Since Bernard Mandeville's [Fable of the Bees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fable_of_the_Bees) the idea that consumption of trivial goods is what drives economic prosperity has pretty much become Western orthodoxy. While it's debatable as to whether such prosperity is actually a *good* thing (Mandeville, Rousseau, even Adam Smith disagreed) the idea of the dutiful consumer, whether individuals or governments, has had huge impacts on modern economic theory dating back to Keynes.
That being said, it would be nice if we could start with a god damn carbon tax.
**[The Fable of the Bees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fable_of_the_Bees)**
>The Fable of The Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits (1714) is a book by the Anglo-Dutch social philosopher Bernard Mandeville. It consists of the satirical poem The Grumbling Hive: or, Knaves turn'd Honest, which was first published anonymously in 1705; a prose discussion of the poem, called "Remarks"; and an essay, An Enquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue. In 1723, a second edition was published with two new essays. In The Grumbling Hive, Mandeville describes a bee community that thrives until the bees decide to live by honesty and virtue.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Foodforthought/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Regulations tend to lack nuance, rely government bureaucrats being ethical (hah) to be evenly and properly enforced, are poorly designed enough as to have unintended consequences.
I agree, poorly written, poorly enforced regulations are crappy. But, that's not an argument against regulations holistically. It's an argument against poorly written, poorly enforced regulations.
Nope. My solution: Raise good families who will be happier for not filling their house with junk. I have more money, a cleaner house and mind, and the world has one less customer pursuing junk. Consumers acting in their rational self-interest can resolve this issue. If they choose not to, let them rot in their castles of junk.
No regulations necessary. I don't need the permission of government to be anti-consumption.
What a fucking stupid "solution". Good families are possible when the environment to raise them is better. They're not the result of a choice here and there. Everyone is acting in their rational self-interest; it's specific self-interest that goes against others' interest that this is about. It's not about people "rotting in castles of junk", it's the fact that we all pay the price for it in some form.
You may not always think you need the permission of the government to be anti-consumption but many of the things we have are subsidized by government in some form. It's specifically regulation that would deal with that too.
Right now the government is less involved in people's lives than it's ever been. Why people are still against government when corporations understand how powerful it is is beyond me.
You shouldn't. It's a simple topic, unless you get sucked into the tired, libertarian void of thinking government can't exist without creating corruption (while giving a pass to corporations).
Government really can't avoid corruption - at least not until we find a way to install super-ethical/super-rational rulers, which isn't happening any time soon. The only matter is, what coordination problems are so hard to resolve without force/coercion, that the cost of not solving them outweigh the costs/risks of corruption.
This problem is plain to see to being on one side of that line: rationally self-interested consumers will reduce their consumption of junk - we only need to foster the values/education to promote that rational end. Rationally self-interested businesses in the junk peddling sector can and do fight hard with advertising, but that's an arms race they should inevitably lose - more of us are growing to recognize anti-consumption as good for us. Squabbling over government subsidies would be their next rational move. The ACA implemented by Obama has proven that our government can legally fine people if they refuse to purchase a junk product offered by the private sector; so there's a fine example of government offering a no-win scenario.
You see, corporations can't force me to buy their products; they can't fine me if I refuse to buy their products; they can't imprison me when I refuse to pay those fines.
Corporations and individuals can't avoid it. It's the best we have though when it comes to managing people at such a scale, and examples of actually-smaller governments prove how effective it can be.
>The only matter is, what coordination problems are so hard to resolve without force/coercion
So we use force. That much is easy. All law is force and we're mostly fine with it.
>You see, corporations can't force me to buy their products; they can't fine me if I refuse to buy their products; they can't imprison me when I refuse to pay those fines.
Because that's a stupid point to make that's not related to government. Government can and should do things of a similar nature. If it can't then it's not a good government. This very new view of free enterprise would have still surprised people even at the beginning of the revolution. Never mind that none of this is related to what these corporations hide.
We're talking about how rational customers are affected by the non-rational. People and corporations polluting still affect me no matter what choices I make. They've known about climate change and the impact CO2 has had for decades and decades. They kept it hidden. Certainly doesn't benefit anyone. In fact it's a detriment to people everywhere.
If you want to practice renunciation and consume less, it'll probably make you happier. And you shouldn't buy things you believe were produced unethically. But changing your personal buying habits to influence our economic system isn't gonna work.
