consumerism "we buy things we don't need" question.

I've heard this often here. It is usually associated with Wal Mart and department stores in general. I "get it" in the context of the conversation, but it got me thinking.

What, specifically, are these things we buy that we don't need? Does this mean electronic stuff like TV's, VCR's and computers? Bogus weight loss supplements? Junk food? Bathroom products? Makeup?

I was just wondering what, specifically, is meant when someone uses the phrase, "buy things we do not need?"

It would encompass things outside the realm of shelter, utilities, food, clothing. Everything else, I can theoretically live without. I wouldn't enjoy my life nearly as much, but I could live without those things.

these kids at school were complaining: "I am cold" and I said "why are you wearing short sleeves in the winter?" and you know they cannot be bothered with things like long underwear.
Also, in the food department, there is alot of dining out which is not necessary. In the shelter department, people seem to buy way more house than they can afford or else pay too much rent.

I totally agree - more house than they need, more cars or size of car than one needs, more clothes than one needs, more electronic gadgets than one needs etc.

And not only that but it is also the relatively quick turnover rate that our stuff has. And what I mean by that is the TV that works perfectly fine or DVD player, or car, or house, or microwave, or computer, or whatever that all work perfectly fine but the new better brighter model is out so let's get that.

I'm guilty as we all over of overconsumption but what has kept me in check these last few years is the ease of cleaning my house with fewer items in it. Do you really need the crystal figurine that costs 14.99 on sale that is only going to collect dust and require you to pick it up dust it off dust beneath it and then set it back down all to do next time you dust? I say no!

I guess I didn't think of that, but it's an excellent point. No one really needs 4000 sq feet of house, or usually even 2500, unless they have lots of kiddos. Even then...

I think that consumerism is sort of a metaphor for 'spoiled' adults. That is, thinking that everything you want, you should be able to have, and you shouldn't have to be uncomfortable, or work hard. Tons of things are successfully marketed on the basis of making things easier that weren't so hard to do in the first place.

what is so hard in opening a damn can of soup? I should have known that my ex-husband and I would not end up happily ever after when I learned he had and insisted on using the electric can opener!!!

How lazy do you have to be to use one? Although I'm not really in great shape, I open cans with my Twistaway, walk a dog on occasion, and do some sewing...and my personal trainer-using sister is always telling me what great shape my arms are in!

I always preferred the hand crank ones anyway.

and the can had a pop top, like a can of tennis balls.
I thought that was way cool.
there was a cartoon where one character was complaining that they had spent an hour trying to get the snow-blower started and the other person asked "there's only a couple inches, why don't you use a broom?"
The punchline was: "because the snow-blower is so much easier"

eleven pairs of shoes
ten rolls of duck tape
nine bags of chips
eight miles per gallon
seven diamond nose-rings
six season tickets
five superbowl rings (niners fans only - definitely not for Stealers)
four snowmobiles
three ski trips
two many pets
and one DVD of the Matrix reloaded

but one man's Poisson is another's Pascal (or was it Motley Crue?)

Anytime I buy a book, CD, DVD, etc, I'm buying something I don't need. I enjoy my life more, but I don't need it. I'm echoing what the first replier said. But the main point I want to make is, We are ALL guilty of this here in the West.

when it is used, it is more a reflection of our society rather than specific things? Intentionally vague?

I have no idea, but it's really good question! :-)

There has been a breakdown in the natural social structure, a breakdown of community. Many americans now live extremely isolated lives, in suburbs without sidewalks, driving in the privacy of their car to a store miles away where eye contact is made and no casual conversation occurs. They watch TV and are bombarded with exhortations to buy, the theme of every commercial is "you will be cool, succesful, and popular if you buy this product." The ownership of things seems to me a substitute for normal social interaction, you own that, I own that too, we are members of the same tribe, the tribe of skateboarders, the tribe of rolex owners, where did you get yours,? I got mine at so and sos. Harley owners wave at each other with a special wave as they pass on the road, they are members of the tribe. Brand names are our totemic symbols, if I wear the logo of "my" team then I too will share in their strength and success. The Nike Swoosh is a magical symbol, why else would people proudly adorn themselves with it, display it and show it off, there is no rational thought to the decision or the feeling of wearing a brand or logo or style, its a sub-rational thing, it is literally the same as superstition or magic. It is the source of spiritual satisfaction, of some sort, for americans. "Look at my new _____." If only I had one of those, then the chicks would dig me.

The materialism shows in other ways, we worship the flag itself, rather than the principles it represents, we worship the physical paper and ink of the constitution (we build a temple in Washington to house it, millions genuflect to it every year, they just spent millions on new high-tech cases to hold the document) yet we trash its principles. If you can't own it, its worthless in our society.

It took me a while but I've finally broken my old habits of buying for the sake of buying. As it is, I still have more stuff than I need, let alone use.

