I think the world can easily manage a radical drop in consumerism. — Tom Storm

But the relationship between consumerism and industrialism (production) is reciprocal: a radical drop in consumption means less production; less production means fewer jobs, fewer incomes, fewer meals, fewer everything,

Yes, of course, factories could produce strictly for human needs (not wants). Yes, if people stopped consuming so much crap they would have more money left over, everything else being equal. Alas, everything else isn't equal. If consumption were radically reduced, a large share of the world's economy (the jobs people work at to earn wages to support themselves and their families) would disappear.

I would strongly prefer to see a radical reduction in production and consumption (for the sake of the environment, if nothing else) but at the same time, 1 or 2 billion people (or more) don't want to be thrown into destitution.

I don't have a solution to this problem.

It's the same problem as global heating: We need to radically reduce CO2, methane, and CFC emissions YESTERDAY. If we did that, the world's economy would crash. Fossil fuels and industrial production are the core of the world economy. Break the core, and the economy is broken. Unfortunately, we no longer have time to carry out reductions slowly. The upshot, as far as I can tell, is that we are totally screwed.

I understand why I have difficulty getting rid of books. They have content and symbolic value. What is harder to understand is why I have as much difficulty getting rid of stuff that is by definition, junk. Because this stuff has been in my possession for decades, it has developed attachment, adhesion, linkage. It's just plain hard to let go of it. (Until I do, then POOF! I no longer care about it.)

But the relationship between consumerism and industrialism (production) is reciprocal: a radical drop in consumption means less production; less production means fewer jobs, fewer incomes, fewer meals, fewer everything, — BC

We'll never know until we try and it looks very much like we have to try. :wink:

But my would-be minimalism isn't motivated by the environment, it is just about my relationship to stuff.

Minimalism is growing in scope. It's generally secular and tends to eschew consumerism and owning lots of objects. I have been an informal and not very focused minimalist for many years. I am currently working to get rid of my car - I lived without heating and cooling for many years and own few appliances. — Tom Storm

Cool mention. I'm about as minimalist as my wife will let me be. The nice thing about pluralistic societies is that you can -- to some degree, this ain't Heaven yet -- opt out of a dominant lifestyle. I don't have to care about Taylor Swift or save up for a Lexus.

The upshot, as far as I can tell, is that we are totally screwed. — BC

We do look pretty screwed. If you force me to play the optimist, a big breakthrough in fusion might help. If the price of energy was cut in half, what would that mean for us ?

The relationship between consumption and production is complex, but I lean more towards your conclusion that people must consume. We don't just buy fancy shoes, we buy respect, for status, to present an image, to be attractive, stylish, and so on. Many of us struggle with impulse control and as we're surrounded by things to buy, bombarded by advertisements everywhere we go, it can actually be hard to be a minimalist, as well as for many reasons.

I don't think consumer culture is a problem, or that it's causing any of these issues that are being talked about. It's all just part of neoliberal capitalism, or other forms of capitalism with similar features, of a lack of government oversight aimed at mitigating the issues we're describing. We could continue consumer culture while heavily regulating industries to reduce any of the issues mentioned in this thread.

I also don't think consumer culture is why we refuse to allow for regulation in the first place. We're inundated with different products, there's no basis in consumer culture for opposing change. If both of these points are accurate, then I believe that I'm correct in saying it's irrelevant, do you disagree?

It's all just part of neoliberal capitalism — Judaka

I'm not sure "neoliberal" describes capitalism; I see it most often used to describe conservative political policy with respect to regulation, government-sponsored social assistance programs, taxation, unionization and similar matters. I'm 100% anti-neoliberal politics. Capitalism is capitalism whether we're talking about companies making toilet bowels or fast fashion.

"Fast fashion" is the epitome of consumerism. High speed design, manufacture, shipping, low prices, and then "fashionable" clothing which is quickly thrown away. This isn't haute couture, of course.

then I believe that I'm correct in saying [u]it's[/u] irrelevant — Judaka

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what [u]it's[/u] is referring to.

We don't just buy fancy shoes, we buy respect, for status, to present an image, to be attractive, stylish, and so on. — Judaka

I confess that I have bought expensive shoes -- Allen Edmonds. They're made in Wisconsin and are all-leather (at least the all-leather models are). They're up-market but not fancy, just well built. They are 13 years old and still going strong. I also bought a pair of Allen Edmonds boots several years ago -- built like work boots. I didn't need a pair of brown lace-up work boots by any stretch of the imagination, I don't even go to gay bars where boots are obligatory (I used to go to such places). No, it is all in the image of the shoe, the boot. [Note: of course I bought them on sale :halo:]

I don't think consumer culture is a problem, or that it's causing any of these issues that are being talked about. — Judaka

Global heating, for instance, isn't being driven by fast fashion or fancy shoes, I would agree. Certainly not by MY shoes. It's being driven by a different grade and scale of consumption -- like automobiles, airplanes, and trucks; like heating and cooling buildings; like global shipping; by waste in gas and oil fields (venting and leaking methane into the atmosphere; by cows -- damn them! It's all that burping up methane while chewing their cuds. But I like beef.

We're inundated with different products, there's no basis in consumer culture for opposing change — Judaka

Opposing change or promoting change?

By the way, your OP for this thread is more relevant than a good many topics on the forum.

