Robo-Consumerism Is Incompatible with Sustainability
Commenter “Rob K” offers a good insight into the ever-escalating struggle between consumerism and environmental stewardship:
Car manufacturers “stage” development of cars so that the “next” models would look “cooler ” and technologically more advanced. It is not beneficial for a car company to give the public what we should really be driving. This is not about big oil or the automotive industry. This is about consumer ignorance and how the “sheep” can be led to water.” We, the American public, are the reason that (environmentally beneficial) technologies escape us.
In my book, manufacturers and consumers alike have a responsibility to lead us in the right direction in terms of the health of both our bodies and our environment. But the problems are that a) that responsibility has been abdicated by both parties, and b) it’s hard to know who is more at fault.
99% of manufacturers want to sell us what will make them money, and 99% of consumers eagerly take the bait, having been heavily programmed to believe that they are lesser people if they don’t have the newest and best products.
If you want a counter-example, look at Patagonia, a company that actively encourages us not to buy its products, by ensuring that everything we do buy from them lasts practically forever. There are other examples out there as well, but only a few.
Some say the principal reason for all this is the law that mandates that corporate executives act so as to maximize share-holder value; they have a legally binding fiduciary responsibility to do so. Unfortunately, this means designing products planned for early obsolescence; it also means selling products like Coca Cola that is actively poisoning our children, and drugs that are specifically not intended to cure disease.
Of course, it’s debatable how much this law affects corporate decision making, and how much those executives are themselves indifferent to the world’s people and their environment. There is no way to know.
What we can and do know, however, is that all of this is patently unsustainable, and that ultimately, our appetite for “stuff” must somehow be abated.
In particular, we’re told we need to “vote with our wallets.” Now it’s time to make that happen.
I have been schooled and have tried to continue my education, but there is a great deal I don’t know.
One thing I have found interesting is how words are used to manipulate, entertain, persuade, and convince. For thousands of years this was the study of rhetoric. Now we refer to it as “marketing” or “media.” It is a study that was once part of a classical education.
But our world is very “modern” and we have no time for “classics” in our pursuit of the “practical.” As a result the study of rhetoric is largely not taught. We therefore have a general population that is not schooled to be sensitive to those who have studied the techniques of manipulation. They can be scientists, doctors, lawyers, engineers and clergy. They are educated people. Sometimes highly educated, but they have been schooled to their specific fields rather than worldly wisdom. Some believe that there is a “conspiracy” to dumb down the population. I don’t think we have to go so far as a cabal of planners to get the same result.
But on the other side of this equation you have corporations, politicians, political parties and media in general that are far more sophisticated. Public manipulation is their specific job description.
Democracy and free markets require a population that is able to make choices from widespread unbiased information that we expect to come from an unaligned media. We are rushing headlong into the opposite of these things. It should therefore come as no surprise that what we consider “free markets” and “democracy” are changing.
Every night, when watching the news on TV, I am irked, assaulted, and insulted by the advertisements for cars. The advertisements are delivered in a volume, tone, and cadence which would be more appropriate for cheering grade school age soccer players. The most important selling points are the suburb audio system, cell ‘phone connectivity, and other features that have nothing do with comfort, reliability, handling, and other important aspects of driving. Oh, and some of the advertisements feature dangerous maneuvers that no responsible driver would ever attempt. For me, those advertisements would unsell cars.
As to relevant design aspects, there have been considerable improvements made over the last several decades. Fuel efficiency has greatly increased in spite of spectacular power increases, but probably fuel efficiency would have increased even more without the dramatic increases in power. Accident protection has greatly increased. Durability and reliability have greatly increased. Unfortunately, bumpers have become less functional and are very easily damaged, at least cosmetically, if they even gently touch another bumper.
Craig,
When ever I read an analysis like your recent response to Rob K’s observation, I am reminded of how contradictory is the process of human belief and reasoning.
It’s really contradictory for a person believing in the dignity of man, to describe his fellow humans as ” brainwashed” or “Sheep”. What the author of such remarks usually means by this description is “people who don’t agree with me, or subscribe to my philosophy”.
I know of no “Law” that requires corporate executives to maximize value. (even in the broadest sense). Corporate executives are legally obliged to conduct the companies affairs in the best interests of the enterprise and in compliance with regulations, but that’s not the same thing.
Consumerism is all about choice. It may be beneficial to compel merchant to provide reasonable amount of information about product so that for those interested they can form informed choices, but you seem to be advocating the removal of the consumers choice altogether.
That’s the problem with being an ideologically committed advocate or “Crusader”.
Sooner or later, frustration with the way your fellow humans don’t accept your “enlightened ” philosophy will cause you to demand coercive measures be undertaken to force your view on the general populace.
Oh, sure you’ll justify these measures as being for “the good of the people” or “for the good of our children”, and may be that’s true,….but the danger always exists that once that genie is out of bottle it becomes very easy to justify the actions of a self-appointed elite.
(By using the term ‘you’, I’m not being literal but general)
If you don’t like an advertisement, exercise your personal choice and don’t watch, or buy the product. If you don’t like Coka Cola don’t drink it. People, even children, must have the right of person choice if they are to develop personal and communal responsibility.
Freedom of choice is essential, especially the right to make bad choices and learning to live with the consequences.
In the words of Kris Kristofferson :
Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose,
Nothin’, don’t mean nothin’ if it ain’t free…
Of course even freedom has limitations, but it’s very easy to slip from genuine concern for the public good to imposing coercive measures, to satisfy sanctimonious ideological dogma.