Pretty Basic: Excessive Consumption Creates Ecological Degradation and Inequality

[Jcrowley]

The United Nations statistics showing the inequality in consumption are very shocking:

Today’s consumption is undermining the environmental resource base. It is exacerbating inequalities. And the dynamics of the consumption-poverty-inequality-environment nexus are accelerating. If the trends continue without change — not redistributing from high-income to low-income consumers, not shifting from polluting to cleaner goods and production technologies, not promoting goods that empower poor producers, not shifting priority from consumption for conspicuous display to meeting basic needs — today’s problems of consumption and human development will worsen.

… The real issue is not consumption itself but its patterns and effects.

… Inequalities in consumption are stark. Globally, the 20% of the world’s people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures — the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%. More specifically, the richest fifth:

* Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%
* Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%
* Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5%
* Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%
* Own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%

Runaway growth in consumption in the past 50 years is putting strains on the environment never before seen.

— Human Development Report 1998 Overview, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

[twylatharp]

1. When Europeans first started populating N America

I've read you could scoop the fish out of the sea. Not so anymore, it's because of greed, trickle down greed. It's going to end one way or the other.

[lonestarnot]

2. Yes it is.

And we can take that to the bank.

[Jcrowley]

4. A change of culture was needed to increase consumption

A change of culture was needed to increase consumption

In his book, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), Richard Robins describes that for the rise of consumerism in the United States to occur, buying habits had to be transformed and luxuries had to be made into necessities. He describes numerous ways in which this was accomplished (pp. 14 - 24):

* A major transformation in the meaning of goods and how they were presented and displayed. This included:
o The evolution of the department store into a place to display goods as objects in themselves. Orchestras, piano players, flower arrangements, and so on would be used to “present goods in a way that inspired people to buy them. The department store became a cultural primer telling people how they should dress, furnish their homes, and spend their leisure time.” (p. 15, emphasis added)
o Advertising was another “revolutionary development” to influence the creation of the consumer.

The goal of the advertisers was to aggressively shape consumer desires and create value in commodities by imbuing them with the power to transform the consumer into a more desirable person. ... In 1880, only $30 million was invested in advertising in the United States; by 1910, new businesses, such as oil, food, electricity and rubber, were spending $600 million, or 4 percent of the national income, on advertising. Today that figure has climbed to well over $120 billion in the United States and to over $250 billion worldwide.

— Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. 15 - 16

(See also this web site’s media section on advertising and the relationship with consumers.)
o The idea of fashion would help in the “stirring up of anxieties and restlessness over the possession of things that were not ‘new’ or ‘up-to-date’. Fashion pressured people to buy not out of need but for style — from a desire to conform to what others defined as ‘fashionable.’” (p. 16)
o Creation of, as well as improvement of service also helped. Customers were to be treated like guests. The adage of “the customer is always right” rings true here.
* A transformation of the major institutions of American society, each redefining its function to include the promotion of consumption.
o Robbins notes that, “Educational and cultural institutions, governmental agencies, financial institutions, and even the family itself changed their meaning and function to promote the consumption of commodities.” (p. 17)
o Education for example would be expanded from production/manufacturing knowledge to include things like accounting, marketing, sales, etc. Business schools popped up in many places.
o Robbins also describes the setting up of the U.S. Commerce Department in 1921, under Herbert Hoover, as a clear example of the increasing role of the federal government in the promotion of consumption. As he points out:

Hoover clearly intended the Department of Commerce to serve as the hand-maiden of American business, and its main goal was to help encourage the consumption of commodities. For example, between 1926 and 1928 the BFDC , under Hoover’s direction, initiated the Census of Distribution (or “Census of Consumption,” as it was sometimes called) to be carried out every ten years. (It was unique at that time; Britain and other countries did not initiate government-sponsored consumer research until the 1950s). It detailed where the consumers were and what quantities of goods they would consume; it pointed out areas where goods were “overdeveloped” and which goods were best carried by which stores. The Commerce Department endorsed retail and cooperative advertising and advised merchants on service devices, fashion, style, and display methods of all kinds. The agency advised retail establishments on the best ways to deliver goods to consumers, redevelop streets, build parking lots and underground transportation systems to attract consumers, use colored lights, and display merchandise in “tempting ways”. The goal was to break down “all barriers between consumers and commodities” (Leach 1993:366)

— Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp.18-19

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption/Rise.asp

[twylatharp]

14. very insightful

a sort of religious idolatry exists only with consumer goods. I am effected by it too, although aware of it, it's very powerful.

[Guaranteed]

32. Kiiiiiick. What a post.

I NEED that book ;)

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Actually it's because of overpopulation...

the number of humans on the planet then was less than one-tenth what it is today. Fewer than 500 million people use far fewer resources than six-plus billion.

[raccoon]

9. Guess who uses the lion's share of the world's resources? nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. No need to guess...

the answer is that the US uses 30% (with 5% of global population...)...

