4 ms·

if most peoples work actually focused on those issues, I would totally agree, but most people work on ways to "keep consumers dissatisfied" by inventing/produci

by Mistone 18y ago

if most peoples work actually focused on those issues, I would totally agree, but most people work on ways to "keep consumers dissatisfied" by inventing/producing/marketing all kinds of useless stuff for people to want. This has created a massive problem, the cost of having every choice under the sun is straining our planet and we are consuming our way to disaster. Maybe if we slowed down a bit, worked a bit less, bought less, and used less, we would enjoy more and not kill our planet as quickly. Its all a bit idealistic but i can see no reason why it would not work.

noonespecial 18y ago
The stuff I want, I don't find useless. I like having the ability to choose. As for the consumer being dissatisfied, yes, as a consumer of health care, I am dissatisfied with still having to die from cancer, heart disease, etc. Does humanity get distracted and work too hard on dumb stuff that we shouldn't. Yes. What person, startup, or species for that matter doesn't. "Lets just give up, accept what we have and work less" does not strike me as the most appropriate response to that observation. The great part is that everyone is free to chose in this system. You can move to Alaska and be a hermit and choose not to work at all. You can choose a life of quite contemplation free from material goods. I think the line should be drawn when someone sets themselves up as an authority and tells someone else that its somehow "wrong" for them to want the Nike shoes he saw on TV. This is my problem with the article. In it is hidden the implicit suggestion that there should be a central authority that decides who should work on what and for how long. Soviet-style communism fell with a dull thud. It seemed a bit idealistic but many saw no reason why it would not work. It just didn't.
- Mistone 18y ago
  I think you took this a bit too literally, all I'm saying is that hyper-consumerism has placed the planet in a precarious condition, and a solution may be to slow things down a bit to focus on and enjoy what you have instead of always clamoring for more, more, more.

by Mistone 18y ago

noonespecial 18y ago

The stuff I want, I don't find useless. I like having the ability to choose. As for the consumer being dissatisfied, yes, as a consumer of health care, I am dissatisfied with still having to die from cancer, heart disease, etc. Does humanity get distracted and work too hard on dumb stuff that we shouldn't. Yes. What person, startup, or species for that matter doesn't. "Lets just give up, accept what we have and work less" does not strike me as the most appropriate response to that observation. The great part is that everyone is free to chose in this system. You can move to Alaska and be a hermit and choose not to work at all. You can choose a life of quite contemplation free from material goods. I think the line should be drawn when someone sets themselves up as an authority and tells someone else that its somehow "wrong" for them to want the Nike shoes he saw on TV. This is my problem with the article. In it is hidden the implicit suggestion that there should be a central authority that decides who should work on what and for how long. Soviet-style communism fell with a dull thud. It seemed a bit idealistic but many saw no reason why it would not work. It just didn't.

Mistone 18y ago
I think you took this a bit too literally, all I'm saying is that hyper-consumerism has placed the planet in a precarious condition, and a solution may be to slow things down a bit to focus on and enjoy what you have instead of always clamoring for more, more, more.