely correlate with power. Though the unpleasantness of the truth leads us instinctively to reject it, the systemic mechanisms that distribute and manage power define our societies. The majority views aren't that relevant. There must be some combination of incentivising, influencing and forcing of the government to regulate businesses, and of businesses to act responsibly, if it is to happen.
Billionaires like Steve Jobs, and more recently Sam Bankman-Fried, may not be concerned about owning fancy things, but they're definitely keen on power, and no less keen on it than any of the others. If our hopes are pinned on the goodwill of such people, we're screwed.
If our system incentivises and rewards actions that lead us down a path to unsustainability and economic inequality and whatever else, then that's where we'll go. Although I'm not saying that you argued against this, I just cringe whenever non-enforced measures, such as what businesses "should" do or "need" to do are emphasised. All such hopes should be abandoned, there is no cause for it. :cry:
1 fork, 1 spoon, 1 knife, 1 bowl, 1 cup, 1 left shoe, 1 right shoe, 1 shirt, 1 pant, 1 hat, 1 house, 1 car, 1 computer, 1 towel, 1 tooth brush, 1 light bulb, 1 chair, 1 blanket, 1 pillow, 1 roll of toilet paper... Hell! it adds up quickly!
My house was built in 1918; 850 square feet on 1 level for a couple and 1 child. Much less than what some people now consider barely habitable for 1 person. No closets? Working class people once had no need for several large closets. They didn't have that many clothes.
There is a source for consumerism; it didn't just arise out of nothing. Edward Bernays and many associates developed methods of manipulating the public for the benefit of, among others, manufacturers and retailers. There has always been a desire among those with enough resources to enhance their lives with better material goods -- so that part isn't new. Over time, let's say from 1901 onward, retailers made concerted efforts to get people to buy more of newly invented, newly manufactured goods. Then, just more.
The resulting increased consumption certainly didn't feel like an evil thing. Consumption increasingly drove production (GDP) and plentiful jobs. We live in the world where consumption has been taken to its logical extreme.
Socialism or communism aren't the cure; their impulse isn't towards minimalism, it's toward equality of resources, and more.
Environmentalism can be a route to minimalism. Get rid of the car, use a bicycle or public transit; consume less; stay home (avoid air travel); get rid of the little pasture on which no cow will ever graze (the lawn).
Religion can be a route to minimalism--asceticism. 150 objects with no car, no computer, that one dim light bulb. Grim but holy. And very good for the environment and the soul.
Asceticism has a huge downside: Were it to be widely practiced, it would send the world's economies into free-fall from which there would be much chaos and many deaths. That's the whole catch to the global warming problem: Bring fossil fuel consumption to a screeching halt and the consequences are severe. Don't halt fossil fuel use, and the consequences are severe.
Culture hasn't been a key factor? Au contraire! Consumerism (I am what I buy) is a key aspect of American and other cultures! No, not everybody, but it's a dominant flavor, like clove and cinnamon. We may have exported consumerism to some places; other places developed it on their own. In itself it isn't such a terrible thing -- having comfortable furniture, a nicely decorated home, a good car, a whizzy computer, a cell phone with great features, high quality food, nice clothes... but consumerism goes beyond that. It's the ever bigger house, more new and better furniture every few years, lavishly decorated homes, 2 or 3 cars, the latest whizzist computer, a new cellphone every year with ever improved great features ($1300, $1400...), extensive travel, meals at nice restaurants, more, more, more.
It's a relentless driver.
It keeps people hard at work to earn enough to at least stay even with the monthly payments on all that stuff. The ruling class was quite aware that home ownership would limit workers willingness to take risks with unions, strikes, and leftist politics. A mortgage helped the relatively powerless buy into the status quo. The 65% of workers who own their own homes have a stake in the system. The system may be less successful in keeping renters at work, but evictions remind renters that they had best get to work every day if they want to stay where they are.
Was there ever a time in human civilisation, when nice things existed, and people didn't want them? In the world over, farmers toiled the fields because they had to, they would've chosen the mansion and fine wines given a choice. Whenever it becomes available, to move to the city, make good money, and buy nice things, the cities swell. The same process is experienced by every industrialised nation.
