19 Dec Counting The Cost
We need to move beyond consumerism primarily because of its effects on the environment, on families and on our happiness, argues Emma Rush
What does your child want for Christmas: Video games, a mobile phone, or the latest fad in toys or fashion? Consumerism as a way of life is now heavily marketed to children, and at no time of year is this more evident than during the frenzied pre-Christmas period. The trouble is that there is a worrying gap between rampant consumerism and our hopes and dreams for the future of our children.
The High Social and Environmental Costs of Consumerism
Consumerism encourages us to know the price of everything and the value of nothing. This raises big questions about its effects on human happiness and its high social and environmental costs. Yet parents are largely left to deal with these concerns on their own. Little wonder that disquiet about the way the world is heading tends to lurk quietly in the background of family life.
But there are alternatives, and it’s time that we started to discuss them.
The pace of human consumption in industrialised countries like Australia is fast ripping holes in the beautiful, delicate web of life that makes human existence not just possible but delightful. Climate change is the most dramatic manifestation of the high environmental costs of consumerism, but excessive consumption leads to many other environmental costs as well.
The Wealth We Enjoy Is Dependent on Others Living in Poverty
The wealth we enjoy is, in various ways, dependent on others living in poverty. Much of what we consume daily – food, clothes, electrical items, toys – is grown or made by people who are very poorly paid and who suffer dangerous working conditions. An alternative worth considering is fair trade. Fair trade organisations work with such people to negotiate improvements to their working lives. That’s why fair-trade-certified items tend to be a bit more expensive than their conventional equivalents.
Our Levels of Consumption Contribute Relatively Little to Our Happiness
Although our consumption levels are at an all-time high, this contributes relatively little to our happiness. In Australia and many other Western countries, greatly increased wealth since the 1950s has produced only very small increases in happiness. There is now a large body of international literature showing that beyond a certain level of affluence, additional wealth contributes little to making us happier. Once basic needs (such as food, shelter and caring relationships) are met, our sense of where we fit into wider society—for example, our trust in others and our security of employment—appears to be more important than personal wealth. The current political tendency to value economic growth above all else can undermine these important social characteristics. Although being able to buy more may seem attractive, if this comes at the cost of damaging broader social relationships, it may not be worth it.
The idea that the satisfaction of individual desires is the way to deep happiness is thoroughly modern, and advertising is laden with it, but as both research and commonsense suggest, it’s incorrect. It is no accident that enduring religions and other cultural traditions focus on our relationships with each other and the wider world rather than on individuals and what they can ‘get’ in the way of material possessions and life experiences.
As a society, how might we begin to address the problem of consumerism?
Better Technology and Design May Not Be Sufficient
Better technology and design will enable us to reduce consumption and its associated environmental costs by using fewer resources to produce the goods and services we currently enjoy. Children are already learning about this in simple ways, with comparisons between conventional and low-energy light bulbs a common primary-school exercise.
But technological and design innovation may not be sufficient to pull back consumption levels enough to avoid further, perhaps critical, environmental damage. According to Ecological Footprint Analysis, we would need almost four planet Earths if everyone in the world were to consume as much as the average Australian without causing environmental damage. We’re using far more than our fair share. We must start to use less, or even basic levels of material development in poorer countries, where people consume very little, which will be difficult without causing further environmental problems.
Will technological and design innovation be shared with less-wealthy nations?
Innovations are usually sold, and sharing them will require unprecedented international cooperation. Well, parents might question whether allowing today’s children to be captured by consumerism is a good way to foster the cooperation and care for others that will be so important in their adult lives when they will face a world of increased tension over resource availability?
Finally, are all the products and services we currently consume really important to our genuine happiness?
This brings us back to the Christmas wish-list issue. As adults, we know that some gifts will provide our children with only fleeting satisfaction, whereas others will be a source of more enduring pleasure. But when we really think about it, the sources of genuine happiness in our own and our children’s lives are not usually the things that can be bought at Christmas. Instead, happiness comes from the people we love, the time we spend with them, the activities we enjoy and the time we spend doing them. The first just can’t be bought. The second can sometimes be bought but often needn’t be. Most of what is really important involves each of us being more of who we inherently are and less of a consumer.
Considering all this, you might expect that today’s leaders would strongly support technological and design innovation while also acknowledging its limitations and encouraging vigorous public discussion about other ways to move beyond consumerism towards a better future for our children. Unfortunately, no such vigorous discussion has yet occurred on the national stage. However, a good deal of thinking and some action is taking place in universities and the community sector.
One of the greatest obstacles to moving beyond consumerism is that consumerism promotes economic growth. Generally speaking, if people constantly buy more goods and services, the economy will grow. In modern market economies, economic growth is necessary if the economy is to remain stable. And economic stability is desirable not only for governments and businesses but for all citizens. In times of economic downturn, there is less paid employment available, and higher unemployment causes great stress for individuals and their families. Considering this, there are three broad approaches to overcoming the obstacle that the current economy’s need for growth poses to moving beyond consumerism.
The first approach is to try to make standard economics take greater account of what is really important: the protection of the Earth’s complex ecosystems, fulfilment of basic needs for all people, and human happiness. This approach accepts that economic growth is necessary and claims that it can be more intelligently achieved by modifying current regulations and financial incentives. For example, polluters could be made to pay for their carbon emissions via a carbon tax or carbon trading scheme.
The Contrast Between Consumerism and Love
Modifying the existing economy could certainly reduce environmental damage and may also reduce social costs. However, serious concerns exist about whether ‘tacking on’ modifications will be enough. We all understand that if a house is built on poor foundations, propping it up is likely to be difficult and may ultimately fail. The same goes for economies. If the current economic system is fundamentally flawed, propping it up with various modifications will likely be inefficient. It may ultimately fail to protect people and the environments on which they depend. Hence, the other two broad approaches to moving beyond consumerism – ecological economics and local economic alternatives –involve designing economies that are based on what is genuinely important.
Ecological economics rejects standard economic theory and practice as being based on an outdated worldview and develops an economy based on ecological realities. The limitation of this approach, of course, is that constructing new economic theories and practices is complex and time-consuming. What is more, implementing a new economic system may be politically difficult.
Local economic alternatives grow out of a desire to see immediate positive changes in our economic participation. Examples include cooperatives, community-supported agriculture schemes, and local exchange and trading systems. These sorts of enterprises aim to strengthen relationships within local communities and provide for people’s needs. Although they are unlikely to be able to provide for all our needs, they are an example of how economic life might look if relationships within the community were given priority over generating economic growth.
The beauty of approaches such as ecological economics and local economic alternatives is that they begin from some of the most important things – the protection of the Earth’s complex ecosystems and the fostering of human relationships within the broader community. They respond to the heartfelt wish for a viable alternative to consumerism – an economy that puts human happiness and environmental sustainability first rather than economic growth.
Love Is Not a Bad Central Focus for Christmas
The contrast between the current economy and the two other economic approaches can be viewed as a contrast between consumerism and love. Instant self-gratification is central to consumerism, and, as parents know only too well when every individual wants their own way, there’s little room left for love. Yet love is central to human life. We love our children, and in a different form, we love the complexity and diversity of other people and other species, as well as the many special local places that, when put together, make up our world.
Love and the way it lights up life is the best reason for all of us to start moving beyond consumerism, over-consumption and today’s dysfunctional economy.
As it happens, love is not a bad central focus for Christmas, either.
Dr Emma Rush is a lecturer in philosophy and ethics at Charles Sturt University Faculty of Arts, School of Humanities and Social Sciences.