In Population and Consumption by Gardener, Assadouirian, and Sarin they offer a revealing analysis of the problem of over consumption and the factors which contribute to it. The emphasis that is placed on the human psyche and socioeconomic factors offers a specific explanation for the over consumption that developing and industrialized nations are experiencing. Although both of these factors that lead to over consumption are poignant in the environmental ethics discussion they are selective and incomplete in their considerations. Looking at the psychological factors of over consumption, we can see where the authors of this article fell short of a complete consideration of the true characteristics of this factor.
The psychological aspect of over consumption illuminates social problems but simply considers say the American society as a unified whole. The authors have this to say specifically about the role of the individual and government in the consumption issue: “Individuals as well as policy makers might consider the seeming paradox that quality of life is often improved by operating within clear limits on consumption.” They suggest that the policy makers in government and the individuals of the country are on a unified wavelength, that is to say more specifically that a large majority of Americans would or even could agree on being regulated on such a personal level. Take for example the current hot button political issue of chewing tobacco. There is legislation proposed by democrats to ban the manufacturing and sale of certain flavors of chewing tobacco in the fear that kids may get hooked up this unhealthy substance. It is widely agreed that tobacco is not good for you, yet conservatives say it is up to the individual to make this choice not the government. It is this condition of the American psyche that challenges the arguments of the authors. The fear of losing control over one’s own pursuit of happiness is divided along economic and social lines. Consequently, to suggest that policy making could be a solution to undercut or get around the psychological characteristic of many Americans is inadequate. Since controls on the choices people are allowed to make would come from the government, they would not be received well by many Americans who have entrenched themselves against authoritative government.
Further down the line of the argument made by the authors is their examination of the social health that the consumption culture currently possesses. They argue that even though the amount of people who are considered wealthy has risen significantly, the amount of those who have described themselves as happy has hit a plateau. This leads the authors to conclude that it is not unfettered material accumulation that makes one truly happy, rather it is instead the time spent with family and friends. Further, as a part of their overall prescription to over consumption, they suggest people must think of their decisions and desires in relation to the wellbeing of the rest of the country. It does not seem overly plausible to say that people can start to curb their desires in consideration of the whole. If people in an overconsumption society cannot make decisions that make themselves happy, how can they possibly be expected to desire less resource intensive products for the sake of people they don’t even know. While I don’t have a much better prescription to the problems of overconsumption, it seems most evident that attacking the principle of capitalism or right wing political views will not get your anywhere no matter how right your argument may be. Rather, using the free market as a tool to achieve this goal is possible. Even more possible to the ability to change the way people think, not through argument but through persuasion. Ben Franklin once said in reference to changing the way the masses of the country think is to teach them as if you taught them not. Ultimately consumption is a decision made by individuals, and since more and more people will be deciding whether or not to consume a change must be made in the human psyche. It seems dangerous, but subversion is seemingly the only real possibility for a smooth transition away from cultures of overconsumption.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment