This was long-winded and flawed in many ways.<p>To point just one flaw out: part of the argument is that the modern culture is designed by marketers to keep you unhealthy and consuming.<p>That's confusing, yet again, correlation with causation. It's just as likely that modern marketers are just doing what people want. That the current system of distraction, consumption, and unhealthiness is evolutionary and not some master plan of a cadre of evil overlords. Sure, it makes for a better straw man to bounce your essay off of, but it's flawed. If nothing else, it assumes a personality for a thing that quite obviously involves tens of thousands of people acting independently. Usually (almost always, really) such systems are emergent in nature.<p>I understand all the emotional buttons that are being pushed with this, and by all means enjoy your time reading it. I enjoy a good rant and pipe dream about "rational social planning" as much as the next guy. All I ask is to take a little time and ask "Am I being manipulated by people I should hate? Or am I being told a story and a narrative about people to hate so that I can be manipulated?"<p>EDIT: Of course the truth is somewhere in-between, and I didn't mean to make a false dichotomy. Most times these types of reasoning errors are simply artifacts of the way people solve problems. So, for instance, if you feel that systems are controlled from the top-down, you are more likely to see a dysfunctional system and assume that it was made that way from the top-down. Those of us who have studied dysfunctional systems can only wish that things were that simple. They aren't.
Hey guys, it has been too long since our last self-righteous anti-consumerist circle-jerk. This one is good! You can smell the smarminess right through the screen.<p>We live in a time where the individual has more freedom to do what he wants with his life than ever before. When people live longer, survive perviously unsurvivable diseases, and can get by with the least work. When the glorious knowledge produced by human advancement is the most open and attainable it has ever been. When world illiteracy, infant mortality, and malnutrition are at their lowest point. When the most people ever get a college degree and work in fields that challenge their minds.<p>This really depresses some people for some reason. Can't figure out why. Mostly they just seem to get a kick out of criticizing how other people have chosen to live their lives. I guess it makes them feel better about themselves to imagine the great majority of the population are rubes and they are some wise sage.
Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation.<p>Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can.<p>At this stage of history either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves.<p>But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must -- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena.<p>The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival.<p>~Noam Chomsky, from "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" 1992
reminds me of a Carl Sagan monologue from Cosmos:<p>"Those worlds in space are as countless as all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth. Each of those worlds is as real as ours and every one of them is a succession of incidents, events, occurrences which influence its future. Countless worlds, numberless moments, an immensity of space and time. And our small planet at this moment, here we face a critical branch point in history, what we do with our world, right now, will propagate down through the centuries and powerfully affect the destiny of our descendants, it is well within our power to destroy our civilization and perhaps our species as well. If we capitulate to superstition or greed or stupidity we could plunge our world into a time of darkness deeper than the time between the collapse of classical civilisation and the Italian Renaissance. But we are also capable of using our compassion and our intelligence, our technology and our wealth to make an abundant and meaningful life for every inhabitant of this planet."<p>so intelligent, inspirational and full of hope, but listening to it 30 years later I can't help feeling bummed out, as it seems as though our civilization has chosen its path.<p>also, Idiocracy.
This struck a chord with me. Recently (and more or less intuitively), I got rid of pretty much everything I own to charities, friends and relatives. A couple of graphics workstations, home entertainment system, mountain of business and philosophy books, clothes, TV's, etc. Everything bar a bed, clothes, writing material and some basic kitchenware.<p>The outcome is the anti of the "typical person" inventory on that page. I feel healthier, more motivated, my work life balance has shifted, I'm socializing more and getting involved in more community / business opportunities. The sudden understanding that I don't need technology, media or a mountain of knowledge / reference to succeed at my goals is completely liberating, and I feel much less resistant to change.<p>The additional time, clarity of thought and free cash is quite mind blowing, it's basically re-oriented my life completely. No magic bullet, but it feels like a step in the right direction.
In all honesty Tyler Durden summed it up much more succinctly, "Working jobs we hate to buy shit we don't need."<p>Reminds me of the Vampire Weekend song Kids Don't Stand a Chance. Particularly the verse:<p><pre><code> I didn't like the business
But that was at first glance
Your pillow feels so soft now
But still you must advance
</code></pre>
In particular I think he hits it perfectly on the head with the idea that 'the man' just doesn't know any better and is part and parcel to the culture. 'the man' are just the individuals who are particularly adapted to this way of life and thus succeed in it.
Human civilization (and not just our current iteration) is like a gigantic, uncontrollable beast. It tramples thousands underfoot, growing fat on their fears and impossible dreams. Some people may be riding up on top, out of trample range, but they're still riding on top of a gigantic, uncontrollable beast with no real aim other than its own continued survival.<p>Not much to be gained from blame or envy. Just try to set a good example. It might help, over time.
"A single, lifelong customer who lives his life spending the way you want him to is worth six or seven figures. A single one."<p>Let's say that "lifelong customer" spans 47 years (aged 18-65). In order for him to spend seven figures s/he would have to spend $1750/month. And, depending on what they're paying for, a lot of that won't be profit...<p>So not sure why it's worded as if everyone should realise that a single life-long customer is worth a huge amount, chances are, for most companies/people, they won't be.
reminds me of a story i just read by charles stross:
<a href="http://www.bestsf.net/presents/RogueFarm.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.bestsf.net/presents/RogueFarm.html</a><p>about a future in which bioengineering allows individuals to become self sufficient (adding photosynthesis to their genome, for example). this causes the economy to collapse as many consumers no longer depend on society.
The best articles can take a hackneyed concept (the ills of materialism) and still manage to say something worth listening to. This is one of those articles.
I would say, don't get too hung up on the "the Man" aspect of the article. For me, the most profound part was the one about keeping people wanting useless gadgets more and more and thus keeping them in jobs they hate. People can easily live with much less and do work that will allow them to be much happier.<p>From what I've seen, higher earning potential doesn't correlate well with happiness.
The entire article rests on the assumption that the things which are produced in order to be consumed have no value-- or at the very least, that, as more of them are produced, the total value in "the system" doesn't increase. While this is undoubtably true for many things, is it true for <i>all</i> of them?<p>I mean, sure, I can't accept that enormous piles of consumerist junk manufactured every year don't really represent the creation of much value. But that isn't everything, and, I'd argue, it is dwarfed by the enormous amount of <i>valuable</i> materials, goods, and services that are produced.<p>In order for this kind of invective to carry in weight, one has to implicitly agree with the hidden assumption that the trillions of dollars of goods and services produced every year represent essentially no value to human beings.<p>And that seems to me to be a pretty ridiculous statement.
<i>"...create a nation of people who typically: [....] have learned, through the media’s culture of blame-mongering, that the key to solving public and private issues is to find the right people to hate"</i><p>It's funny that someone could write that as part of a scathing critique of consumerist culture and yet not see the irony of it.<p>There are things that are a lot worse than materialistic, shallow, consumerist culture. Specifically a moralistic, prudish, puritanical culture which is at every point so very concerned with what is the best for everyone else. At least consumerist culture is easy enough to escape and ignore.
Personally I have no problem with consuming stuff for entertainment.<p>I just don't kid myself that consuming a poem through oral tradition in a field without electricity would be somehow more noble/satisfactory.
absolutely brilliant piece. and i agree with his perspective. i've thought almost exactly the same thing for over 2 decades now. it is extremely rare to see someone say it, and say it so well.