6 ms·

Some part of modern consumption however is not really making lives any more enjoyable at all, for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large q

Some part of modern consumption however is not really making lives any more enjoyable at all, for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large quantities to fill some internal void for people for a short while. If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people would start buying more sensibly for the planet because our systems would make it more sensible for them individually.

slg 5y ago
>to fill some internal void for people for a short while. You just answered your own point there. It makes people happy. Maybe that feeling is fleeting, but it is still a good feeling that people will not give up voluntarily unless there are no other options. >If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people would start buying more sensibly for the planet because our systems would make it more sensible for them individually. I don't disagree, but a carbon tax is in the expensive and painful bucket above not the cheap and easy one. It makes the low quality goods more expensive so people consume less of them. That is not people voluntarily giving up those good for the benefit of the planet.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  Nah, I don't buy that. People wouldn't be "giving up" anything for the benefit of the planet by not buying a new pair of shoes every month or something. It would actually be for their own benefit to be more content. That's kind of the whole problem, the people who would lose are the sellers and advertisers who cultivate the insecurities in discontent people for their own benefit, not the consumers.
  - slg 5y ago
    Just to be clear, you are saying that you know what makes people happy better than people know themselves. And even if you are right, people's current behavior shows that they disagree with you on what is best. Therefore they won't voluntarily give up buying new shoes. You will have to force people to agree with you and this type of paternalistic "I know what is best for you better than you do" leadership is rather dystopian. Also the human desire for endless consumption predates advertising as evidence by the lifestyles of much of history's royalty, aristocracy, and wealthy. People consume because it feels good.
    - Swenrekcah 5y ago
      I’m not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. I talked about carbon taxes to make people pay the true price of their consumption so the market forces can find the right equilibrium, which they can’t when the price doesn’t include all the information.
      - slg 5y ago
        It seems like we are talking in circles. The original debate was that there were two options for dealing with climate change. One was expensive and painful and the other was cheap and easy. The cheap and easy one is we just all decide to voluntarily reduce consumption. That isn't feasible for the reasons listed in previous comments. The expensive and painful one is a combination of disincentivizing consumption, offsetting carbon emission, creating carbon capture technology, etc. As I said before, a carbon tax is part of the expensive option because it obviously makes consumption more expensive. That isn't to say a carbon tax is a bad solution. I generally support one. It is simply a recognition that a carbon tax is not the cheap and easy solution of us all simply reducing consumption. If you want a cheap solution either people need to voluntarily give up consumption or they need to be forced to give up consumption.
        Swenrekcah 5y ago
        I agree with that. The only thing I have an objection to is that it would be so painful to give up a portion of the consumption, because some of it is truly excessive and encouraged mostly by advertising and 'influencers'. To which I don't have a solution except trying to reduce the relentless consumerism and trying to convince people they'll be much happier with stuff they can buy outright and truly own (see Right To Repair) than with stuff they have to buy on credit and don't really own anyway (see iPhones and Audible collections).
      - anamax 5y ago
        > I’m not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. What's your plan for folks who refuse to pay the carbon tax? Remember, Eric Garner was killed as part of enforcing NYC's cigarette tax. (He was selling "loosies".)
BeetleB 5y ago
>for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large quantities to fill some internal void for people for a short while. For clothes, for the purchaser, have you done the math to show it isn't worthwhile? I find it's cheaper[1] to buy low quality clothes than to buy high quality ones in the long run. I'd buy shoes that would last only 6-9 months, but paying double wouldn't make them last twice as long, etc. [1] Cheaper for the purchaser, not society.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  True and I should have worded it differently. Not necessarily cheap but low quality. You can get designer stuff at high price points that are not really much better quality, just better marketed. It’s hard to find really high quality clothes today because there just isn’t the incentive to provide them when all the crap can be sold and segmented into fashion seasons so you “have” to buy a new jacket now. This is not just clothes of course, I’m for example very susceptible to feeling a need to buy the latest gadget because it has more RAM. I might need it someday. Maybe.
- post_from_work 5y ago
  >>> I find it's cheaper[1] to buy low quality clothes than to buy high quality ones in the long run. I'd buy shoes that would last only 6-9 months, but paying double wouldn't make them last twice as long, etc. This doesn't match my experience. I had dress shirts made-to-measure for about $50-60/each....that was 9 years ago and they are still going strong. For footwear, I mostly wear $150+ combat boots or dress boots, they all last for years and years of hard use.

