I think the case here is overstated, and the author falls prey to a common problem; the first thing most people do when they conceive of a clever idea is to over-apply that idea.
I think the criticism in this thread is valid, and the essay would have been better if it had been a bit more nuanced, but there is something there; are you critically thinking about what what you have in your life and whether or not it was a good use of your time any money? Money itself is possibility. A couch is just a couch. But despite this being true, that doesn't mean the couch wasn't worth it.
“Over-applied clever idea” is a good description of the essay IMO. I used to write like this in college. For me it felt good to take an idea and take it as far as possible to create logic around why the world is the way it is.
At a certain point I realized that the most complex intellectual explanations for why things are is very often no better than the simplest and least intellectual explanation.
Cant remember who said it now but it was a riff on science & experiment with one of the point being when you've put a theory together after having a bunch of ideas, you want to ensure that when explaining what the theory fits, its not just the sum of things that gave you the idea in the first place, it should bring something else out too. This note just feels like that, some ideas pretending to be unified theory of something
>are you critically thinking about what what you have in your life and whether or not it was a good use of your time any money? Money itself is possibility. A couch is just a couch. But despite this being true, that doesn't mean the couch wasn't worth it.
Generally speaking, sure. In real life though, it's not just that people get a couch, or some things they need, or ocassional splurge into buying some things as an indulgence.
It's that for shitloads of people (and the whole culture) are getting centered around consumption, constant consumption of things and even content (doomscrolling), mere consumption replacing other life aspirations, experiences, and relations.
It's always interesting to get a window into this sort of thing because I've never really felt the urge to just buy stuff for the sake of buying it.
Like, I don't live like a monk. I have a nice computer, a tv, my living space is furnished. But the transactional aspect of buying things always keeps me from just "shopping as entertainment" the way some people seem to enjoy doing. I don't like acquiring things more than I dislike spending money. I have to really want something, or need something to the point that doing without it is kinda a non-starter.
Many luxury items strike me as a sort of unnecessary burden. I do understand why sometimes they're nice and even worthwhile, but... I don't know, perhaps the issue is that in my culture, it's often the case that people conflate luxury with necessity, as though you're doing something wrong if you can't afford commercial luxuries by default.
At that point you're training yourself to carry unnecessary psychological burdens for virtually no gain.
I also find a lot of luxury items are kind of contrived and status-oriented rather than innately luxurious. Like, cool sparkling water with ice in summer is very luxurious to me in an innate sense. The simplest luxuries tend to strike me as the nicest and least likely to be contrived in order to separate me from my money.
I want to swim in clean, cool water. Sleep on a nice mattress with nice bedding. Cycle to work rather than drive. Have space in my home for hobbies. Have access to clean air. Have access to good food. Live in a city with a lot of green space. In the scheme of things, these seem like incredible luxuries to me. Many people in the world don't have most of these. I don't want to let myself believe they're not luxurious and that instead, I need a $150k car (for example) to feel like I've made it.
How do you know what your values are? I've spent a lot of time thinking about this after listening to this podcast episode: https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/238
The interviewee gives a good map for figuring out how to figure out your values.
Did your thinking happened over the value of values by chance? If so, I'd be curious, although generally would be curious to hear your thinking on the subject if you feel inclined.
Did you spend any time on the merit of having values generally? I've had a few conversations with folks about this before, I'm always curious around peoples thoughts generally on the the value/merit of things like values. (maybe it seems a bit odd, sorry, just that I find people have very interesting thoughts on this stuff!)
Ah, I understand now. Before I defined my values, I don't think I thought all too much about the "value of values" - I definitely was convinced by what Ralph Keeney said on the podcast I linked. I also started working on defining my values at a time when I had a lot of impactful decisions to make (whether to switch jobs, where to move as I was leaving my parents house for the first time, etc.). This made reflecting on my values quite a natural thing to do.
For me, writing down my values was an involved process that included reading multiple books about decision making (including Keeney's), journaling over the course of several months, and interviewing friends and family to incorporate their perspectives.