I know I could get by comfortably on a lot less, hence the imposition of a weekly budget of cash only. If I don't have the money in my wallet, I don't buy it, as a rule.

It was a shock at first, but it really clued me in to A) the price of things, and B) why I felt I needed to buy it in the first place.

I think TV, VCR and Computer are borderline "need" vs. "want", but that's just my opinion.

I recently bought a breadmaker. I don't need a breadmaker. It was clearly a want. I could knead the dough, let it rise, knead it again, let it rise, pound it down, then put it in the oven, but that's a lot of work. :-)

Would this be an example of consumerism / buying things we don't knead. :-)

a result. Few people have the time to bake all of their own bread from scratch. But if you use your breadmaker several times a week, you may not need to purchase bread at the store.

I bought a breadmaker and I really like it, but I don't use it as much anymore, mainly because the bread doesn't stay fresh for very long. Unless you're going to eat the entire loaf in a day, it gets stale rather quickly.

One tablespoon of vinegar per average size loaf will extend its "shelf life."

I'll have to give that a try. Maybe I'll dust off the old breadmaker this weekend.

I haven't actually made bread with it yet, I've been working on my recipe for great pizza dough, but I can't quite seem to get enough (we'll say taste/flavor/yumminess) in it. Very frustrating. I'm very picky with my pizza and it's all in the dough, IMO.

I may make some bread this weekend. I'll make sure to give that a try.

So I gave it away. I now donate the money I used for DVD rentals to my local indy media center, which shows relevant DVD documentaries once or twice a month. They show stuff I can't afford to buy and couldn't rent from DVD Barn or Netflix or any of the others. Wednesday evening I saw a documentary about Maclovio Rojas, a settlement in Tijuana that is being persecuted by the Baja California government on behalf of the corporations. The filmmaker was there to discuss the film.

Sometimes if we get rid of, or simply don't buy things we don't really need, we can find a much better use for our money.

When I did need something recently--a juicer so I could try to heal my ulcer--I avoided Wal-Mart and had a friend get it for me at Costco. I ended up with a much better juicer than I would have gotten at Wal-Mart, and I've since seen it for sale in other places for quite a bit more than I paid.

The hard part is distinguishing between what we need, and what we think we want at the time, but, if we thought about it, might not be as important to us as helping tsunami victims, stopping war, etc. Just because I see an ad doesn't mean that I need an iPod, but when a child is starving, they need food.

Larger perspective. Richest country in the world with others starving to death.

There are loads of people in this country starving to death, or dying because they can't afford medical care. And yet people spend millions on things that just... UGH. If you really want the $8000 purse, get the $500 rip-off and give the other $7500 to some family that could live on it for 3 months. We don't have a lot of money right now, admittedly due to learning to not be consumers after a couple years of over-spending, and we still choose to get internet and have cell phones. But we also donate used clothes, give money to the Red Cross, etc. There are always people who need it more than you do, and if everyone could see that and do just a little, so many people would be so much better off. </rant>

always seem to pay too much as far as I can see. VCRs, Camcorders, digital cameras, computers, DVD playas, etc. used to be far more expensive (of course it was perhaps Chinese manufacturing rather than time and mass marketing that brought the price down).
I really, really, really want an iPod, but I will wait until I can get one for $200 instead of the $400 they cost last time I looked.

I really don't have a problem with "things we don't need'. What I have a problem with is products that are so poorly made that they end up in the dump every 2 years. Ever been to a big benefit yard sale with donated stuff and it's all the same broken phones and answering machines that you have stuffed in your closet or garage? It's terrible. I need to find that picture of a river in China that's clogged with computer parts dumped from US computer companies. I try not to buy new for that very reason, keep stuff out of the garbage dumps.

Every once in a while, you find decent stuff, but there is a lot of crap, too.

One Compaq presario that works just fine, but, of course, I had to upgrade because it did not have enough RAM for me to get DSL. Probably I should find a good place to donate it. I got my first computer from a Discovery Shop for $125 about seven years ago.
It seems to me that others are still spending more on their cell phones and cable TV than I am on my computers. When my laptop broke, it felt like my brother was in the hospital, since that was like my buddy that I hung out with for about three hours every day. Heck, I even took it to Europe.

East or West, Noth or South, given the opportunity, would do the exact same thing. Sure, there are many things in life that we "don't need," but I see nothing wrong with consumerism as long as it does not overtake your life (shopaholics, for example, or those who spend extravagant amounts of money on an item for the brand name only). I believe in fair trade, fair wages, and business ethics, but I am still a consumer.

Just like with food, shelter, etc? I think many people suffer from overconsumption and it is not just shopaholics. We can be good consumers with out being wasteful I think.

We can treat ourselves to fun things, just be ethical and practical about it.

is the easily-targeted "sin" but everyone ignores the MUCH bigger one of reproducing.

No matter how extravagant I am, I can never consume as much as somebody who has children, whose children have children, etc. etc.

