Sustainable consumerism at first glance seems like an oxymoron – a juxtaposition of terms or an impossible dream.
But perhaps it’s not.
There seems to be a conflict between the consumer society most of us in the Western world live in and the need to
You don’t need to worry that I have gone soft in my old age and become a tree-hugging “green”. Or a climate change crusader.
I haven’t, but I do not think that the consumer society we have developed is sustainable as it is.
Nor have I changed my belief that the capitalist, free enterprise system is the best system. If anything, it’s success and excessive government attempts to modify the laws of supply and demand have created the excesses of the consumer society
Why and how did the consumer society come about?
This week, I have been reading with interest a book by C.S.Lewis with the unusual title of “Screwtape Proposes a Toast and other pieces” published in 1965. It is a collection of his speeches and sermons from the 1940s and 1950s.
In the penultimate chapter titled “Good Work and Good Works”, he writes about built in obsolescence becoming an economic necessity. He states the case that in ancient times each person or family made all their own tools, utensils and clothing. It was in their interest to do their best possible work making those items, their lives depended on it.
The author contrasts this with the situation in the 20th century when providing employment becomes more important than making things people need or like.
We want people to be employed only as a means to their being fed -believing that it is better to feed them for making things
C.S.Lewisbadly than for doing nothing.
Benefits of the Consumer Society
Beginning in the late 19th century, the dawning of the consumer society started to improve the lives of millions of people. First in Europe and North America then spreading to other countries.
A self perpetuating cycle of improvement was set in motion. More people were able to earn better incomes in commerce and industry than as agricultural labourers.
Better incomes created greater disposable income which generated more profits for business and, through taxation, more revenue for governments.
More profits and more revenue for central treasuries encouraged more investment in research and development which led to better standards of health, more services and social welfare programmes and improvements in salaries and wages.
That created increased levels of productivity advances in technology and mechanization and freed more people from labour intensive work. It also increased life expectancy, reduced infant mortality and raised education levels.
Changes in legislation and attitudes opened the doors for more women to enter the workforce which led to higher family incomes and more disposable income. This boosted national economies to higher levels.
Apart from major interruptions caused by the two World Wars and the Great Depression the cycle repeated itself in an endless spiral of improved living standards and greater prosperity.
Despite the tragic human cost of the two wars and some regional conflicts, technology in many fields improved and provided a further boost to many economies.
By the end of the 20th century the consumer society in most of the Western world and many major cities on other continents had developed to levels that were no longer improving the quality of life for large segments of the population.
The cycle is no longer sustainable
Rising costs of housing, longer commuting distances and times, increased spending on children’s requirements, addiction to new technology all contributed to making it difficult for two income families to maintain their lifestyle.
Quality of life has been declining.
Some commentators believe the end of the “Golden Age” in North America was in the late 1970s.
After that, more women started working, more children were raised in
The paradox is that although the standard of living and the ability to buy more shiny new toys has increased, happiness levels and quality of life have gone down.
Social problems – bullying, drugs, declining education standards, lack of discipline, mental health issues, disrespect for laws appear to be increasing.
Now, towards the end of the second decade of the 21st century the signs that the consumer society is unsustainable are clear.
Signs that the system is not sustainable
Enough has been published elsewhere about climate change and global warming. I agree that the activities of over 7 billion humans must have an effect on the environment. However, I believe that the environmental crusaders tend to use facts selectively to further their own political agenda.
There have been temperature, rainfall and sea level fluctuations for eternity, these cannot all be attributed to human activity.
The hard facts concerning the sustainability of the consumer society are that we are rapidly exhausting many resources- not only fossil fuels.
- Land – Almost all new residential land comes from productive farmland
- Water – Could be the cause of the next big war
- Sand – certain types of sand are becoming scarce.
What has changed?
For decades it seemed that the continually expanding market in developing parts of the world for the production of the developed world would continue to sustain the consumer society.
The endless supply of cheap labour from low paid workers in those developing regions allowed more workers in the West to move into higher paying job categories. As an unintended consequence, it forced many who did not have the skills, abilities or desires to upgrade, into dependence on welfare, unemployment or homelessness.
What has changed is that large parts of the developing world now have more in common with the developed societies. Millions of Indians, Chinese and other nationalities now have standards of living and consumption levels on a par with, or better than, the average Westerner.
That has increased the demand for essential and non-essential consumer products across the globe. It has accelerated the depletion of resources.
What next?
The laws of supply and demand will help slow down the hamster wheel if governments can resist the urge to interfere.
Sadly, history has shown that governments can rarely resist interfering when populations face major changes.
Sometimes, the interference is well motivated for humanitarian reasons; natural disasters – earthquakes, floods, hurricanes or because of epidemics and man-made disasters.
Other times, the manipulation of the balance between supply and demand is motivated by the need to buy political favour, win elections or satisfy a discontented electorate.
That can manifest in increased welfare benefits. The mushrooming of non-productive jobs in government instead of encouraging unemployed people to take lower-level jobs that are then filled by illegal immigrants or exported to other countries
It lets people who are not productively employed add to the demand for consumer items.
We cannot blame leaders of developing countries for encouraging their populations to aspire to Western standards of living, including our high levels of
There will always be a need for some “unproductive” employment, even the most libertarian society would need some government workers, a police force, academics, but it would be more balanced.
What next?
At some point, the imbalance between supply and demand will be too great for governments to manipulate.
That could lead to massive disenchantment, possibly civil war, breakdown in law and order, hunger, homelessness on a massive scale, emigration and many other unpleasant things that happen when people lose hope.
Governments can fiddle around with trying to convince populations that carbon tax, interference in pipeline construction and new legislation on the energy efficiency of popcorn machines will save the environment.
It won’t.
It might delay the exhaustion of some resources.
The Solution
The problem is too complex for a simple change in energy usage to fix.
Electricity to charge batteries or otherwise propel vehicles and machines is not all generated from renewable sources – solar, wind, hydro, biomass or wood. Or generated by the use of plentiful resources – nuclear or hydrogen fuel cell.
Until that happens, fossil fuels will still be the primary fuel for energy production, just further back along the production chain and less visible.
The production of the equipment for some alternate energy systems requires large amounts of fossil fuel based energy. It is estimated that a wind turbine must remain functional for many years to produce all the energy used in its construction.
Mining, shipping and smelting the iron ore, fabricating the steel, transporting and constructing the turbine, manufacturing the electronics and monitoring performance consume large amounts of electricity and diesel.
It’s all about attitude and mindset.
Some of the happiest people I have met
I am not suggesting we would be happy living like that. But I do believe we would all be healthier if we ate and spent less while exercising and producing more.
Conclusion
Yes consumerism can be sustainable.
But not at the current level.
The solution is less consumption for all of us, downsizing, living closer to nature, producing more of our own food and other requirements.
How?
- Education to promote lower consumption
- Relaxation of minimum house sizes in building codes
- Encouraging self-sufficiency – vegetable gardens, backyard chickens
- Promoting working from home
We don’t need to live like monks but we could all live in a way that slows the depletion of scarce resources.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Pingback:Confession, Disappointment and Questions About Life - Peter Wright
Pingback:Mini Books for Tiny Homes - Peter Wright