4 ms·

The difference is whether consumption is relative equal across society, or is the masses serving elites, and if we are paying for each others good graces, or to

by sukilot 12y ago

The difference is whether consumption is relative equal across society, or is the masses serving elites, and if we are paying for each others good graces, or to burn polluting energy sources. A dollar spent paying someone to burn the plastic remains of your frappucino and then treat your diabetes, or a dollar spent on a blood diamond or chocolate farmed by a slave child, could be spent paying someone to pick up litter, or cure genetic disease, or teach you how to play music. Not all consumption is equally valuable.

mc32 12y ago
Yes, of course things could be improved upon. What happens is people say "overconsumption" as if not consuming would somehow solve things. It would not. All things being equal, it would make things worse (except perhaps improve ecology, but it's debatable, since we might miss develping some superior technologies). Just one example. Everyone cooked at home. No restaurants. No cooks, chefs, sole proprietors, severs, etc. in the restaurant industry. There would be no restaurant industry. We could go on. Extending this, "getting rid of conspicuous consumption" might hide things, which, I understand, it makes us feel better, but solves nothing by itself.
- sukilot 12y ago
  Restaurants can be more efficient ways to get better food to everyone, compared to home cooking. Think the classic "diner", a place where the employees csn afford to eat. When they are, that's inconspicuous consumption. Same for Henry Ford's assembly line cars.
  - mc32 12y ago
    Good or bad, to some extent, 'conspicuous consumption' in the form of saying 'Hey, look I can afford it' led to the rise and mainstreaming of more natural farming, aka 'organics'. This is arguably a good thing. In addition we get avant garde chefs who can improve our diets by popularizing better food choices and preparation methods, initially at the expense of the reviled trendsetters and overconsumers.
- chipsy 12y ago
  One of the things I think that tends to underpin "overconsumption" arguments is the idea of consumerism as a cultural force: The idea that if you're leaving your home and going to public space, your business will involve, at some point, making a purchase, and this purchase is intended to reflect on your identity. Now, of course that isn't what people actually do, but that's how we've aligned everything: If you "go out" but you don't do work or buy something while you're out, you're transgressing the cultural rules. But if we design spaces and situations that are only for buying, we cut off other avenues of experience. An idea I recall from a well-known chef, which I'm probably butchering a bit, is that a high-end restaurant experience isn't there just to be everyday consumption, but to inspire one's own cooking as well. That's very different from the purpose of going to a McDonald's, and the simplistic branding wars of "McDonald's vs. Burger King" or "Coke vs. Pepsi." It's the latter type of thing that anticonsumerism really seeks to stamp out.
  - mc32 12y ago
    While you're right. People don't get uncomfortable with 'regular people' going to MacD's, or drinking coke. They may express horror with MacD the corp or Coke the corp, but not the consumer. They have an issue with people who show off their wealth --like buying apple products in the face of cheaper (better?) alternatives. Here the opposite happens, they at times praise the companies but bash the consumers for showing off.

by sukilot 12y ago

mc32 12y ago

Yes, of course things could be improved upon. What happens is people say "overconsumption" as if not consuming would somehow solve things. It would not. All things being equal, it would make things worse (except perhaps improve ecology, but it's debatable, since we might miss develping some superior technologies). Just one example. Everyone cooked at home. No restaurants. No cooks, chefs, sole proprietors, severs, etc. in the restaurant industry. There would be no restaurant industry. We could go on. Extending this, "getting rid of conspicuous consumption" might hide things, which, I understand, it makes us feel better, but solves nothing by itself.

sukilot 12y ago
Restaurants can be more efficient ways to get better food to everyone, compared to home cooking. Think the classic "diner", a place where the employees csn afford to eat. When they are, that's inconspicuous consumption. Same for Henry Ford's assembly line cars.
- mc32 12y ago
  Good or bad, to some extent, 'conspicuous consumption' in the form of saying 'Hey, look I can afford it' led to the rise and mainstreaming of more natural farming, aka 'organics'. This is arguably a good thing. In addition we get avant garde chefs who can improve our diets by popularizing better food choices and preparation methods, initially at the expense of the reviled trendsetters and overconsumers.
chipsy 12y ago
One of the things I think that tends to underpin "overconsumption" arguments is the idea of consumerism as a cultural force: The idea that if you're leaving your home and going to public space, your business will involve, at some point, making a purchase, and this purchase is intended to reflect on your identity. Now, of course that isn't what people actually do, but that's how we've aligned everything: If you "go out" but you don't do work or buy something while you're out, you're transgressing the cultural rules. But if we design spaces and situations that are only for buying, we cut off other avenues of experience. An idea I recall from a well-known chef, which I'm probably butchering a bit, is that a high-end restaurant experience isn't there just to be everyday consumption, but to inspire one's own cooking as well. That's very different from the purpose of going to a McDonald's, and the simplistic branding wars of "McDonald's vs. Burger King" or "Coke vs. Pepsi." It's the latter type of thing that anticonsumerism really seeks to stamp out.
- mc32 12y ago
  While you're right. People don't get uncomfortable with 'regular people' going to MacD's, or drinking coke. They may express horror with MacD the corp or Coke the corp, but not the consumer. They have an issue with people who show off their wealth --like buying apple products in the face of cheaper (better?) alternatives. Here the opposite happens, they at times praise the companies but bash the consumers for showing off.