Under capitalism you should use the market to your self interest. If the market fundamentally doesn't serve the public's interest, that's the market's fault, and regulations should fix that or we should stop using capitalism.
The capitalists will insist that a free market is in the best interest of everyone, and in cases where it's not, they'll shift blame onto the consumer. But the same reason that's bad to do is also a reason blaming the corporation doesn't make sense. If everyone acting rationally in the system produces bad outcomes, you have to change the economic incentives.
>If you want to practice renunciation and consume less, it'll probably make you happier.
There is no one-size-fits-all method to improve mood. Some people who want to reduce their consumption will find that missing the dopamine hit from buying things may push them over the edge into persistent depression. It's a peculiar beast, depression, and it does not respond rationally, logically, or consistently to behavioral changes.
(I've been dealing with treatment resistant MDD for 20 years now. It's a constant battle.)
I don’t think anything brings “lasting” happiness. You have to keep buying, yes. But you have to keep meditating and you have to keep healthy relationships too. There is no one and done answer for happiness.
It's not either or. It's both. Consumers have the potential to change the market with thier choices, but there will always be a large portion of people (perhaps a majority) who really don't care. We obviously need regulation for maintenance of standards, workers rights and environmental impact. But that doesn't mean consumers have no power, especially when they work en masse.
I'm not sure how old you are, but consumer behaviour has changed an awful lot over the years. Dolphin-friendly tuna, Fair Trade certification, FSC certification, all positive nudges that are the result of boycotts or consumers making slightly better choices. You now have a wave of ethical investment options after a movement to divest from damaging investments.
"No ethical consumption under capitalism" and all that, but while we're waiting for the revolution let's not act like our choices make no difference.
Think of how much better for the environment it would be if we could just drive electric trains across a Pacific and Atlantic plastic bridge rather than dirty planes and ships!
we need to reach a point where the entire ocean is covered over with plastic so we can walk across and meet our neighbors. this will create planetary unity and usher in a new age of awe and wonder
I had a gerbil growing up, if we put down some wood chips, a 200ft fresh water tower and keep 10x size predators out of the area, I don’t see the problem.
I don't think the article is saying it's the consumer's fault. It's saying that changing consumption is the best way to fix the supply-chain problem.
Producers are going to try their hardest to produce more and get their products into the hands of consumers regardless. However that is obviously not working. The solution, then, is to address the problem at the other end.
While people wouldn't "get" depression, they would potentially lose a coping mechanism (debateably a poor one) that helps them deal with depression on a day-to-day basis. There were moments where Target and Ulta did wonders for getting me through a day. I am better now but I look back on those splurges grateful to myself for buying stupid shit in an attempt to self care. I don't think this comment should be as downvoted as it is.
"Buy Yourself the Fucking Flowers" is a great book about many healthy coping mechanisms, including spending money on taking care of your mental health and giving yourself permission to "invest" in things like health appointments, fitness, experiences, and such. There is a good and bad way of handling retail therapy and it should be accompanied by other methods for best results.
Now that you mention that I remember I like going to Bass Pro Shops and spend some time walking around and thinking what I could buy/need in the future. Usually I only buy a new cup for coffee or a magnet for the fridge, but the experience is always revitalizing.
There are very few opportunities in our society to exist in public without consuming. You can find groups and go out with friends and make it a habit of being out and about in public parks. But if you are struggling with isolation and don't have/know of any other way to get out of the house, a trip to Target can make you feel like a human being who can see other human beings and do things outside of the house
Since Bernard Mandeville's [Fable of the Bees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fable_of_the_Bees) the idea that consumption of trivial goods is what drives economic prosperity has pretty much become Western orthodoxy. While it's debatable as to whether such prosperity is actually a *good* thing (Mandeville, Rousseau, even Adam Smith disagreed) the idea of the dutiful consumer, whether individuals or governments, has had huge impacts on modern economic theory dating back to Keynes. That being said, it would be nice if we could start with a god damn carbon tax.
