David Suzuki article on Consumerism

  • News
  • Thread starter Smurf
  • Start date
  • Tags
    article
In summary, David Suzuki's article "Consumer Culture No Accident" discusses the impact of consumerism on the environment, society, and personal well-being. He argues that our society's obsession with consumption has led to the depletion of Earth's resources, pollution of air and water, and a never-ending desire for more material possessions. This culture of consumption has been perpetuated by economic policies and social norms, and has become a defining aspect of American society. Suzuki calls for a re-examination of our values and lifestyles, and urges individuals to consider the consequences of their consumer choices on the environment and future generations.
  • #1
Smurf
442
3
Science Matters by David Suzuki
Science Matters is published weekly in newspapers across Canada.
Consumer culture no accident
Mar 07, 2003
Most people I talk to today understand that humanity is inflicting harsh damage on the planet's life support systems of clean air, water, soil and biodiversity. But they feel so insignificant among 6.2 billion people that whatever they do to lighten our impact on nature seems trivial. I am often asked "What can I do?" Well, how about examining our consumption habits. Not long ago, frugality was a virtue but today two thirds of our economy is built on consumption. This didn't happen by accident.

The stock market collapse in 1929 triggered the Great Depression that engulfed the world in terrible suffering. World War II was the catalyst for economic recovery. America's enormous resource base, productivity, energy and technology were thrown into the war effort and soon its economy blazed white hot. With victory imminent, the President's Council of Economic Advisors was challenged to find a way to convert a war economy to peace.

Shortly after the end of the war, retailing analyst Victor Lebow expressed the solution: "Our enormously productive economy . . . demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption . . . we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate."

President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors Chairman stated: "The American economy's ultimate purpose is to produce more consumer goods." Not better health care, education, housing, transportation or recreation or less poverty and hunger, but providing more stuff to consumers.

When goods are well-made and durable, eventually markets are saturated. An endless market is created by introducing rapid obsolescence (think clothing, cars, laptop computers). And with disposability, where an article is used once and thrown away, the market will never be saturated.

Consumer goods aren't created by the economy out of nothing, they come from the Earth and when they are used up, they will be returned to the Earth as garbage and toxic waste. It takes energy to extract, process, manufacture and transport products, while air, water and soil are often polluted at many points in the life cycle of the product. In other words, what we consume has direct effects on nature.

And then there are social and spiritual costs. Allen Kanner and Mary Gomes state in The All-Consuming Self: "The purchase of a new product, especially a 'big ticket' item such as a car or computer, typically produces an immediate surge of pleasure and achievement, and often confers status and recognition upon the owner. Yet as the novelty wears off, the emptiness threatens to return. The standard consumer solution is to focus on the next promising purchase."

Ultimately, it goes beyond pleasure or status; acquiring stuff becomes an unquenchable demand. Paul Wachtel says in The Poverty of Affluence: "Having more and newer things each year has become not just something we want but something we need. The idea of more, ever-increasing wealth, has become the center of our identity and our security, and we are caught up by it as the addict is by his drugs."

Much of what we purchase is not essential for our survival or even basic human comfort, but is based on impulse, novelty, a momentary desire. And there is a hidden price that we, nature and future generations will pay for it too.

When consumption becomes the very reason economies exist, we never ask "how much is enough," "why do we need all this stuff," and "are we any happier?" Our personal consumer choices have ecological, social and spiritual consequences. It is time to re-examine some of our deeply held notions that underlie our lifestyles.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly03070301.asp"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Might be better in social sciences.. feel free to move.
 
  • #3
I think it fits in politics as well - Americans live in a "me" society and this affects the way we interact with the world to the extent that we impose our own values on other cultures.

David Rakoff (another Canadian) was talking along similar lines as Suzuki (who wrote the Genetics text I used in College :) ) on The Daily Show last night.

Don't Get Too Comfortable : The Indignities of Coach Class, The Torments of Low Thread Count, The Never- Ending Quest for Artisanal Olive Oil, and Other First World Problems by David Rakoff

Review from Booklist:
The belly laughs start on page 7 and occur regularly throughout Rakoff's frequently impertinent, occasionally irascible, yet always inimitable take on contemporary American society. A newly minted U.S. citizen, a process he reveals in all its maddeningly hypocritical inconsistency, Rakoff embarks on a series of journalistic assignments as peculiar in their phantasmagoric diversity as, well, America itself. From the pretentious preoccupation with gourmet dining to the rigor of fasting, Rakoff contemplates the extremes to which we will go in pursuit of our particular, often downright peculiar pleasures. A trip on the Concorde is followed by a jaunt on Hooters Air, and visits to Beverly Hills plastic surgeons segue seamlessly into a tour of a cryogenics storage facility in Arizona. Whether interpreting popular culture or investigating political calumny, Rakoff's cogent observations are delivered with a comforting mixture of appropriate moral outrage and unabashed mocking wonder, as he unfailingly elicits the inherent truths behind our most cherished and churlish institutions.
 