Consumer culture was something I took more seriously until I learned that developing nations were even more materialistic than we were. Particularly in China, seeing how industrialisation resulted in the very same obsession with owning a nice car, property and owning nice things. How seamlessly everything changed to resemble what we're used to. Culture naturally shifts with the broader change.
As a facilitator, consumer culture has played its role, but culture has been a victim rather than a perpetrator. The previous culture shifts as industrialisation and urbanisation occur, to form some new brand of consumer culture. Whether a society indifferent to such things can exist, I'm dubious, but if it could, I wonder what problems it would be less likely to experience as a consequence.
I wouldn't take the ascetic versions of 'hard' minimalism as its only expression. I think the world can easily manage a radical drop in consumerism. Most of the people I know own way more than 150 objects and don't count their things. But they don't have cars or kitchen appliances, or many clothes or useless furniture. And for the most part they shop in thrift shops. Some of these folk are comfortable financially. I include myself in this group. They still eat out and buy coffees and travel and spend - it just isn't on 'useless' stuff. But we can find faults in any lifestyles. Nothing is perfect.
I have no kitchen appliances - no toaster, kettle, processors, etc. Just an oven and some kitchen tools like a knife, grater, cutlery. No mugs or cups, just a few heatproof glasses. No couch or sofas. No coffee tables or side tables. A couple of years ago I got rid of 2000 books - they were the only things I purchased, mainly second hand. I have about 1000 left. I still own paintings and art - some of which are my parents. These I have struggled to ditch. I still have a long way to go.
There's that Madonna song, written by Peter Brown and Robert Rans, Material Girl (1984). The chorus is...
The existing technology and industry that is available determines the sort of culture we have. Agrarian societies have agrarian cultures based on agrarian technology. It's not 'no tech' but it does tend to be low tech--the devices used to connect the horse to the plow, the plow, the crop yields, the kind of life that horse power makes possible. Not all that bad. Elsewhere, steam is harnessed to do much more work than a horse can. One day, the steam engine pulls a train out into the hinterlands and the agrarian culture is changed by the industrial technology. Now the farmers sell their crops to distant markets and and can buy things from distant warehouses, which the train will deliver. No more home-spun cloth; now they can get nicer cloth made in a factory. No more clunky locally made boots. Now their boots are made in a factory with big machines, better leather, and standard sizes. Much nicer.
Industrial capitalism has different rules than agrarian agriculture--which is what many countries, including the US, had in the past. Industrial capitalism, in the US or China, depends on the reciprocal movement of production and consumption.
Question: What leads the reciprocal process: consumption or production?
It might be production. I have the technology at hand; I can use it to make shoes. But how many shoes should I make? 1 pair per person per year in this city? My factory can do that quite easily, and it will be somewhat profitable. However, I have the capacity to make 2 pairs of shoes per person per year. At that level, I will make more profit and will get richer. But somehow, I have to convince people that they should buy an extra pair of shoes per person per year.
Fortunately, somebody just invented advertising. I can use advertising to convince people that it is actually a very good thing to have 2 pairs of shoes per person per year--a black work boot and a brown oxford. Next year the ideal will be a black work book, a brown oxford, and something new, an fancy slip-on. And so on.
The shoemaker's factory is humming, he's getting rich, and shoes have become fashion. More, more, more.
Industrial production and capitalism's need for ever-expanded markets creates and drives culture. What used to be an agrarian culture of peasants, yeomen farmers, able hard working men and sturdy resourceful women, becomes a dense urban culture of many people working together, doing all sorts of narrowly defined tasks.
In the industrialized, capitalist urban environment, buying and displaying goods has become more than a habit -- it's an economic necessity. The act of buying and having takes on values that were entirely irrelevant or unimaginable in even a prosperous agrarian society. The mountain of products that the factories produce must be bought -- whether or not people need or want them. (Or overproduction leads to a depression.)
Industrialized capitalism is a trap. Once a given culture steps onto the treadmill of production and consumption, it's very hard for it to get off without a crash. And, like all good traps, it isn't really visible until it's too late.