Since I defined my values I have found them quite helpful in a variety of circumstances. Some examples:
- I reflected on my values when deciding whether to accept a job in a different country. They didn't change what I chose but they gave me confidence in my decision.
- I used them as part of Keeney's value focused decision making process to choose an apartment to live in. Knowing my values led me to choose a different apartment than I would have if I had made the decision intuitively.
- In the last couple of weeks I have been feeling a bit lost and I have reflected on some ways I have not been living up to my values. Knowing what my values are shows me what I need to do to get myself back where I want to be.
Overall I can't recommend defining/writing out your values enough. It has had a significant positive impact on my life. Loved ones have since commented that I seem more self-actualized and intentional.
Thanks for taking the time for this comment. Although not as involved as you (kudos) - I have done the same some 20 years ago, and again 10 years ago, although maybe at the time I didn't call them values. I've had some deep conversations with people about this type of thing throughout my life and I've found it interesting (although I suppose not surprising) how much nihilism is out there, people who I otherwise like will act in an off way sometimes or say something weird, and sometimes I get a chance to dig in and I've found many people just think, life is awful and nobody else is living a moral or just life, nobody else has values, so why should I? However then I also think, well they probably do have values they're just no the same as mine! Anyway, I thought it was interesting you mentioned it and I appreciate you providing the thoughts. :)
The points in the essay are not as exaggerated or extreme as some comments suggest. I think the central message is simple: we acquire and accumulate things we don't need for psychological or spiritual reasons, and we need to regularly introspect on our attitudes toward spending.
I went to IKEA store last weekend, to return something I never needed. Felt happy when I got the money back. But then made the mistake of going into the maze again. The maze led to the checkout counter and I ended up spending all that. Got back home, looked at what I bought, and couldn't find a thing which I don't want to return again.
If the author is going to over apply a new idea she's found, she should go all the way.
Consumption isn't just buying things. It's the media, food, drink, and substances you consume as well. Sitting in an empty house watching videos/playing games on your phone all day is just as vacant of a lived life than filling your time with shopping and products.
The real spiritual problem is not having hobbies or interests, or only having surface level versions of those two things.
Actual title: "You're overspending because you lack values"
"Without values, desires lead you astray by following ads and algorithms and the envy of friends-a state commonly known as "being distracted"."
Great idea: Use the computer network for delivering ads. The medium used for work, research, recreation, etc. will also be the vector for delivering ads
And that's not all. Use the computer network to perform surveillance on internet subscribers. The data can be used to inform the delivery of ads
Computer networks were not always used for these purposes. It's a truly innovative idea, very creative
Depending on what you think of data collection, surveillance and ads
I think overspending usually is indeed trying to reduce some other negative feeling without solving the underlying problem that caused it.
I don't think though the same mechanism is at play with the feeling of lust for some person, as seems to be implied. The lust is in our DNA for good reasons. 'Overconsumption' or over indulging into it, is what we should avoid indeed, but that doesn't make lust a vice.
I would promote the feeling of love - in the broad meaning of the word. Love is what we truly desire, that is what can provide as well to our fellow people. We can do that without overspending, simply showing care can go a long way.
Well, the good news is that overspending also stimulates the economy. For every person that purchases a sandwich or cup of coffee they don't really need, that's also some other persons salary.
But as others have mentioned, reckless / impulse spending can also be a sign of conditions like depression, BPD, ADHD, and the list goes on...
Paying someone to break a window, and then someone else to fix it, will also stimulate the economy. But it's clearly not a rational use of our time here on earth.
I presume you just mean the farcical "break a perfectly working thing" idea. But, demolition is a thing. Similarly, turning a usable vehicle in for scrap is also a thing.
While I understand the sentiment, it is important to distinguish between mindless consumption and wanting a better quality of life.
Buying all kinds of useless crap (usually items of small value and little utility) should not be conflated with wanting to have better things. Better quality house, appliances, clothes, etc.