[twylatharp]

15. I flipped through a book on ancient Roman culture

that looked at some of their laws and culture, etc. Slave women were encouraged to have a lot of children, and even given their freedom if they had a lot of them because that was like free labor to their "owners". I think this was continued on to the present in the form of "be fruitful and multiply", and now they give tax breaks for children. Less people means they would have less competition for jobs and have to pay people better, etc...(sort of off topic, but it's all part of the same force, I think)

[dysfunctional press]

8. "scoop the fish out of the sea"...???

sorry, but i don't think the fish were ever quite THAT abundant- even the oceans have a limit as to the number of fish/sea life that it can support.

[twylatharp]

17. Well, I got that from a quote from a fisherman who was writing

to his relatives in Norway(?)trying to get them to come out. It was in a book from the story of some women murdered in the Shoal Islands around the end of the 19th century (famous case can't remember the name) I know, obviously, it is an exaggeration, but it must have seemed that way to some, and it was certainly much more abundant than now. I have read that eagles were considered a nuisance there were so many of them and people tried to get rid of them as pests is another example.

[Porcupine]

26. You could do that sometimes in Alaska.....

at least 20 years ago when I was there you could. You could stand in a stream outlet to the bay and fish with a baseball bat in Southeast Alaska. And catch a 40 lb salmon to boot.

[dysfunctional press]

27. during the spawning season, yes...

and i don't doubt that it's still that way today.

but a stream wouldn't be able to support that many salmon 365 days/year.

[Selatius]

3. The world is entering a period of change

Change can come peacefully, or it can come violently. It is mankind's choice if he wishes to change or be forced to change by necessity. Let us hope we can wake up enough people to avoid a violent shift.

[Karenina]

5. That window of opportunity

closed 40 years ago.

[GeorgeGist]

7. but..but...but...

excessive consumption of natural resources is necessary for the rich to exist.

[JVS]

11. Shush you. There is no division of classes, only common interest.

Or so somebody was telling me in another thread. Frankly I think it might be a fascist lie.

[xchrom]

12. i'm going shopping!

[nam78_two]

18. Yay for you!

:eyes:
Its what our commander in chief suggested we do after 9/11 instead of worrying our pretty little heads about other matters.
Look how well thats turned out...

[xchrom]

20. i deplore the old fundies and the new fundies.

what i've seen spring up on du over the last few days is a new brand of the self righteous -- eager and anxious to judge.

that amounts to horse shit to me.

and i'll never take a back seat to any one's greenness.

you are simply another version willfully ignorant.

so, i'm going shopping.

[nam78_two]

21. No

I am not self-righteous...I just want a solution and that starts with having a conversation about the things we take for granted about our lifestyles. I don't claim to be "greener" than anyone.

I do find it impossible to discuss these things with people, whose only response to anything
is "fuck off", "its none of your business" etc. Agreed, it is none of my business, but what we are doing to the planet collectively, can only be solved if we are able to discuss it collectively.

Individual freedom is one of the best things in the world, but should be coupled with individual responsibility.
Btw there is a difference between worrying over what someone does with their genitals based on some religious text and worrying about our habits wrecking the planet, because of the solid science supporting it.

[xchrom]

24. see that's just it -- you don't want a conversation.

you want to rant and rave and judge how person xyz doesn't meet up on your yardstick of green fundieness.

nevermind that in general -- they lead green lifestyles are on the side of green issues -- it's not green enough for you -- nor will it ever be.

the last few days have seen good people of conscience insulted and degraded because they are generous people -- willing to accept that someone has to lead their own life -- and that in particular that person is in NO WAY an enemy.
nor have they made a mistake.

[nam78_two]

25. I apologize for all my shortcomings

Btw, for all my "green fundieness", I don't recollect personally attacking someone the way you just did. If I did it was wrong. I have no idea who you are for instance or where you come from. You feel quite comfortable with having pinned me down as various things.

I commented on Edwards -who is a public figure and a politician and I think when you are in politics it is to be expected that you are "fair game". Those are the rules even they play by-which is why Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney in his debate with Cheney. The reason both Edwards and Kerry brought up Cheney's personal life, my guess is because, rightly or wrongly it is accepted by many that hypocrisy regarding a mismatch between policies you advocate and the life-style you lead is fair game in political discourse.

I have also seen people of good consciences insulted in very abusive terms and called "fuckwits", "jealous busy-bodies" etc. so its a bit disingenuous to act as though all the insulting/obnoxiousness has been on one side of this debate..it never is.

[xchrom]

28. so you would attack, judge, excoriate the one candidate who has moved forward -- strongly --

issues of poverty, economic injustice?

a man who started, established and drummed funding for a power house poverty center at duke university?

the only candidate at present to move on matters of economic injustice as strongly as edwards has?

you feel it's your business -- that your life is so pure and perfect that can judge a guy like edwards?

i have no problem with criticizing people who deserve it. -- but when i see people excoriate a genuinely good man over something that is inherently none of their beeswax -- then i know i'm in the presence of green fundie-ism.

that your business isn't to move green issues forward -- which i'm guess probably 90% of du is behind -- but lecture and
be superior.