But the relationship between consumerism and industrialism (production) is reciprocal: a radical drop in consumption means less production; less production means fewer jobs, fewer incomes, fewer meals, fewer everything,
Yes, of course, factories could produce strictly for human needs (not wants). Yes, if people stopped consuming so much crap they would have more money left over, everything else being equal. Alas, everything else isn't equal. If consumption were radically reduced, a large share of the world's economy (the jobs people work at to earn wages to support themselves and their families) would disappear.
I would strongly prefer to see a radical reduction in production and consumption (for the sake of the environment, if nothing else) but at the same time, 1 or 2 billion people (or more) don't want to be thrown into destitution.
I don't have a solution to this problem.
It's the same problem as global heating: We need to radically reduce CO2, methane, and CFC emissions YESTERDAY. If we did that, the world's economy would crash. Fossil fuels and industrial production are the core of the world economy. Break the core, and the economy is broken. Unfortunately, we no longer have time to carry out reductions slowly. The upshot, as far as I can tell, is that we are totally screwed.
We'll never know until we try and it looks very much like we have to try. :wink:
But my would-be minimalism isn't motivated by the environment, it is just about my relationship to stuff.
Cool mention. I'm about as minimalist as my wife will let me be. The nice thing about pluralistic societies is that you can -- to some degree, this ain't Heaven yet -- opt out of a dominant lifestyle. I don't have to care about Taylor Swift or save up for a Lexus.
We do look pretty screwed. If you force me to play the optimist, a big breakthrough in fusion might help. If the price of energy was cut in half, what would that mean for us ?
The relationship between consumption and production is complex, but I lean more towards your conclusion that people must consume. We don't just buy fancy shoes, we buy respect, for status, to present an image, to be attractive, stylish, and so on. Many of us struggle with impulse control and as we're surrounded by things to buy, bombarded by advertisements everywhere we go, it can actually be hard to be a minimalist, as well as for many reasons.
I don't think consumer culture is a problem, or that it's causing any of these issues that are being talked about. It's all just part of neoliberal capitalism, or other forms of capitalism with similar features, of a lack of government oversight aimed at mitigating the issues we're describing. We could continue consumer culture while heavily regulating industries to reduce any of the issues mentioned in this thread.
I also don't think consumer culture is why we refuse to allow for regulation in the first place. We're inundated with different products, there's no basis in consumer culture for opposing change. If both of these points are accurate, then I believe that I'm correct in saying it's irrelevant, do you disagree?
I'm not sure "neoliberal" describes capitalism; I see it most often used to describe conservative political policy with respect to regulation, government-sponsored social assistance programs, taxation, unionization and similar matters. I'm 100% anti-neoliberal politics. Capitalism is capitalism whether we're talking about companies making toilet bowels or fast fashion.
"Fast fashion" is the epitome of consumerism. High speed design, manufacture, shipping, low prices, and then "fashionable" clothing which is quickly thrown away. This isn't haute couture, of course.
Quoting Judaka
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what [u]it's[/u] is referring to.
Quoting Judaka
I confess that I have bought expensive shoes -- Allen Edmonds. They're made in Wisconsin and are all-leather (at least the all-leather models are). They're up-market but not fancy, just well built. They are 13 years old and still going strong. I also bought a pair of Allen Edmonds boots several years ago -- built like work boots. I didn't need a pair of brown lace-up work boots by any stretch of the imagination, I don't even go to gay bars where boots are obligatory (I used to go to such places). No, it is all in the image of the shoe, the boot. [Note: of course I bought them on sale :halo:]
Quoting Judaka
Global heating, for instance, isn't being driven by fast fashion or fancy shoes, I would agree. Certainly not by MY shoes. It's being driven by a different grade and scale of consumption -- like automobiles, airplanes, and trucks; like heating and cooling buildings; like global shipping; by waste in gas and oil fields (venting and leaking methane into the atmosphere; by cows -- damn them! It's all that burping up methane while chewing their cuds. But I like beef.
Quoting Judaka
Opposing change or promoting change?
By the way, your OP for this thread is more relevant than a good many topics on the forum.