It is the latter that is useful and brings peace. People won't get too mad if their neighbors have more stuff as long as their stuff allows them a pretty good quality of life.
But problems arise when you cannot buy the better stuff to improve your life and instead the focus is redirected to stupid items.
This is what the article is about, in my opinion. In the end, filling your house with gadgets and gizmos of dubious usefulness/quality does not improve your life substantially.
But this is what much of the population has been relegated to, and it has a soul-crushing effect.
But still, are you saying that I'd better consume things I actually don't need because that's the only way to avoid war ? I'm not saying that you should stop buying things. We need objects in our life.
But are Apple Watches, Airpods or VR headsets or foldable phones protecting us from war ? I hope not because that sounds depressing.
(Asking genuine qestion, I'm not doing virtue signaling here, I do own a VR headset, a pair of airpods and an Apple Watch and none of those objects are making me happy actually)
The price of peace historically explains how most war is faught over resources or local status games. Both of those behaviors were mostly captured by world trade and consumerism which replaced each respectively.
But then what emerged is that the largest consumer engines of production and consumptions could control the global trade and resources in a way that would suppress warfare globally by creating an economic MAD game alongside the nuclear one.
People don’t understand how much violence this likely saved us. However it is of course not without consequences. I'm just saying so far the side effects have FAR FAR outweighed the sickness (world war)
No, I don't get 'this', because you have not actually said anything. Across this post and the ones above it you have pretty much only insulted me witouth saying anything I can either understand or misunderstand, because there is no content.
In a sibling I see that you actually drop the name of a book, as if you expect the world to read a book to respond to you.
I propose you formulate your argument, if you actually have something to say. Even if it is a summary of a book, summarise it into a argument which is relevant for this conversation. Who knows, maybe even I manage to understand you then.
My guy, the fundamentals of Neoliberalism are like newtonian physics at this point, if it's not my job to explain them for you from first principles. Born out of WW2 and specifically thrived from 'fixing the broken window of Europe and Japan.'
But basically speaking, games of destruction can be obviously extremely economical incentivized regardless of what humans call 'productive.' And economies and markets have never ever promised to be narrowly productive for a specific moral world view. Quite the opposite actually.
Please don't claim insult where basic knowledge is simply lacking.
Hmm... no, not really, even considering rare earth mineral mining, the total elimination of fossil fuel combustion would dramatically reduce human environmental harm.
There is zero way with current technology and economic development that we could support even half of the current worlds population without fossil fuels.
We certainly could not continue providing the current world with latest gen iphones, you are right.
Feeding and housing them though? Absolutely doable. It would require a significant change in our societies, but we know enough things about the universe to accomplish this.
If you're saying, politically, this is impossible, sure, you're probably right.
Ho man, the level of delusion here. Have you ever visited India? China? This isn’t a ‘latest gen iPhone’ (which, btw, is well out of reach of your typical Indian already).
This is a ‘the entire world economy is based on fossil fuels, and attempting to redo the entire worlds economy to use non-fossil fuels is not currently doable’. Even the best case emergency scenarios would have to use even more fossil fuels to try.
Germany and California have tried elements of it, but even despite massive investment they are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels for almost all the baseline parts of their economies (transportation, heating, industrial uses, etc).
If we all went on a wartime footing and devoted our entire economies to completely retooling the worlds economies, maybe - but realistically, it’s clear that people would rather blow each other up (which will also solve this problem a bit !) than do that.
And a big reason why is a lot of people are likely to starve to death or be pushed into poverty to attempt it.
You carefully ommitted China who is working (and will succeed as they always do unlike Germany and California…) on post-fossil world way before fossils become scarse
None of it actually addresses the points, and is quite literally propaganda when the CCP is the one who states what the internal numbers are and mean? (Which notably, is where the US is going very rapidly now too).
it specifically addresses the entire world economy is based on fossil fuels, and attempting to redo the entire worlds economy to use non-fossil fuels is not currently doable
- it is currently doable
- china is working on it
- they will succeed
- while we flip the two insane political parties in power every 4 to 8 years that each kills everything previous one did just out of spite if for no other reason
What are you reading that we're not? The PRC seems to be leading in building new green energy sources. It's not like I'm a fan of them - I live in Taiwan - but credit where it's due.
