Bring out your hair shirts

Will Wilkinson writes about why deciding the “things that we don’t need” is best left to individual choice...

...Most critics of consumption don't take it as far as Diogenes.^[1]  But if you're going to take it anywhere, you've got to draw a line and say why pants and bowls go on one side of it, and iPhones and a 20-ounce soy milk mochaccino go on another.

But why suppose there's one line?  Different people have different aspirations and plans. They have different frames of reference for adequacy and excess.  What each of us needs depends on what we are trying to make of our lives.

Of course, moralizers of all stripes, from officious environmentalists to religious fundamentalists, have strong ideas about what we really need.  But the fact that you think you know what's best for me doesn't mean I don't really need my nose hair trimmer or my stuffed armadillo. I have my reasons.

...and the “moralizers of all stripes” reply:

...At the macro level too many Americans live in poverty and extreme insecurity.  They suffer from inadequate “materialism” by greedy businesses, indifferent citizens, and plutocratic politicians.  At the micro level too many families are being hurt by fraud and misleading consumerism, inadequate financial literacy, and a false belief that “more” is always better. - Eric

Ah yes, all those poor,^[2] beaten-down, illiterate, falsely-believing Americans.. just waiting for the enlightened to rescue them!  (Hey, Mr. Enlightened, how much of your after-tax income do you spend to directly assist the poor?^[3] If it’s not 20%, shame on you.  If it’s less than 10%, then STFU.)

The more stuff we consume, the less money there is to provide basic food, shelter and medicine to people who cannot provide for themselves. - Michael Ostrom

The old zero-sum fallacy makes its appearance, and it's only the third comment.

...Modern agriculture has contained some amazing scientific successes, but monocultures have taxed the environment in unprecedented ways, led to blander-tasting food, and (if you care) led us to treat our farm animals in pretty harsh ways...

- The suburbs are boring and not very sustainable as they help foster global warming. Everyone is realizing this, at least the first part.

- Scientific food products like Twinkies and Cheez Whiz, delicious though they often are, are screwing with our notion of food in ways we haven’t logically come to terms with. Is it unsustainable? I don’t know. - mk

So it's all about aesthetics?  The Horror of the Unenlightened, sitting in their boring suburbs, watching television while snarfing down Twinkies and Cheez Whiz!  (Except when they’re mistreating farm animals or shopping at Wal-Mart.)  Ick!

[To other commenters] What did the “common good” ever do to you? Why so unhappy? - Michael Ostrom, again

The problem, Michael, is whenever somebody brings up the “common good” it invariably turns out to be all about them getting their jollies by telling me how to live my life,  frequently with the force of the state behind them.

It might be marginally less-irritating if these folks would just admit that they really don’t like other people very much and that while they would be much happier if the (aesthetically-unpleasing) part of mankind simply disappeared, in the meantime they’ll settle for exhibiting their superiority by making rules for everyone else.  But that would require them to realize that, when it comes to their loudly-espoused beliefs having real effect on their personal lives, they’re a bunch of posers.  Not gonna hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

But I will head out to lunch... and buy a triple cheeseburger.

-----
^[1] “...who extolled the unencumbered life of the lowly dog...  One day, Diogenes smashed his only possession, a wooden bowl, after seeing a peasant boy drink from his cupped hands.” (Wilkinson, again)
^[2] Relatively speaking, of course.  In the same thread, another commenter evokes the “impoverished yet happy people like those in Magdalena, Guatemala.”  (And in the next paragraph he quotes Anton Chekhov.)
^[3] Meaning direct contributions to food banks, shelters, The Salvation Army, and the like.  Not the $500 you spent to attend the last fund-raiser.  And donations to NGOs that spend most of their resources on whining to the media and government about how bad poverty is don't count, either.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 18:52:07 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 700 words, total size 7 kb.