  • #4
See, my history teacher never mentioned THAT.
 
  • #5
Last edited:
  • #6
No, I'm referring to the bit on consumerism. Last year we studied the Great Depression; he never mentioned consumerism as the solution.
 
  • #7
Seeing his picture, I recognize him from a few videos we say in my Biology class last year. Anyway, thanks for the link.
 
  • #8
Smasherman said:
No, I'm referring to the bit on consumerism. Last year we studied the Great Depression; he never mentioned consumerism as the solution.
Consumerism wans't the solution to the great depression, it was their answer to preventing another depression after the war. The war was the solution (used) to end the depression.
 
  • #9
Science Matters by David Suzuki
Science Matters is published weekly in newspapers across Canada.
For the record, I have not ever read any article by David Suzuki, although I have seen a few of his nature shows.

After reading his article on PF, I believe that the only thing that prevented that article from bringing to the forefront the issue, of "consumerism" and its effects on individuals and the planet, the RIGHT way, was the fact that it, and apparently all arcticles entitled 'Science Matters' (by David Suzuki), was published in "newspapers across Canada".

Newspapers are an advertising medium designed to promote particular products, whether those products are needed or not.

Therefore, the mode of communication that Suzuki selected to question consumerism, was 'questionable' at best.

The RIGHT way for Suzuki to communicate his intended message would be a dedicated website, that does NOT promote ANY particular product.

But that's OK. "I" am taking care of that. :biggrin:

o:)
 
  • #10
jimmie said:
For the record, I have not ever read any article by David Suzuki, although I have seen a few of his nature shows.
You're kidding. I would've thought the guy would be one of your saints.
The RIGHT way for Suzuki to communicate his intended message would be a dedicated website, that does NOT promote ANY particular product.
If you check the URL:
http://[B]www.davidsuzuki.org [/B]/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly03070301.asp
But that's OK. "I" am taking care of that. :biggrin:
o:)
How do you mean? Please, tell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
For those who buy that line about consumerism being a relatively new thing, it may be worth paging through some 150 year old magazines to see what advertisers were selling back then. You can google it, but here's a start:
http://advertising.harpweek.com/

And the scourge of advertising in periodicals can be blamed on Ben Franklin (what can't we blame on him?) http://www.adage.com/century/TIMELINE/index.html

And, of course, the granddaddy of them all - the Sears Catalog: http://www.searsarchives.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
russ_watters said:
For those who buy that line about consumerism being a relatively new thing, it may be worth paging through some 150 year old magazines to see what advertisers were selling back then. You can google it, but here's a start:
http://advertising.harpweek.com/
What line?
 
  • #13
If you check_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly03070301.asp the URL:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr
Let me re-phrase my previous comment.
The RIGHT way for an individual to communicate consumerism is ONLY a dedicated website.
How do you mean? Please, tell.
I have been creating a website for that specific purpose for MANY months now, since the planet was "back there somewhere".

Prior to creating the website, which is nearly complete and not yet uploaded, I spent MANY years (since the planet was waaay back there) observing, contemplating and deducing information to include in the website.

I have structured the text, layout, animations, pre-loaders, sounds, and the information itself in a consistent theme that shall communicate to adult human beings "consumerism", in a palatable way, and the RIGHT way.

The information that you will learn at the site is unique to my site, as only I currently know that information. :biggrin:
o:)
 
  • #14
jimmie said:
Let me re-phrase my previous comment.
The RIGHT way for an individual to communicate consumerism is ONLY a dedicated website.
What about word of mouth? Book? Essay?
I have been creating a website for that specific purpose for MANY months now, since the planet was "back there somewhere".
Prior to creating the website, which is nearly complete and not yet uploaded, I spent MANY years (since the planet was waaay back there) observing, contemplating and deducing information to include in the website.
I have structured the text, layout, animations, pre-loaders, sounds, and the information itself in a consistent theme that shall communicate to adult human beings "consumerism", in a palatable way, and the RIGHT way.
The information that you will learn at the site is unique to my site, as only I currently know that information. :biggrin:
o:)
Sounds awsome, can I see it?
 
  • #15
What about word of mouth? Book? Essay?

Ok, let me re-phrase my re-phrased comment. :rolleyes:

The RIGHT way for an individual to MASS-COMMUNICATE "consumerism", with the least amount of on-going effort (although making the site has been a Herculean effort, but once its done, its done, and its almost done) and with as little effect on the planet as possible, is ONLY a website dedicated to teaching consumerism.

However, prior to the first individual teaching consumerism to any other individual, the first individual must possesses all the knowledge about consumerism, and that would be Me. :biggrin:

After flipping through any advertising periodical, or viewing any TV ad or radio ad, or billboard, and considering the feeble response to my thread here entitled "Marketing: how many 'brands' are there'", it is clear to me that ONLY I currently know the difference between a brand and a product.

To learn exactly what that difference is, you'll have to wait for my site.

As for seeing it, yeah, once its uploaded I'll notify PF with a thread.

o:)
 
  • #16
jimmie said:
Ok, let me re-phrase my re-phrased comment. :rolleyes:
The RIGHT way for an individual to MASS-COMMUNICATE "consumerism", with the least amount of on-going effort (although making the site has been a Herculean effort, but once its done, its done, and its almost done) and with as little effect on the planet as possible, is ONLY a website dedicated to teaching consumerism.
Ah, see now you're just pidgeonholing it.
As for seeing it, yeah, once its uploaded I'll notify PF with a thread.
o:)
Not good enough, you have to PM me
 
  • #18
Ah, see now you're just pidgeonholing it.

Actually, its the opposite.

A TV ad is action, it is always moving trying to find its "target", not to mention its always changing. And it is always going to you.

A website is not-action, and more specifically, my site shall not ever change in any way. And you came to me.

Its the manufacturers of the particular products that pidgeon-holed themselves the moment they intended to PROMOTE the particular product. They chained themselves to TV ads, and the like, and the advertising rates that go along with that like, and they cannot escape that pit of despair known as "reach advertising".

And to top it off, so as to garner attention for their wares, they have dragged unassuming individuals into that pit-of-despair/pidgeon-hole to watch programs, including 'reality TV', that are paid by selling those spots featuring their wares.

No, I don't think so. Not on my watch. Reality will start to set in when my site gets uploaded.

o:)
 
  • #19
Suzuki suggests that consumerism is a relatively new phenomena. I believe that it is more of a human nature and has been active since the dawn of civilization. It's just becoming more refined.
 
  • #20
While Consumerism may not have become a part of our culture until after the war

"Consumerism", the RELATIONSHIP between human beings and the planet, always has been and always will be a part of the human culture.

Humans need material things. Only the planet can supply those material things.

o:)
 
  • #21
deckart said:
Suzuki suggests that consumerism is a relatively new phenomena. I believe that it is more of a human nature and has been active since the dawn of civilization. It's just becoming more refined.
Consumerism is equating personal happiness with the purchase of material possessions and consumption.

I'd very much like to hear an argument for that being human "http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nature" "
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
jimmie said:
Ok, let me re-phrase my re-phrased comment. :rolleyes:
The RIGHT way for an individual to MASS-COMMUNICATE "consumerism", with the least amount of on-going effort (although making the site has been a Herculean effort, but once its done, its done, and its almost done) and with as little effect on the planet as possible, is ONLY a website dedicated to teaching consumerism.

Website servers and the computers used to view the websites all consume electricity. Good luck trying to do anything without consuming.
 
  • #23
Alright, so consumerism was a way of preventing another depression. It's still a solution, since they knew that the last war caused the first depression. My history teacher told us that the Second World War was what finally brought us out of the depression, but he didn't mention that consumerism was what kept us out. I'm not attacking him though; I'm just pointing out that my (old) school never taught me that.

Yes, I know I'm defending my argument even though I've been proven wrong. Consider this a re-working of my argument after considering different shades of meaning.
 
  • #24
trying to do anything without consuming.

I did not state that or imply that.

What I did imply was "trying to do something with as little consumption as NEEDED".

Do I have to get into the whole 'paperless society' thing right now?

o:)
 
  • #25
Smasherman said:
Alright, so consumerism was a way of preventing another depression. It's still a solution, since they knew that the last war caused the first depression. My history teacher told us that the Second World War was what finally brought us out of the depression, but he didn't mention that consumerism was what kept us out. I'm not attacking him though; I'm just pointing out that my (old) school never taught me that.

Yes, I know I'm defending my argument even though I've been proven wrong. Consider this a re-working of my argument after considering different shades of meaning.
What? Proved wrong? When? What is your argument anyways?
 
  • #26
jimmie said:
I did not state that or imply that.
What I did imply was "trying to do something with as little consumption as NEEDED".
Do I have to get into the whole 'paperless society' thing right now?
o:)

State or imply what? That a website still consumes resources?

Paperless society is fine, but I think you're being a tad bit overzealous by criticizing someone for using a newspaper to get his word out. It doesn't even look like he wrote this for the paper. If a television show, radio program, or newspaper offered to feature something you put up on your website, would you honestly tell them know? In what way would that help your cause?
 
  • #27
It's not a matter of consumption in and of itself, it's a matter of consuming things to consume things. Electricity is very useful for production, allocation of people and resources, communication, and education. A fancy car is only useful for transporting people, which it does inefficiently.

Not consuming anything at all would require death so as to avoid consuming oxygen.