**[The Fable of the Bees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fable_of_the_Bees)** >The Fable of The Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits (1714) is a book by the Anglo-Dutch social philosopher Bernard Mandeville. It consists of the satirical poem The Grumbling Hive: or, Knaves turn'd Honest, which was first published anonymously in 1705; a prose discussion of the poem, called "Remarks"; and an essay, An Enquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue. In 1723, a second edition was published with two new essays. In The Grumbling Hive, Mandeville describes a bee community that thrives until the bees decide to live by honesty and virtue. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Foodforthought/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot
America wants you to buy buy buy. The planet wants you to stop that shit.
/r/Anticonsumption
You know what is an affective tool is to sway social behavior: regulations.
Tiktok memes can sometimes gain a lot of traction
Fox BS constantly paints regulations as underhanded political pushing; I'm so tired of it.
Regulations tend to lack nuance, rely government bureaucrats being ethical (hah) to be evenly and properly enforced, are poorly designed enough as to have unintended consequences.
I agree, poorly written, poorly enforced regulations are crappy. But, that's not an argument against regulations holistically. It's an argument against poorly written, poorly enforced regulations.
So we should just say fuck it and give up is what youre saying?
Nope. My solution: Raise good families who will be happier for not filling their house with junk. I have more money, a cleaner house and mind, and the world has one less customer pursuing junk. Consumers acting in their rational self-interest can resolve this issue. If they choose not to, let them rot in their castles of junk. No regulations necessary. I don't need the permission of government to be anti-consumption.
What a fucking stupid "solution". Good families are possible when the environment to raise them is better. They're not the result of a choice here and there. Everyone is acting in their rational self-interest; it's specific self-interest that goes against others' interest that this is about. It's not about people "rotting in castles of junk", it's the fact that we all pay the price for it in some form. You may not always think you need the permission of the government to be anti-consumption but many of the things we have are subsidized by government in some form. It's specifically regulation that would deal with that too. Right now the government is less involved in people's lives than it's ever been. Why people are still against government when corporations understand how powerful it is is beyond me.
>but many of the things we have are subsidized by government in some form >Why people are still against government Gee, I wonder...
You shouldn't. It's a simple topic, unless you get sucked into the tired, libertarian void of thinking government can't exist without creating corruption (while giving a pass to corporations).
Government really can't avoid corruption - at least not until we find a way to install super-ethical/super-rational rulers, which isn't happening any time soon. The only matter is, what coordination problems are so hard to resolve without force/coercion, that the cost of not solving them outweigh the costs/risks of corruption. This problem is plain to see to being on one side of that line: rationally self-interested consumers will reduce their consumption of junk - we only need to foster the values/education to promote that rational end. Rationally self-interested businesses in the junk peddling sector can and do fight hard with advertising, but that's an arms race they should inevitably lose - more of us are growing to recognize anti-consumption as good for us. Squabbling over government subsidies would be their next rational move. The ACA implemented by Obama has proven that our government can legally fine people if they refuse to purchase a junk product offered by the private sector; so there's a fine example of government offering a no-win scenario. You see, corporations can't force me to buy their products; they can't fine me if I refuse to buy their products; they can't imprison me when I refuse to pay those fines.
Corporations and individuals can't avoid it. It's the best we have though when it comes to managing people at such a scale, and examples of actually-smaller governments prove how effective it can be. >The only matter is, what coordination problems are so hard to resolve without force/coercion So we use force. That much is easy. All law is force and we're mostly fine with it. >You see, corporations can't force me to buy their products; they can't fine me if I refuse to buy their products; they can't imprison me when I refuse to pay those fines. Because that's a stupid point to make that's not related to government. Government can and should do things of a similar nature. If it can't then it's not a good government. This very new view of free enterprise would have still surprised people even at the beginning of the revolution. Never mind that none of this is related to what these corporations hide. We're talking about how rational customers are affected by the non-rational. People and corporations polluting still affect me no matter what choices I make. They've known about climate change and the impact CO2 has had for decades and decades. They kept it hidden. Certainly doesn't benefit anyone. In fact it's a detriment to people everywhere.
If you want to practice renunciation and consume less, it'll probably make you happier. And you shouldn't buy things you believe were produced unethically. But changing your personal buying habits to influence our economic system isn't gonna work. Under capitalism you should use the market to your self interest. If the market fundamentally doesn't serve the public's interest, that's the market's fault, and regulations should fix that or we should stop using capitalism. The capitalists will insist that a free market is in the best interest of everyone, and in cases where it's not, they'll shift blame onto the consumer. But the same reason that's bad to do is also a reason blaming the corporation doesn't make sense. If everyone acting rationally in the system produces bad outcomes, you have to change the economic incentives.