Leading is in no way actually replacing. And that isn’t even counting major economic factors like international shipping, where we are approximately 1% towards replacement.
Yes I agree with you that it would be politically probably impossible, since it would, as you imply, require dismantling capitalism.
But, it's not like we need fossil fuels to farm, and there's already enough housing for all the humans. If we engaged in expropriation, it's certainly physically possible.
It wouldn’t require ‘dismantling capitalism’. Notably, none of the really big countries involved here are capitalist (even the CCP, which is very business oriented, is a authoritarian market economy, not a capitalist one).
It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this? (And think for a second what you would do if you were on the other side of the equation.)
It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks.
> It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks.
Expropriation mostly means taking from corporations and giving to everyone, and maybe you're in a more developed nation but in the USA that would just mean giving it to nearly the majority of the people there. E.g. clearing out grocery stores and giving people food, and moving people from slums into empty luxury condos. Plenty of housing to fit the homeless as well, but they're a small slice.
If the PRC isn't capitalist, neither is the USA. Market dynamics drive everything in the USA, they have a concept of private property (no 99 year rule has triggered), and the means of production are owned by a capital class that uses it to exploit labor for further profit. Just because they have strong regulations and the government injects money all over the place doesn't mean it's not capitalist. It's just like a supercharged version of some highly socialized version of a European nation, plus an oversized secret police operation, but that's more on the political side than the economic one.
> It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this?
Mostly corporations, so, capitalism over, so, nothing lol. If you mean their billionaire owners, I guess they would probably be keeping their heads down in this kind of situation. The idea is the improvement of quality of life for all people, even the billionaire class could hardly complain at a massive reduction in poverty and thus crime.
They've been stealing for the majority of people for so long I think it's only fair to expropriate it back.
But ok, how do you shift the entire world off fossil fuels without dismantling capitalism? What profit motive would drive someone to choose a more expensive energy solution that requires reconfiguring equipment?
It's not a relevant question, in the same way the desires of the Confederacy for independence were irrelevant when they lost the Civil War.
But also, I did answer it: Some would probably go along with it because of the obvious overall improvement to society that would result, which they would enjoy just as much as anyone else. After all, they already pay taxes so that roads exist and homeless are at least fed (and thus not harassing people as much). I said this in my previous comment.
Yeah we could. Just not to the extremely wasteful American standards of living. Even America can only support them because it controls the whole world's money printer.
But that's a false benefit. You don't want to stimulate the economy for the sake of it, you want to stimulate the economy to the extent that it satisfies genuine human wants. It would be better if that other person's salary came from doing so, not from Making Number Go Up.
If someone drinks a cup of coffee, there is one less cup of coffee in the world. The money that other people get is just a piece of paper, it is not useful for anything. Wasteful consumption of real resources is not 'stimulus', it is just waste.
It's still a waste. If you saved that money for an emergency, you might not need to take on debt in the future. If you invested it, you might help start a business that people need. Or you might help yourself retire sooner.
Covid times provied that people can live without 50% of what they usually spend and majority of jobs will disappear if people do that. Most jobs are catering to people's overspending.
Uh it is specifically and exactly what it proved. It changed the entire planets awareness of needs and has since changed the direction of humanity.
Many don’t need to commute, purchase lunch food, shop downtown, buy commuter consumables etc. we do so because we have in the past. And I say this as a life long lover of the classic pre covid city life.
Now we discovered most people are content at home with some food, entertainment and a few hobbies. The rest of the consumption is a mix of boredom and ritual.
And more than half the population would be out of a job without that
The argument—independent of the author's illustration of it—is a valid one. But her writing does not appear to be an arena where it will be resolved in truth.