[nam78_two]

29. Oh calm down

I did not judge, excoriate, spit on Edwards etc. I think I might have addressed him or his actual fricking house once in the first post I saw on Friday. Most of my posts have been about the idea I see over and over again (and again this isn't about the people posting them because a lot of people said it and only about two of them are people I consistently disagree with) that "It is my right to do whatever I want with my money", "If you earn your money -you can do whatever you want with it".
Now do we not advocate conscious consumerism at the very least here-would we not for example say the use of fur or sweatshop products/blood-diamonds is less than ideal? Again I have nothing against the people saying these things-in some cases I think they are libertarians-a philosophy I strongly disagree with. Advocacy for doing things a certain way, does not mean the advocate is forcing or telling someone to do those things-at least it should not have to be that way.

This is a message-board where we should be able to debate ideas. I have problems with many of the ideas behind free-market libertarianism and I will state them when it comes up.

As for Edwards I did not excoriate him etc. etc. My point was this: You said in your previous post that there are personal attacks going on here. My point was that an attack on Edwards is not a "personal attack" the way it would be if I were to say "XYZ DUer is a pig and I hate him"-which is something I would hope I haven't done.

I may attack an idea in a particular reply, which doesn't translate to the actual person. Of course I have probably often expressed myself poorly enough that it seems so. It is hard to always convey your meaning adequately through this medium.

You have in both posts insinuated that I have no interest in actual Green issues and just want to feel smug etc. etc. and all I can say is thats not so and you don't really know me so how can you know? I have actually (I am fairly certain-could be someone with a similar id) agreed with you on animal issues -so I am guessing, we all have stuff we agree on.

I like that Edwards is making poverty an issue and actually am on his mailing list & just got the one about minimum wage. He is not my pick, but I am not actually part of some campaign against him.

I will always speak out against libertarian ideas though-not being smug, superior etc. I just disagree with them and I will state that.

[xchrom]

30. i don't see what edwards house has to do with libertarianism at all.

i am most certainly on teh socialist edge of issues -- but i'm all for people butting out of peoples personal business when it's a perfectly legitimate legal whatever it is they are up to.

i don't want to do that to women, gay folk -- and i don't want to mind my neighbor's checkbook.

[Guaranteed]

34. We have a serious problem with consumerism in this country.

Among many problems.

People just want to see it addressed. There's no need to get all defensive about it. No one wants to take your Cheetos or Stouffer's Frozen Pizzas or whatever.

[tex-wyo-dem]

13. Excessive and conspicuous consumption...

is so ingrained in society now that it is not even considered anymore as a possible problem to environmental health and our own survival. Our hyper-consumption based societies and economies, as pointed out by the OP, are not that old in historical terms, but they feed and grow on the very basic and powerful characteristics of desire and greed in the human psyche, traits which have been part of our cerebral make up since before recorded history.

Excessive consumption economies assume, thrive and depend on the idea that resources are unlimited and that demand, and therefore the economic base, will continually grow. This concept coupled with overpopulation is at the heart of the collision course we have with dwindling natural resources and the health of the environment which sustains us.

Societies throughout history have either survived or perished based on their abilities to recognize and adapt to the limits of the environments that sustained them. Unlike the past, however, our "society" now must be considered on a global scale since the environment we are sharing and affecting is global. Although we have the distinct advantage today through technology and science of recognizing, identifying and managing problems, the basic truth that our survival depends on how we treat our sustaining environment has not changed.

There is no doubt that we are in a very critical time in human history. Either we adapt in a collective manner to the realities and limits of the very basic things that sustain us all, or the world and societies we know today will cease to exist.

[Strelnikov_]

31. Hear Hear!

After educating myself regarding peak oil and general resource depletion issues, reading Diamond's 'Collapse' and excerpts from Taintor's 'Collapse of Complex Societies', I went through all my stages to acceptance (although denial did not last long, as the facts are overwhelming IMHO).

A lot of denial out there. What we are talking is akin to denigrating one's religion.

Those that are not taking the opportunity to prepare are going to have a tough row to hoe in the times ahead.

[Reterr]

16. kr.eom

[nam78_two]

19. K&R.nt

[bobbolink]

22. I wish Edwards, Kennedy(s), et al would live more simply.

BUT.... they are the ones who are in the forefront of the poverty issue, and my vote will be with them.

Until/unless those of you who support other candidates you think live better to get STRONG ON POVERTY, I lack options, and will VOTE MY INTEREST!

It's really that simple.

Priorities.

Poverty is my PRIORITY.

[nam78_two]

23. My vote is also with them Bobbie

:hi:
I have moved past Edwards' house...I am more concerned about fellow progressives who sneer at frugality and call it "nose holding snobbery" etc. even to discuss sustainable living.

I wish we could discuss these things without it automatically being about who is purer than who etc.
I don't think I am better than ANYONE..trust me..I just want a conversation about these things because I think they are important..

[The Straight Story]

33. So WE are the 'John Edwards' to the rest of the world....

just saying...they may well be on some internet board bitching about us and our IPODS and tv shows...

[bloom]

35. kick