slg 5y ago

>to fill some internal void for people for a short while. You just answered your own point there. It makes people happy. Maybe that feeling is fleeting, but it is still a good feeling that people will not give up voluntarily unless there are no other options. >If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people would start buying more sensibly for the planet because our systems would make it more sensible for them individually. I don't disagree, but a carbon tax is in the expensive and painful bucket above not the cheap and easy one. It makes the low quality goods more expensive so people consume less of them. That is not people voluntarily giving up those good for the benefit of the planet.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
Nah, I don't buy that. People wouldn't be "giving up" anything for the benefit of the planet by not buying a new pair of shoes every month or something. It would actually be for their own benefit to be more content. That's kind of the whole problem, the people who would lose are the sellers and advertisers who cultivate the insecurities in discontent people for their own benefit, not the consumers.
- slg 5y ago
  Just to be clear, you are saying that you know what makes people happy better than people know themselves. And even if you are right, people's current behavior shows that they disagree with you on what is best. Therefore they won't voluntarily give up buying new shoes. You will have to force people to agree with you and this type of paternalistic "I know what is best for you better than you do" leadership is rather dystopian. Also the human desire for endless consumption predates advertising as evidence by the lifestyles of much of history's royalty, aristocracy, and wealthy. People consume because it feels good.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    I’m not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. I talked about carbon taxes to make people pay the true price of their consumption so the market forces can find the right equilibrium, which they can’t when the price doesn’t include all the information.
    - slg 5y ago
      It seems like we are talking in circles. The original debate was that there were two options for dealing with climate change. One was expensive and painful and the other was cheap and easy. The cheap and easy one is we just all decide to voluntarily reduce consumption. That isn't feasible for the reasons listed in previous comments. The expensive and painful one is a combination of disincentivizing consumption, offsetting carbon emission, creating carbon capture technology, etc. As I said before, a carbon tax is part of the expensive option because it obviously makes consumption more expensive. That isn't to say a carbon tax is a bad solution. I generally support one. It is simply a recognition that a carbon tax is not the cheap and easy solution of us all simply reducing consumption. If you want a cheap solution either people need to voluntarily give up consumption or they need to be forced to give up consumption.
      - Swenrekcah 5y ago
        I agree with that. The only thing I have an objection to is that it would be so painful to give up a portion of the consumption, because some of it is truly excessive and encouraged mostly by advertising and 'influencers'. To which I don't have a solution except trying to reduce the relentless consumerism and trying to convince people they'll be much happier with stuff they can buy outright and truly own (see Right To Repair) than with stuff they have to buy on credit and don't really own anyway (see iPhones and Audible collections).
    - anamax 5y ago
      > I’m not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. What's your plan for folks who refuse to pay the carbon tax? Remember, Eric Garner was killed as part of enforcing NYC's cigarette tax. (He was selling "loosies".)

BeetleB 5y ago

>for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large quantities to fill some internal void for people for a short while. For clothes, for the purchaser, have you done the math to show it isn't worthwhile? I find it's cheaper[1] to buy low quality clothes than to buy high quality ones in the long run. I'd buy shoes that would last only 6-9 months, but paying double wouldn't make them last twice as long, etc. [1] Cheaper for the purchaser, not society.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
True and I should have worded it differently. Not necessarily cheap but low quality. You can get designer stuff at high price points that are not really much better quality, just better marketed. It’s hard to find really high quality clothes today because there just isn’t the incentive to provide them when all the crap can be sold and segmented into fashion seasons so you “have” to buy a new jacket now. This is not just clothes of course, I’m for example very susceptible to feeling a need to buy the latest gadget because it has more RAM. I might need it someday. Maybe.
post_from_work 5y ago
>>> I find it's cheaper[1] to buy low quality clothes than to buy high quality ones in the long run. I'd buy shoes that would last only 6-9 months, but paying double wouldn't make them last twice as long, etc. This doesn't match my experience. I had dress shirts made-to-measure for about $50-60/each....that was 9 years ago and they are still going strong. For footwear, I mostly wear $150+ combat boots or dress boots, they all last for years and years of hard use.