The problem is that she presents no direct stance as to what values a person should have in order to resist overconsumption. I suspect that's because this post itself is a sort of product to be consumed and it really doesn’t matter what the reader may buy less of under its influence...as long as it’s not y’know...a Substack subscription.
You might be able to make a case that for this, the specific values don't matter. What matters is having some, and knowing what they are, and keeping them in mind when you make purchasing decisions. (You'd have different purchases, depending on the values, but you'd still buy less than if you aren't guided by some kind of values.)
I understand why a person may come to support that idea and I don’t think that it’s that simple and I don’t think that if the underlying issues are at all to be taken seriously that the universal gesture toward ~~values~~ is useful to people with the spiritual defects described in this post.
It’s important that people who have the nerve to present these sort of arguments to color their appeal with some sort of objective stand beyond what’s bound to appeal to the broadest audience/target demographic. Or else the reader might as well go back to whatever Netflix series they’re in the middle of. Unless these sort of posts are meant to be consumed in conjunction with said series...
This is the single biggest rub between eastern and western philosophical traditions. Of course we could all sit quietly on a pillow in zazen pose, minds blank, freeing ourselves of want and desire, living happily and peacefully with nothing. But that sounds boring. Give me all of the things. I will only live once, and I want them. If I die still desiring them, it will have been better spent than convincing myself I didn't.
I hear this a lot but take a peek into any Japanese, Taiwanese, or PRC person's house and you'll unburden yourself of this idea of the east as a Marie Kondo paradise immediately.
In all my time in the USA I've encountered one person whose home looked like they had some kind of genuine medically diagnosable hoarding problem. If I walk down a small alley in Taiwan and peek into the homes, I would say 50% of them look slightly cleaner than that man's home, and 10% look just the same. I can pass about 15 ground floor units on either side of me with about a minute of walking. There is a lot of hoarded garbage here.
Relatable, the crap my PRC friends order EVERYDAY is...more than me in 3 months? And it all comes in a bag, box, wrapping, another box, another baggie etc. Moving to PRC i had thrown ALL my stuff away and it felt great, but I just entered the next level of consumerism...next level as I am afraid this is not even the end boss.
I wonder if it's the same thing that happens on a personal level in other countries, just happening on a more macro scale.
Thinking about my own life, when I moved to university all my possessions fitted in a car with both me and my mum as well. I was happy. After university, I went travelled for a year and all my possessions fitted inside an 80L rucksack. I was happy.
I came back to my own country. Got a job. Got money. Started buying toys because I could, but everything still fitted into my room in a shared house (plus a few things in the common rooms).
5 years later, I bought a house and all my possessions fitted in 2 car loads, but this time with just me driving. But then, I wanted furniture, so I got a load of big bulky things delivered. And over the years, I've been buying more and more things and never really felt like I needed to throw anything away because I had lots of space.
Now, if I do the exercise in the article, I agree. Everything I can see is stuff I wanted. I might not have used it for 10 years, but it's still in good condition, I still have the purpose in mind that I bought it for, and it's wasteful to just throw away. But despite that, it makes me sad because it's just clutter. Every I look in my house, it's just stuff, most of which I don't really need and haven't used in years, but... I might. Just today, there was an article about Kobos, and I dug out my 3 Kobo's that have been untouched for years. Would I have been sad if I'd thrown them out and couldn't now use them? I'm not sure. When I go travelling for a month or more at a time and only use half of the things in my suitcase, I kind of wonder what the purpose of everything else in my house is.
Anyway, that was long and rambling, but my point is just that as we get older and have more capacity, we naturally want to buy nice things that we want in the moment. I have had times in my life when money was scarce (for my family in childhood and also when I was out of work for about 3 months during the financial crisis), and so the urge to keep things that are in good condition is very strong. If I fall on hard times again, I could still use them.