Suzuki's argument is about modern consumerism, which is producing goods at war-time levels for the sole purpose of producing goods. I'm no history scholar, but was consumerism of that kind practiced before WWII?
 
  • #28
Sorry, I'm not paying enough attention to what I'm saying I guess. I meant that you showed that what I said wasn't entirely correct. That last paragraph was morely meant to show that I'm not blindly trying to defend my words.
 
  • #29
loseyourname said:
State or imply what? That a website still consumes resources?
Paperless society is fine, but I think you're being a tad bit overzealous by criticizing someone for using a newspaper to get his word out. It doesn't even look like he wrote this for the paper. If a television show, radio program, or newspaper offered to feature something you put up on your website, would you honestly tell them know? In what way would that help your cause?
LYN, are we even sure we know what his cause is? I'm getting mixed signals from what he's said so far, he definitely differs from conventional consumerist thought.
 
  • #30
Smasherman said:
Suzuki's argument is about modern consumerism, which is producing goods at war-time levels for the sole purpose of producing goods. I'm no history scholar, but was consumerism of that kind practiced before WWII?
I know that kids didn't say shopping was their favourite hobby back then.
 
  • #31
Smasherman said:
Sorry, I'm not paying enough attention to what I'm saying I guess. I meant that you showed that what I said wasn't entirely correct. That last paragraph was morely meant to show that I'm not blindly trying to defend my words.
Ah, well in that case I challenge you further:
Alright, so consumerism was a way of preventing another depression. It's still a solution, since they knew that the last war caused the first depression.
The depression was caused by many factors, mostly bad economic policy, but I don't think WW1 had anything to do with it.

(which, if true, proves we can come down from war-time economies without a consumer culture (although I havn't studied the period) since the 20s were kind of a golden age)
 
Last edited:
  • #32
My history teacher's stance was that, in order to meet the needs of production for war, more factories were produced and made more efficient. When the war ended, there was a huge production capacity, but a small market, so workers were laid off. Since these workers no longer make money, they can't buy the products produced by the factories, so the market shrinks even more, leading to more lay-offs. This cycle continues.
 
  • #33
Smasherman said:
My history teacher's stance was that, in order to meet the needs of production for war, more factories were produced and made more efficient. When the war ended, there was a huge production capacity, but a small market, so workers were laid off. Since these workers no longer make money, they can't buy the products produced by the factories, so the market shrinks even more, leading to more lay-offs. This cycle continues.

My understanding is that it wasn't the war production that caused this but advances in production technology, such as the production line (1913) and, even more importantly, more usage of automated farm equipment that made manual labour minimal and obsolete. It also resulted in a mass over-production of food (which continues to today), but since demand stayed the same prices plummetted and farmers couldn't make any money.

The fact the stock market was being held up artificially didn't help either.

However, I can see the logic behind your view, but it doesn't hold up to history. If it was caused by massive production and not enough consumption it would've happened immediately after the first world war, instead of waiting a decade and a half before plummetting. Unless you can make the argument that consuption did skyrocket immediately following ww1 - but then you have to come out with a completely different reason why the depression started - or why a consuption dropped quick enough to cause the depression.

It would be very interesting to see a study of these times and events.> this is a relatively new area for me, so everyone feel free to point out any logical falacies or assumptions I made.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Ah, I see. Unfortunately, I have homework to do, as well as sleeping. I haven't really studied history extensively enough to make a solid assertion (which is why I use my teacher's), nor do I particularly care to at this time, so I'll assume that you're correct.

Yes, it would be interesting to see a good study. Maybe economics courses teach it.
 
  • #35
State or imply what? That a website still consumes resources?

Paperless society is fine, but I think you're being a tad bit overzealous by criticizing someone for using a newspaper to get his word out. It doesn't even look like he wrote this for the paper. If a television show, radio program, or newspaper offered to feature something you put up on your website, would you honestly tell them know? In what way would that help your cause?

loseyourname, you're just not getting it.

And its up to me and my site to make sure that you do 'get it'.

First off, regarding "criticizing" Suzuki for getting the word out: what I stated was that he could have only improved the message by improving the medium, and since I am aware that he and you are net yet fully aware of what I know; hence, the NEED for the website that I am creating.

Suzuki, and other individuals that intend to be right, are doing the best they can with the knowledge they have. I KNOW I have more knowledge on said subject than Suzuki. I KNOW I possesses the knowledge to teach, and I know exactly HOW to execute the process of teaching. The question is: are you (all individuals) 'willing' to learn?

And regarding if a TV show et al offered to feature something I put up on my site, I would not even diginify their proposal with a response.

But most importantly what you (all individuals) do not yet understand, is that those mediums have already done the most they can for my site, and that is to provide a sharp CONTRAST in advertising methods.

Can you say "polarize the market"?

o:)
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
14K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top