You mentioned the addictive nature of opiates. I'm not, never have been, addicted to alcohol or opiates, coke, or meth, etc. Instead I'm dependent on an anti-depressant. No doubt, I needed them, and may still need them. I'm not sure because discontinuing the small dose I am on is not an option. I've tried tapering off, etc. and after say 72 hours without, I feel positively horrible -- not depressed, just sick. I've been and am a very reliable customer for Effexor. This is something doctors don't talk about much, but after an extended period of taking these drugs, many people find it impossible to discontinue the drugs. That's why drug manufacturers prefer products like antidepressants to antibiotics. People take appropriate antibiotics for 2 weeks and they are cured. Not much profit in that! Statins and blood pressure meds are the same -- we take them for decades.
Quoting BC
In my view, capitalism is a borderline meaningless term, especially without context. When we think capitalism, we think of free markets, private property rights, the pursuit of self-interest, obnoxious advertising, wealth inequality, the employer-employee relationship, limited government involvement in the economy and so on. However, these are really characteristics of neoliberal capitalism, the form of capitalism that we're used to.
Capitalism has few indispensable features. The most notable indispensable feature is private ownership, and so critiquing capitalism leads to a conversation about state ownership. Despite the fact that most criticism of capitalism is clearly aimed at neoliberal capitalism.
China is the best example, somehow the West unironically praises the miracle of capitalism in China. Despite China's capitalism lacking many of what those same people would call indispensable, core features. Then when it's convenient, it's instead called "state capitalism", think about that term for a moment, and how antithetical it is to Western capitalism.
Many issues we associate with capitalism, such as debt, are far more related to monetary policy and the removal of the gold standard. The way our banks operate isn't part of capitalism, but it's central to how our economies function and our economies are capitalistic. The same goes for stock markets.
The term "neoliberal capitalism" has many advantages, but mostly I've just realised that the term "capitalism" is a trap. People will literally start talking about capitalism from hundreds of years ago, even if it's not even remotely relevant. They'll start talking about the issues with communism. They'll talk about how great capitalism is and how it's lifted so many people out of poverty. All of that gets shut down by just talking about neoliberal capitalism instead. It's new, it refers to modern Western economies, and its indispensable characteristics are the ones I'm generally trying to critique. If one says "Down with capitalism!" vs "Down with neoliberal capitalism!" the meaning is completely different, don't you think?
Quoting BC
Culture or consumer culture.
Quoting BC
Opposing regulation.
Quoting BC
The incentives are all wrong in pharmaceuticals, and yes, it's a terrifying problem. The types of research we do as well, the types of results that we find and get promoted, the prices of drugs and so many other issues.
This is why neoliberalism is wrong. The conflict of interests here for the profit motivation of businesses and their duty of care aren't resolvable by the market, only government intervention can make a difference. This is where morality can be dangerous, it makes people naive. Whenever key decision-makers have a clear incentive to act against the public good, there should be sirens going off. There are no mitigating factors or exceptions, it's a disaster waiting to happen, or just an ongoing one.
No need to break the economy. Could have a war to sell arms to other countries and if it results in a couple of nukes going off we get a nice nuclear winter pushing global warming down the road.
The next best example (because it doesn't exist anymore) was the Soviet Union, where the state operated as the corporation for which everyone worked, whether that was on a collectivized farm music school, or GUM Department Store. There was virtually NO private enterprise in the Soviet Union.
China is a weird hybrid mix. There are state owned businesses, privately owned businesses, military owned businesses, and so on. The economy is subject to state intervention without being a command economy exactly. The Party can, no doubt, command. it does this (I gather) through regular planning processes and documents. Xi Jinping can, I assume, also command things to happen, like having so and so disappear, maybe Jack Ma, for example. Jack seems to be back. Many who disappeared have stayed that way, so far.
Some people think China is a fascist state. There are some elements of fascism in China. I don't know if it qualifies as a fascist state or not.
True, the atmosphere would probably cool down too much and most of the plant life would die, which would be inconvenient. A lot of people would drop dead, but the elite -- safe in their long-term underground retreats, would be fine and in 10 years or so, once the dust settled, they would soon have nice weather again -- and a lot fewer annoying people around. There would just be the elite, fine folks all, and the virile fecund robust workers they put into storage ahead of time.
Do you happen to have a set of launch codes handy? It doesn't actually make much difference which cities get nuked, because only the elite will survive, and there will be nobody left to point accusing fingers.