If you look at society as a whole in China and Taiwan, you see a place where the vast majority of the population were poor if their lifetimes. I remember reading an article once about how the average family in 1980s Beijing would aspire to own (not even own, just aspire) a family bicycle, a watch and a radio. Compared to the West, their lives were incredibly frugal, not out of choice, but out of necessity. As their society's standards of living and purchasing power has rocketed over the last few decades, people are obviously able to buy more, but the older generation will always remember the hard times. Changing your scarcity mindset is incredibly difficult - I've wanted to declutter my house for at least 3 years, but it's really hard to actually do it, especially when you have the space to store things. Now just extrapolate that up to a whole society, collectively going through the same process, but because they're all in a similar mindset, that just reinforces the idea that this is normal and the right thing to do.
It's weird though. Whenever I'm walking down the road, and someone has their curtains open and the lights on and you can't help but look - whenever I see something really sparse - a sofa, a TV, maybe a cabinet or bookcase, I feel so jealous that I can't just do that myself. It's not like I even need to buy anything to make that happen, I just need to dispose of everything else!
Personally, I've made a plan to take at least one full carload of stuff to the tip and take a bag of stuff to a charity stuff over this Christmas holiday, just to try to start the ball rolling on changing my mindset. But I know it won't be easy, because I've had the same thoughts in previous years...
If you think eastern philosophical traditions have resulted in comparatively less consumerist desire in Asia, you’re in for a disappointment. You don’t have to transcend to some spiritual enlightenment. I understood what the author was getting at very well, and it makes sense to me. When you have a mission in life, things that don’t serve your mission are worthless to you. When you don’t have a mission, it’s easy to get caught up in vain consumerism.
>If you think eastern philosophical traditions have resulted in comparatively less consumerist desire in Asia, you’re in for a disappointment.
I'm actually saying that Western philosophy won, even in eastern cultures today. Eastern thought worked well for penniless peasant societies that could never hope to improve their condition, and likewise pre-enlightenment Western thought was very much the same. But it evolved, and we got Rosseau and Nietzche and others who unveiled the true driving force of modern man. We all want, and if we can satisfy those wants, we will.
> Of course we could all sit quietly on a pillow in zazen pose, minds blank, freeing ourselves of want and desire, living happily and peacefully with nothing. But that sounds boring.
Nobody said you have to do this alone.
I'm an overspender, probably for mental health reasons or whatever. Still I know that what I'll remember on my death bed will not be my Apple Watch or my car.
I'll remember laughing with my son, with my wife, partying with friends, learning rollerblading, riding rollercoasters, I'll remember the good movies, the good videogames, the good music. I'll remember the theatre. I'll remember the people I loved.
That doesn't sound boring at all.
An acquaintance of mine bought a really beautiful car, a brand new Porsche 911. I actually like it but he doesnt want anyone to touch it and barely drives it himself because he is afraid of damaging it. To be able to buy this car, he sacrificed his familly life and saw his wife and daughter only on weekends for years. That, to me, sounds boring.
Obvious counter-argument: You're overspending because "stuff" is no longer super-cheap (inflation, tariffs, cost of living) and you're too busy to stick to a budget or find a good deal for "stuff".
Reading the article one thing occured to me that the wasn't mentioned - but certainly relevant to me at least - all this overspending because lack of values applies to your (and my) time.
Nit: We need to stop calling these blogs “essays”.
This is just an opinion piece with no formal research applied. I feel the “essay” label is overused, often to make the author feel like an authority figure, or make the target audience feel more educated/informed for reading it (even though it’s just another person’s opinion on the subject).
To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with the message in this blog. In fact, I think there’s a lot of truth in over-consumerism.
But there seems to be some stigma with “blog”, and just calling a writing an “essay” doesn’t automatically make it different from a blog.
I have a colleague whom refers to the emails he sends as 'letters'. It was strange at first, but it also implies some effort being taken. I read the 'essays' terminology the same way. If it isn't some textual version of habitual food/travel/life logging, and has some cohesive topic, it's an essay.
> Your appetite for novelty and your fear of missing out sucks the joy out of you—the more you eat, the hungrier you are.