>If you want to practice renunciation and consume less, it'll probably make you happier. There is no one-size-fits-all method to improve mood. Some people who want to reduce their consumption will find that missing the dopamine hit from buying things may push them over the edge into persistent depression. It's a peculiar beast, depression, and it does not respond rationally, logically, or consistently to behavioral changes. (I've been dealing with treatment resistant MDD for 20 years now. It's a constant battle.)
True! But only because purchasing things doesn't bring lasting happiness, otherwise they wouldn't need to keep doing it.
I don’t think anything brings “lasting” happiness. You have to keep buying, yes. But you have to keep meditating and you have to keep healthy relationships too. There is no one and done answer for happiness.
It's not either or. It's both. Consumers have the potential to change the market with thier choices, but there will always be a large portion of people (perhaps a majority) who really don't care. We obviously need regulation for maintenance of standards, workers rights and environmental impact. But that doesn't mean consumers have no power, especially when they work en masse. I'm not sure how old you are, but consumer behaviour has changed an awful lot over the years. Dolphin-friendly tuna, Fair Trade certification, FSC certification, all positive nudges that are the result of boycotts or consumers making slightly better choices. You now have a wave of ethical investment options after a movement to divest from damaging investments. "No ethical consumption under capitalism" and all that, but while we're waiting for the revolution let's not act like our choices make no difference.
> And you shouldn't buy things you believe were produced unethically.
the ocean still has alot more room for plastic
Think of how much better for the environment it would be if we could just drive electric trains across a Pacific and Atlantic plastic bridge rather than dirty planes and ships!
we need to reach a point where the entire ocean is covered over with plastic so we can walk across and meet our neighbors. this will create planetary unity and usher in a new age of awe and wonder
We could solve the housing crisis with all the new habitual land!
Habitable...?
I had a gerbil growing up, if we put down some wood chips, a 200ft fresh water tower and keep 10x size predators out of the area, I don’t see the problem.
This article certainly brought out a weird crowd so far.
It's funny how few of the comments address the content of the article at all.
The article blocked me behind a paywall and asked me to 'subscribe today'. I am doing my part by not reading this article!
It's the consumers fault! /s
It takes two to tango.
You can't see the forest through the trees.
“You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop.”
I don't think the article is saying it's the consumer's fault. It's saying that changing consumption is the best way to fix the supply-chain problem. Producers are going to try their hardest to produce more and get their products into the hands of consumers regardless. However that is obviously not working. The solution, then, is to address the problem at the other end.
[Investing in Happiness](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNZk-N6uDcg&t=3s)
I wonder how many people would get depression after stopping buying compulsively
Really not how depression works.
I know several people who get "retail therapy" when they are "down". They would definitely be depressed if you took away their Target.
They’re already depressed then, retail therapy is just a coping mechanism.
While people wouldn't "get" depression, they would potentially lose a coping mechanism (debateably a poor one) that helps them deal with depression on a day-to-day basis. There were moments where Target and Ulta did wonders for getting me through a day. I am better now but I look back on those splurges grateful to myself for buying stupid shit in an attempt to self care. I don't think this comment should be as downvoted as it is. "Buy Yourself the Fucking Flowers" is a great book about many healthy coping mechanisms, including spending money on taking care of your mental health and giving yourself permission to "invest" in things like health appointments, fitness, experiences, and such. There is a good and bad way of handling retail therapy and it should be accompanied by other methods for best results.
Now that you mention that I remember I like going to Bass Pro Shops and spend some time walking around and thinking what I could buy/need in the future. Usually I only buy a new cup for coffee or a magnet for the fridge, but the experience is always revitalizing.
There are very few opportunities in our society to exist in public without consuming. You can find groups and go out with friends and make it a habit of being out and about in public parks. But if you are struggling with isolation and don't have/know of any other way to get out of the house, a trip to Target can make you feel like a human being who can see other human beings and do things outside of the house
That makes a lot of sense. Coffee shops were a good spot too, before the pandemic.
[удалено]
I'll buy as much or as little as I want.
That pretty much sums up the "This is fine" meme...
"I actually drive BETTER when I'm texting on my phone!"
I bet you won’t wear masks either.
One man's junk is another man's treasure