:evilgrin:

people get very sensitive about their perceived need to pass on their genes. But I sincerely believe that if one is concerned about the environment and humankind's future, one shouldn't reproduce.

I've yet to meet somebody whose genes REALLY needed to be passed on.

I couldn't see the world without JFK, Wellstone, Dean, Ceasar Chavez, Jonas Salk, Einstein etc. They were all the result of reproduction and people wanting to pass on there genes.

came from parents with ordinary genes. They weren't eugenically bred.

My son is of normal genes but you assert that I am overconsuming and why does he really need to exist.

that's my point.

Having a child is the most extreme form of overconsumption imaginable. Worrying about how many DVD players I have is like obsessing over the droplets of water on your eyeglasses when the flood is right behind you.

is the worst form of overconsumption and you don't know what on earth could be worth someone reproducing and then I give examples of wonderful human being that are or were on this earth because of reproduction and then you say they were of normal genes and not eugenically bred... are you saying that my son was?

I think you are oversimplifying the issue.

the existence of fine people cannot reasonably be used as an argument for rampant reproduction. Imagine how many Einsteins, Bowies and Schweitzers were NOT born because of birth control. We don't mourn their absence.

Great people come from all kinds of parents - that was my point when I said I have yet to meet somebody whose genes NEEDED to be passed on.

This thread is about overconsumption, and it is my belief that having children is far and away the worst form of overconsumption. It's not even on the same scale as how many cars I have.

But your response shows why we will never get serious about population control. Everybody takes it personally and gets offended when somebody points out that having children probably has the largest environmental impact of any action you will take in your life.

I'm sorry, I don't double-speak.

There is no future of humankind without reproduction.

???????

the problem you envision is not on the horizon, so it hardly merits discussion at this point. But when the human reproduction rate drops to zero, come talk to me.

In the meantime, it would be far better for the environment and humankind if people severely limited their reproduction.

of what you believe, maybe you shouldn't post it on a discussion board.


on edit:
don't bother replying, I'm not coming back to this thread.

on what I should post or not.

You want to argue about a problem that doesn't exist - the lack of human reproduction. It seems pointless to me.

There is, however, a REAL problem we're facing, which is over-reproduction. I think it's more fruitful to discuss the problem we're facing rather than a hypothetical one that is unlikely to ever exist. But that's just me.

Oh, and I bothered to reply anyway. Other people read the thread, too.

1 child? 2? No children? I'm just asking.

to "limit" it that's feasible, beyond making people understand that having children has a huge negative impact on the environment and hoping they'll take it to heart.

Since it takes two people to make 1, if everyone only had one or no children, the population should start to decrease. Logically, if everyone had either 2 or fewer children, the population should stay the same, shouldn't it?

From some of the comments I've read (not specifically here) I'm not sure this isn't exactly their point.

species. In other words, while there may be no future for humankind without reproduction, there is also no future for humankind if we overpopulate.

While the human sex drive is strong enough to ensure reproduction, there is nothing that can ensure we do not overpopulate.

Currently we seem to believe that we can reproduce all we wish, and that science or God will provide for everyone, or else they can kill each other off in the struggle for resources and the fittest will survive. Any farmer can tell you that isn't a good plan.

When God said to populate and fill the earth, He meant what He said. Like, if I ask you to fill my coffee cup, I expect you to fill it, and to stop pouring when it is full, not to keep pouring until there is coffee all over the tablecloth, my lap, and the floor. The definition of an ecologically viable species is one which reproduces only in accordance with available resources, and does not overpopulate.

There was a time when we knew exactly what resources were available to us. Then most of us lost our ancestral lands and were forced to migrate and to work for others. We no longer knew what resources were available, just how much we earned and what we could buy with it. The divisiveness that keeps us thinking of ourselves in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality, politics, religion, etc., etc., keeps us from becoming a viable species. Before we could become a viable species, we'd have to become conscious of ourselves as a species. And unless we become a viable species, we are going to take most other creatures, and possibly the entire planet with us when we die off. There's even a possibility that we could metastacize into space and contaminate the universe.

Unlimited growth characterizes cancer. Healthy growth must be controlled. Control doesn't mean others controlling us, it means us gaining control of our own lives. Simplifying our lives to eliminate overconsumption and waste as far as possible, is a good step in the right direction.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

body and cover my head inexpensively. The rest is just "stuff". :hi:

...suburban lawns and riding mowers, books bought that could be checked out of the library, new cars every two years, bottled water, junk food, and needless automobile trips.

Most anything you didn't know you needed before it was "marketed" to you.

when I go shopping, I go for a reason. I ask "what do I need?" before I even leave the house. I go to the store and pick out the items I decided on, buy them, and come home.


when my wife goes shopping, its more of a social activity. She has no idea what she wants or needs to buy, she just has to get out there and look at everything thats for sale. It takes hours, and drives me crazy.