26 ms·

Yeah we need 80% fewer resources per $ of GDP we create than we did 70 years ago, and there's is no indication this will stop anytime soon. Yes we "need" 2 inc

by jp555 11y ago

Yeah we need 80% fewer resources per $ of GDP we create than we did 70 years ago, and there's is no indication this will stop anytime soon. Yes we "need" 2 incomes to buy a house, but that house is nearly TWICE the size of the one our parents had on average, and MUCH fuller with the things we want.

wfo 11y ago
The things we are tricked into 'wanting' by a multi-billion dollar advertising industry that pays top scientists to spend years doing research on how to best manipulate our desires. Nobody needs a house twice as big. It's a pain to clean. Nobody needs all of these things. Both parents working overtime so they can hire a nanny to babysit their child they never seen in an enormous mansion is nobody's idea of progress, or even stagnation. It's far, far worse.
- jp555 11y ago
  So much bias to unpack in your comment. Nobody needs all of these things? Nobody's idea of progress? According to you? Your strawman example seem awful to me, but I bet there are many many people who would prefer to be workaholics with mansions and nannys to having lots of free time to enjoy their family in a rented apartment. I find it a little contradictory that you seem to simultaneously think we're all brainwashed sheep that really should instead be a bunch of robots that all only value things purely based on utility. How is that different?
  - wfo 11y ago
    If there's so much bias perhaps you could begin by identifying some, much less 'unpacking' any of it. Though it's not clear what you mean by 'bias' -- the way you use it it seems like a generic word for "things you don't like". Nobody claimed we are brainwashed sheep most of all me -- the claim is that quality of life is reduced, and you suggest it's in exchange for an increase in consumer goods that we want. I respond that we don't actually want these goods; our recent ancestors did not want them, the desire has been manufactured by a well-paid hard-working team of expert psychologists. So we are not now meeting a desire that existed; a desire has been manufactured and then met. So when you compare our circumstances to that of the past you must consider the fact that advertisers had not become yet sophisticated enough to force us to want things we do not truly want, so our wants were different; driven by life, not driven by profit. If you'd like to pretend you don't understand the difference between "having a happy life, supporting a family and taking care of yourself and those close to you" and "having expensive toys" then you are free to do so, just don't ask me to indulge your absurdity by pretending it's reasonable.
pjc50 11y ago
that house is nearly TWICE the size of the one our parents had on average This is not true everywhere: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398714/The-incredible-shrinking-houses-British-homes-built-just-HALF-size-1920s.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398714/The-incredib...

by jp555 11y ago

wfo 11y ago

The things we are tricked into 'wanting' by a multi-billion dollar advertising industry that pays top scientists to spend years doing research on how to best manipulate our desires. Nobody needs a house twice as big. It's a pain to clean. Nobody needs all of these things. Both parents working overtime so they can hire a nanny to babysit their child they never seen in an enormous mansion is nobody's idea of progress, or even stagnation. It's far, far worse.

jp555 11y ago
So much bias to unpack in your comment. Nobody needs all of these things? Nobody's idea of progress? According to you? Your strawman example seem awful to me, but I bet there are many many people who would prefer to be workaholics with mansions and nannys to having lots of free time to enjoy their family in a rented apartment. I find it a little contradictory that you seem to simultaneously think we're all brainwashed sheep that really should instead be a bunch of robots that all only value things purely based on utility. How is that different?
- wfo 11y ago
  If there's so much bias perhaps you could begin by identifying some, much less 'unpacking' any of it. Though it's not clear what you mean by 'bias' -- the way you use it it seems like a generic word for "things you don't like". Nobody claimed we are brainwashed sheep most of all me -- the claim is that quality of life is reduced, and you suggest it's in exchange for an increase in consumer goods that we want. I respond that we don't actually want these goods; our recent ancestors did not want them, the desire has been manufactured by a well-paid hard-working team of expert psychologists. So we are not now meeting a desire that existed; a desire has been manufactured and then met. So when you compare our circumstances to that of the past you must consider the fact that advertisers had not become yet sophisticated enough to force us to want things we do not truly want, so our wants were different; driven by life, not driven by profit. If you'd like to pretend you don't understand the difference between "having a happy life, supporting a family and taking care of yourself and those close to you" and "having expensive toys" then you are free to do so, just don't ask me to indulge your absurdity by pretending it's reasonable.

pjc50 11y ago

that house is nearly TWICE the size of the one our parents had on average This is not true everywhere: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398714/The-incredible-shrinking-houses-British-homes-built-just-HALF-size-1920s.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398714/The-incredib...