I definitely had some kind of shopping addiction when I got my first couple paychecks as an engineer. Suddenly I could just have things, a first for me so far in my entire life (my parents were frugal out of necessity, I'm grateful for it of course). Then I moved, and I had just a whole bunch of bullshit I had to pack and move, which was when I first started wondering about buying stuff.
I'm starting to think of consumerist culture as an ongoing psychic attack. Advertisements are trying to get me to do something that hurts me. I don't need anything any ad shows me, ever, so why the fuck are there so many ads out there trying to convince me otherwise? Why should I trade a slice of freedom (cash is runway for unemployed time) for new shoes, when I have shoes, or a new phone, when I have a phone?
And on that note, why would I ever buy anything new, even when I ostensibly need something? Such as a new laptop? Is the extra thousand or even two thousand for the latest macbook justifiable when I can get the early m1 or m2s for under a thousand bucks, and perform the job just as well? Or hell, just a nice used thinkpad? Genuinely what innovation in the phone world in the last 5 years is so incredible that I absolutely must spend 700$ or more on the latest hottest model, when I can get a still-in-LTS Pixel-something for like 250$? If anything phones have been removing features, like headphone jacks and sd card slots. What do I need 120hz refresh rate screens for? It just drains my battery. What, so the ads on my phone can look smoother?
I challenged myself this year to buy nothing new, to only either repair things that break or get a used replacement if absolutely necessary. Other than, of course, things like underwear or batteries. I even get used HDDs for my homelab. It's been a joy. I went to Japan for Japan Burn and, lacking cold weather camping clothes, just stopped by a vintage shop in Tokyo and got a banger pair of vintage jeans, a nice thick flannel, and a waxed jacket for a combined 100$ (the levy 501 selvedge alone go for 100$ new). My old kobo finally bit the dust and I got a model released this year on facebook marketplace for 20% off since the owner just didn't like that size. My earbuds broke and on a mission to replace them on that same Japan trip, I found a pair of 300$ retail IEMs for 80$ in a used electronics store, in-box, in excellent condition. It's absolutely remarkable the stuff people are selling or throwing away. I genuinely don't know why I'd need to buy anything new ever again.
The other upside for going used and vintage is they really did used to build it better before. Instead of uniqlo puff jackets that are super packable and light but explode if you scratch them wrong, I just wear a thick linen jacket that looks to be 40 years old now and will probably outlive me. My boots are some used Redwings that someone else broke in for me, and all I gotta do is get them re-soled every 5-10 years depending on how quick I wear them down. It's that Pratchett story about the poor man's boots vs the rich man's boots, except I'm still paying less than the rich man.
The last target for me is books. I absolutely cannot kill the urge to buy cool used books I find. My office is far too full of books. But oh well, I feel like at least books are somewhat harmless to keep around, compared to a bunch of junk I used to have around the apartment, dragging from move to move.
I think the case here is overstated, and the author falls prey to a common problem; the first thing most people do when they conceive of a clever idea is to over-apply that idea.
I think the criticism in this thread is valid, and the essay would have been better if it had been a bit more nuanced, but there is something there; are you critically thinking about what what you have in your life and whether or not it was a good use of your time any money? Money itself is possibility. A couch is just a couch. But despite this being true, that doesn't mean the couch wasn't worth it.
“Over-applied clever idea” is a good description of the essay IMO. I used to write like this in college. For me it felt good to take an idea and take it as far as possible to create logic around why the world is the way it is.
At a certain point I realized that the most complex intellectual explanations for why things are is very often no better than the simplest and least intellectual explanation.
Of course, if you over apply you end up predicting the future by looking at chicken entrails
After all, everything is correlated. “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
Cant remember who said it now but it was a riff on science & experiment with one of the point being when you've put a theory together after having a bunch of ideas, you want to ensure that when explaining what the theory fits, its not just the sum of things that gave you the idea in the first place, it should bring something else out too. This note just feels like that, some ideas pretending to be unified theory of something
>are you critically thinking about what what you have in your life and whether or not it was a good use of your time any money? Money itself is possibility. A couch is just a couch. But despite this being true, that doesn't mean the couch wasn't worth it.
