Crawling from the Wreckage John Watkinson, in his latest instalment for El Reg, argues that consumerism, as it is practised today, is an invention that now does more harm than good both to quality of life and the environment. We are on a driverless train to nowhere and we need to jump off.
.
The problem is a real one. We are consuming resources that can't be replaced. We waste too much.
Who told you that? How did you conclude that, other than by consulting your "feelngs"?
...The mechanism of capitalism is businesses and consumers responding to incentives in the market, to make money, within the ground rules set up to govern the market. It is a feedback mechanism. It can't plan ahead to avoid obvious problems years ahead, there has to be adult supervision that can. This is the role that naturally falls to government and it is the point of failure in the current world economy. Especially in the Anglo American governments.
So you believe that consumers and producers are not "adults", meaning that are unable to form "mature" consumer needs/wants, and providers are unable and/or unwilling to predict and plan for those future needs/wants?
What "obvious problems years ahead" does Telsa or Apple fail to appreciate in their future product development planning? What gift of insight are federal bureaucrats gifted with, not available to millions of the private world of production, marketing, and distribution?
What progress we have had toward a more sustainable economy has been due to government action to change the rules, to require the more sustainable direction. Big business is especially myoptic in this regard, they oppose these changes because they don't want to change. All the more reason that we should ignore them.
If you are faithful to your prior logic, you are actually saying is that consumers, workers, and and the providers are myoptic, and they must be ignored. And if they opposed change, would not consumers and providers have stuck with their Pintos, vinyl records, and appliances?
Change is NOT what they oppose - what they seem to oppose is making a lifestyle or monetary sacrifice based on the suspect preferences of Washington's "adult" class of politicians and bureaucrats.
Changing and improving technology isn't the problem, it is the solution, if it is correctly directed.
These folks hate change? So the Washington DC "adults" need to direct improving technology, because without it we would still be driving stationwagons and 1975 Ford Pintos?
We have low fuel consumption in cars because government regulations forced the technology that provided them. Not because the manufacturers wanted to spend the money or that the customers wanted to spend the money but because the government required it. It is the same reason that we have long lasting light bulbs that produce the same amount of light with only one quarter of the energy.
That is partially true. Higher gas prices in the 1970s, rationing, and new CAFE standards forced the demise of some classes of vehicles (e.g. the station wagon), the later adoption of partially CAFE exempt minivans and true compact pickups, and the first generation of relentlessly crappy cars out of Detroit.
The 74 Corvette started with a laughable 195 HP, and the V-8 Mustang was power-choked with pollution controls. But hey, I think you could still floor it in your Rambler or Gremlin...
So yes we got lower fuel consumption, not because consumers wanted it but because the Washington adults decided that people should not have the freedom to provide and purchase what the American consumer wants. How is this "good"? Why is it any of Washington's business?
