An Economy Based On Consumerism Is Not Sustainable
It's time to face the brutal facts. Consumerism rests on the assumption that the economy will grow and grow forever and pay for any excesses we allow ourselves today. But infinite growth is incompatible with a finite planet, finite resources, a finite ecology. Infinite growth is cancer.
At some point, boys and girls, the 'economy' has to stop growing. We're already drowning in landfill -- present and future. We're committing ecological suicide. That's nature's solution: 'get rid of the pesky humans'. But if we humans are to survive we're going to have to stop over-producing -- ourselves and everything else. If we can't face the future without an eternally expanding economy, we won't have one.
Economists have been selling us this theory of perpetual growth for decades now, and it's time to wake up and smell the snake-oil. George Bush told us repeatedly -- in response to every crisis -- that it was our bounden patriotic duty as American citizens to go to the mall and spend money we didn't have. All too many Americans bought this junkie philosophy. Only a very few profited from it.
It was fascinating to see the president, the bankers, the economists, the brokers, all reassuring us the sky was 'basically' blue, as the storm clouds gathered. And even when the recession winds had already reached gale force and the rain was pouring down, they kept shouting -- hard to hear above the storm -- that it wasn't technically a recession. Nothing could more clearly reflect the fundamentally delusional aspect of current economic theory: it all depends on wishful thinking.
Everything viable on this planet is in a feedback cycle: plants give us oxygen, we give them CO2; animals eat grass, fertilize the field, predators and prey adapt to keep each other from outstripping their food supply, and so on. The entire planet is self-sustaining. Only humans try to inflate themselves endlessly.
When balloons get over-inflated they explode. When species don't contribute to the cycle of life, they're cast off. Our species will not survive unless we can find a way to come to terms with that unthinkable concept, a steady state economy, as advocated by Herman Daly and Robert D. Feinman.
Check my website for information on my new book THE CHRYSALIS EFFECT: THE METAMORPHOSIS OF GLOBAL CULTURE.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is evident that much like lemmings, we are in the process of copulating and consuming our way over an ecological cliff. In fact, we may already be in a state of carrying capacity overshoot and on the brink of a catastrophic collapse. Unfortunately, I think it will take the terrible and painful crisis of such a collapse for us to to change our world view and accept the ecological truth of a steady state economy.
I am in the middle of reading a great book on this subject:
"The Post-Corporate World" by David Korten
He explains in very clear language the difference between a healthy, sustainable market economoy and finance capitalism(which is cancer to a healthy market). He says that today, global megacorporations are collectively receiving more in government subsidies than they are paying in taxes, and they are beholden to no state, have no stock in the public good, and their only imperative is to extract evermore wealth from the public and turn it into profits for the rich shareholders who contribute nothing in the way of productive activity. He says when Adam Smith laid down the rules for a healthy functioning market, he clearly stated that the economies must be small, local and have clear borders, limits and regulations.
This global capitalism, where the rich get richer because they're already rich is just pathological. But what does an organism do when there is a cancer in the body? It tries to starve it, by cutting off blood supply (and thereby nutrients) to the tumor.
The solution is simple: Stop supporting megacorporations. Starve them by boycotting them. Shop at local businesses and farmers markets and recycle the money!
It appears that our economy and government are based on fraud, greed and incompetence.
You know... you can go right on ahead and consume as much as you want. As long as you and your neighbors PRODUCE what you consume.
That's what's broken right now: not that "we are consuming too much," but that we're not spending our locally-earned WAGES to do it. The folks who are doing the producing are 10,000 miles away. And it isn't working. It isn't working for us, and as they themselves are beginning to realize, it isn't working for them, either.
See Philip Slater's Profile
Your point is a good one, but I think consumerism can have a narrower definition than consumption. When you move from goods to services you reduce the amount of junk, but there are still limits--mainly of time. I thoroughly agree with your main point, however. This is not only more sustainable, it serves to connect people, whereas consumerism as I've defined it tends to isolate.
For those who would like more information in regards to how our economy works here is a link: for the video of Money as Debt:
http://www
Until I saw this video, I was unknowledgeable about the way the banking industry works and was mildly shocked to find out that or financial system is only backed by a number of IOU's and loans. The video is about 45 minutes -- so you have to set aside some time. I am glad that I found this post, because amid of the financial turmoil, I was wondering whether there was a movement already in place for a sustainable economy. Now, that I know that one exists, this will be a single issue that I will work towards pushing more so than doing away with the electoral college.
This is spot on!
"Everything viable on this planet is in a feedback cycle."
Exactly. Consider Norfolk four-course rotation, which - as I understand it - works with a cycle of differing crops so that fertility is sustained naturally, and nutrients are returned to the soil. Along comes the Industrial Revolution and we start to exploit instead. We return waste to our landfill sites, but not in any form that can be re-absorbed. For example, once the chemicals used to make non-biodegradable plastics have been converted through polymerization or some other process into the finished goods, they're locked up in that form. The cycle is broken and resource depletion follows.
Of course, I'm just as guilty as anyone else. My house is full of stuff I don't need. Part of the reason why it's still here is because I refuse to send it off to landfill. Beyond that, I do sometimes look back and ask myself what on Earth I've been doing.
Remember earlier in 2008 when the federal gov't gave each taxpayer around $600 to "go shopping" to rev up the economy? Weird how no one brings this up even though I spent that money just 4 months ago.
Excellent column! At the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, we work hard every day to advance the steady state economy as a macroeconomic policy goal in the U.S. and around the world, almost entirely with volunteers. See the list of 2,000 signatories and 50+ organizations that have endorsed the CASSE position on economic growth:
http://www
We are honored to have Herman Daly’s endorsement as “the foremost organization in advancing the precepts of the steady state economy to citizens and policy makers -- an indispensable resource!"
Yes.
Consumption as the operative key word should have disappeared with the advent of personal computers in the early 1980's. Empowerment of the individual has brought us to the moment of decentralization of our energy and telecommunications needs. Economic growth will indeed be unlimited as mentioned. We saw a glimmer of what that promises with Obama's use of the Internet. We will see next year, the next glimmer when the first of the "white spaces" devices hits the market. The first "hot spot" created on our decentralized telecommunications horizon will be a $300 access node that stretches for several miles in all directions. Imagine what you might do with your own $300 "hot spot". Rejoice that we have Obama with us on this new adventure.
You limit narrowly your definition of consumption. Perhaps people could consume more music lessons, adult education etc. Perhaps they could purchase art and decor from local art fairs instead of ornately framed prints of the old dead guys. Be creative in your definition of consumption!
You mean expand their minds instead of the number of toys in the driveway ?
What a concept !
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
