Consumerism

[Boof-head]

"Western consumerism is a culture of exploitation and greed, with little or no regard for the consequences, such as those which short-term gains have on the environment: whaling, overfishing, forest destruction, deterioration of water catchments, greenhouse gases ... or that they have on indigenous societies with little available means to exploit local resources.

It is solely a culture of Imperialism, in which the richest gain the most immediate access to exploitation of resources regardless. The only visible dynamic, is the creation of extreme wealth for a few individuals, and of many societies who are thereby impoverished eventually and denied access to those resources."

--discuss.

[freeztar]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with consuming. It is the way in which we consume that is suspect.

Of course, this practice of expanding our consumerism beyond our needs has obvious consequences. It's obvious to some and not others.

[Buffy]

As a friend of mine once said,

"Crass generalizations may be justified by admitting at least ten exceptions..."

I think you owe us more than ten there.

If this thread is going to go any further, I'd suggest you do better than the pejorative and indirect definition of the word "Consumerism" given above...

Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before,
Buffy

[Boof-head]

Originally Posted by Buffy

If this thread is going to go any further, I'd suggest you do better than the pejorative and indirect definition of the word "Consumerism" given above...

If you are going to discuss the paragraphs inside the quotes in the OP, you might do better than a shallow interpretation, and another somewhat meaningless quote, my dear.

All I contributed was one word: "discuss", as in "discuss the quoted text".

You might also want (or otherwise) to expand your friend's quote somewhat; it looks a little pejorative.
Can you supply a more meaningful analysis of your friend's implication, or are you happy with as general a meaning as I can see in it - which so far goes: "ten exceptions to a crass generalisation may or may not exist, but who cares?"

Do you have a personally applied definition of "consumerism", at all? Does it correspond to a generally accepted meaning, or would you say there is no such meaning?

I'm sort of curious (but since I'm a dedicated consumer, what do I care?)

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Boof-head

...what do I care?

Hmmm....do you?

Outside of any context, the OP can be taken as inflammatory, and it might be taken as a purposeful attempt to incite a riot...but you're new here, so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, why don't you tell us: what do *you* think of the OP?

Fear not those who argue but those who dodge,
Buffy

[Boof-head]

it might be taken as a purposeful attempt to incite a riot..

Ah, you mean like that store in the US that advertised a sale; the one where the worker was trampled by the eager consumers?

Why don't you tell us, what you think of the OP? Is there a danger you will accept some of it, as self-evident?
Or, you think we should take all the whales and all the fish, cut down all the trees, etc?
After all, consumerism is the only thing to believe in and identify with isn't it?
You absolutely must buy those things that companies tell you to buy, right? Like a dutiful consumer.

P.S. You appear to want me to discuss the OP I made, without waiting to see if anyone else has anything? Isn't that a bit pointless?

Then again, if it says something that's only a crass generalisation, then it's probably pointless to invite discussion of it.
So, let us consume, I suppose - who cares?

[sanctus]

Just like freez said and like globalization: it is not something bad by definition it just depends on how it is implemented.
I do not see the OP as pejorative, it is just the description on how it goes nowadays...we would have enough resources to feed the world today, consumerism (as it is nowadays) is one of the main reasons why we don't do it, because distributing the resources woul make our standard of living go down, since there wouldn't be any more things at the low price we are used to.

[Buffy]

That's what I thought....oh well, *someone* has to keep you on your toes, so here we go!

con·sum·er·ism (kən-sōō'mə-rĭz'əm) n.

1. The movement seeking to protect and inform consumers by requiring such practices as honest packaging and advertising, product guarantees, and improved safety standards.
2. The theory that a progressively greater consumption of goods is economically beneficial.
3. Attachment to materialistic values or possessions: deplored the rampant consumerism of contemporary society.

Source: American Heritage Dictionary

Now lets look again at your original post:

Originally Posted by Boof-head:
Western consumerism is a culture of exploitation and greed, with little or no regard for the consequences, such as those which short-term gains have on the environment: whaling, overfishing, forest destruction, deterioration of water catchments, greenhouse gases ... or that they have on indigenous societies with little available means to exploit local resources.

It is solely a culture of Imperialism, in which the richest gain the most immediate access to exploitation of resources regardless. The only visible dynamic, is the creation of extreme wealth for a few individuals, and of many societies who are thereby impoverished eventually and denied access to those resources.[/i]

First and foremost, at the highest level this definition clearly aligns solely with the third definition given by the dictionary. As a result it can be considered "less that the truth" since it defines the term without acknowledgment of the other definitions, which by virtue of their order are indicated by the dictionary as being *more common*.

Next, note the underlined words: these are all stative verbs/adverbs, that are declarative and absolute, allowing only the exact interpretation and no other. You know, rigid in a Maoist sorta way!

Then note the underlined words: these are all superlative adjectives that have either very explicit negative definitions or "dog-whistle" connotations. Pejorative? Well, that's probably dependent on your point of view on the topic!

Lastly there's that lovely italicized part which is a somewhat hackneyed update of Gen. Jack D. Ripper's screed on Communist Subversion....which of course is either elegantly ironic indicating that the author intends exactly the opposite of the surface meaning of the statement, or clear proof of how cluelessly blind the author is to the embarrassing extremity of the opinions expressed!

I know, I know, you're gonna complain about it being about "Western Consumerism," but before you go down that route too far, think: You're saying the "west" has some sort of franchise on greed? That pretty much blows apart any argument that the statement isn't intended to be accusatory or inflammatory.

Now to be complete, my opinion about "consumerism" is concentrated on the first definition above: I've actually been quite active in initiatives that promote the interests of the consumer over the interests of business.

So to those who might agree with the sense of the original post, I'd ask, is it really "greedy" to be involved in ensuring that the food you buy isn't polluted or the cars you drive are safe?

See? Not so bad! Now you go!

It is a kind of spiritual snobbery that makes people think they can be happy without money,
Buffy

[Boof-head]

So to those who might agree with the sense of the original post, I'd ask, is it really "greedy" to be involved in ensuring that the food you buy isn't polluted or the cars you drive are safe?

And I would counter with: Is it not really greedy, to be involved in ensuring the whale meat you buy is from a sustainable resource, or the cars driven around, in mostly Western countries, aren't going to make the icecaps melt?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Boof-head

And I would counter with: Is it not really greedy, to be involved in ensuring the whale meat you buy is from a sustainable resource, or the cars driven around, in mostly Western countries, aren't going to make the icecaps melt?

And so you would simplistically assign those attributes to all who do not demand the end to the use of cars and insist that we all go back to living in caves?

Obviously we can talk in extremes endlessly, so if that's your point, it's, well, pointless!

Those who don’t build must burn. It’s as old as history and juvenile delinquence,
Buffy