You mentioned the addictive nature of opiates. I'm not, never have been, addicted to alcohol or opiates, coke, or meth, etc. Instead I'm dependent on an anti-depressant. No doubt, I needed them, and may still need them. I'm not sure because discontinuing the small dose I am on is not an option. I've tried tapering off, etc. and after say 72 hours without, I feel positively horrible -- not depressed, just sick. I've been and am a very reliable customer for Effexor. This is something doctors don't talk about much, but after an extended period of taking these drugs, many people find it impossible to discontinue the drugs. That's why drug manufacturers prefer products like antidepressants to antibiotics. People take appropriate antibiotics for 2 weeks and they are cured. Not much profit in that! Statins and blood pressure meds are the same -- we take them for decades.

I'm not sure "neoliberal" describes capitalism; I see it most often used to describe conservative political policy with respect to regulation, government-sponsored social assistance programs, taxation, unionization and similar matters. I'm 100% anti-neoliberal politics. Capitalism is capitalism whether we're talking about companies making toilet bowels or fast fashion. — BC

In my view, capitalism is a borderline meaningless term, especially without context. When we think capitalism, we think of free markets, private property rights, the pursuit of self-interest, obnoxious advertising, wealth inequality, the employer-employee relationship, limited government involvement in the economy and so on. However, these are really characteristics of neoliberal capitalism, the form of capitalism that we're used to.

Capitalism has few indispensable features. The most notable indispensable feature is private ownership, and so critiquing capitalism leads to a conversation about state ownership. Despite the fact that most criticism of capitalism is clearly aimed at neoliberal capitalism.

China is the best example, somehow the West unironically praises the miracle of capitalism in China. Despite China's capitalism lacking many of what those same people would call indispensable, core features. Then when it's convenient, it's instead called "state capitalism", think about that term for a moment, and how antithetical it is to Western capitalism.

Many issues we associate with capitalism, such as debt, are far more related to monetary policy and the removal of the gold standard. The way our banks operate isn't part of capitalism, but it's central to how our economies function and our economies are capitalistic. The same goes for stock markets.

The term "neoliberal capitalism" has many advantages, but mostly I've just realised that the term "capitalism" is a trap. People will literally start talking about capitalism from hundreds of years ago, even if it's not even remotely relevant. They'll start talking about the issues with communism. They'll talk about how great capitalism is and how it's lifted so many people out of poverty. All of that gets shut down by just talking about neoliberal capitalism instead. It's new, it refers to modern Western economies, and its indispensable characteristics are the ones I'm generally trying to critique. If one says "Down with capitalism!" vs "Down with neoliberal capitalism!" the meaning is completely different, don't you think?

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what it's is referring to. — BC

Culture or consumer culture.

Opposing change or promoting change? — BC

Opposing regulation.

This is something doctors don't talk about much, but after an extended period of taking these drugs, many people find it impossible to discontinue the drugs. That's why drug manufacturers prefer products like antidepressants to antibiotics — BC

The incentives are all wrong in pharmaceuticals, and yes, it's a terrifying problem. The types of research we do as well, the types of results that we find and get promoted, the prices of drugs and so many other issues.

This is why neoliberalism is wrong. The conflict of interests here for the profit motivation of businesses and their duty of care aren't resolvable by the market, only government intervention can make a difference. This is where morality can be dangerous, it makes people naive. Whenever key decision-makers have a clear incentive to act against the public good, there should be sirens going off. There are no mitigating factors or exceptions, it's a disaster waiting to happen, or just an ongoing one.

No need to break the economy. Could have a war to sell arms to other countries and if it results in a couple of nukes going off we get a nice nuclear winter pushing global warming down the road.

China is the best example — Judaka

The next best example (because it doesn't exist anymore) was the Soviet Union, where the state operated as the corporation for which everyone worked, whether that was on a collectivized farm music school, or GUM Department Store. There was virtually NO private enterprise in the Soviet Union.

China is a weird hybrid mix. There are state owned businesses, privately owned businesses, military owned businesses, and so on. The economy is subject to state intervention without being a command economy exactly. The Party can, no doubt, command. it does this (I gather) through regular planning processes and documents. Xi Jinping can, I assume, also command things to happen, like having so and so disappear, maybe Jack Ma, for example. Jack seems to be back. Many who disappeared have stayed that way, so far.

Some people think China is a fascist state. There are some elements of fascism in China. I don't know if it qualifies as a fascist state or not.

Excellent! Nuclear winter would be a refreshing change of pace--personally, I'm getting bored with the same old CO2 and heat wave hysteria. Unlike the global toaster oven, the nuclear freezer wouldn't take long to start up. Why, this evening we could fire off 100 H bombs over urban areas that stand in need of urban renewal anyway, and the resulting firestorms would hoist megatons of smoke, dust, and soot into the atmosphere, where, of course, it would prevent solar heat from getting in and screwing things up.

True, the atmosphere would probably cool down too much and most of the plant life would die, which would be inconvenient. A lot of people would drop dead, but the elite -- safe in their long-term underground retreats, would be fine and in 10 years or so, once the dust settled, they would soon have nice weather again -- and a lot fewer annoying people around. There would just be the elite, fine folks all, and the virile fecund robust workers they put into storage ahead of time.

Do you happen to have a set of launch codes handy? It doesn't actually make much difference which cities get nuked, because only the elite will survive, and there will be nobody left to point accusing fingers.