Generally speaking, sure. In real life though, it's not just that people get a couch, or some things they need, or ocassional splurge into buying some things as an indulgence.
It's that for shitloads of people (and the whole culture) are getting centered around consumption, constant consumption of things and even content (doomscrolling), mere consumption replacing other life aspirations, experiences, and relations.
It's always interesting to get a window into this sort of thing because I've never really felt the urge to just buy stuff for the sake of buying it.
Like, I don't live like a monk. I have a nice computer, a tv, my living space is furnished. But the transactional aspect of buying things always keeps me from just "shopping as entertainment" the way some people seem to enjoy doing. I don't like acquiring things more than I dislike spending money. I have to really want something, or need something to the point that doing without it is kinda a non-starter.
I'm similar. Shopping gives me anxiety because I grew up too poor to ever normalize spending without significant justification.
Perhaps if I had an easier time with material goods and money growing up, I could relax about spending money and somehow enjoy it.
Same for me too.
The luxury stuff shown in in-flight magazines and such always seemed silly. Apparently I’m supposed to want all that stuff.
I have no desire for expensive watches, luxury cars, etc. If someone gave one, I wouldn’t even want it. Not even a question of affordability.
Many luxury items strike me as a sort of unnecessary burden. I do understand why sometimes they're nice and even worthwhile, but... I don't know, perhaps the issue is that in my culture, it's often the case that people conflate luxury with necessity, as though you're doing something wrong if you can't afford commercial luxuries by default.
At that point you're training yourself to carry unnecessary psychological burdens for virtually no gain.
I also find a lot of luxury items are kind of contrived and status-oriented rather than innately luxurious. Like, cool sparkling water with ice in summer is very luxurious to me in an innate sense. The simplest luxuries tend to strike me as the nicest and least likely to be contrived in order to separate me from my money.
I want to swim in clean, cool water. Sleep on a nice mattress with nice bedding. Cycle to work rather than drive. Have space in my home for hobbies. Have access to clean air. Have access to good food. Live in a city with a lot of green space. In the scheme of things, these seem like incredible luxuries to me. Many people in the world don't have most of these. I don't want to let myself believe they're not luxurious and that instead, I need a $150k car (for example) to feel like I've made it.
How do you know what your values are? I've spent a lot of time thinking about this after listening to this podcast episode: https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/238
The interviewee gives a good map for figuring out how to figure out your values.
Did your thinking happened over the value of values by chance? If so, I'd be curious, although generally would be curious to hear your thinking on the subject if you feel inclined.
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "happened over the value of values." Could you clarify?
Did you spend any time on the merit of having values generally? I've had a few conversations with folks about this before, I'm always curious around peoples thoughts generally on the the value/merit of things like values. (maybe it seems a bit odd, sorry, just that I find people have very interesting thoughts on this stuff!)
Ah, I understand now. Before I defined my values, I don't think I thought all too much about the "value of values" - I definitely was convinced by what Ralph Keeney said on the podcast I linked. I also started working on defining my values at a time when I had a lot of impactful decisions to make (whether to switch jobs, where to move as I was leaving my parents house for the first time, etc.). This made reflecting on my values quite a natural thing to do.
For me, writing down my values was an involved process that included reading multiple books about decision making (including Keeney's), journaling over the course of several months, and interviewing friends and family to incorporate their perspectives.
Since I defined my values I have found them quite helpful in a variety of circumstances. Some examples:
- I reflected on my values when deciding whether to accept a job in a different country. They didn't change what I chose but they gave me confidence in my decision.
- I used them as part of Keeney's value focused decision making process to choose an apartment to live in. Knowing my values led me to choose a different apartment than I would have if I had made the decision intuitively.
- In the last couple of weeks I have been feeling a bit lost and I have reflected on some ways I have not been living up to my values. Knowing what my values are shows me what I need to do to get myself back where I want to be.
Overall I can't recommend defining/writing out your values enough. It has had a significant positive impact on my life. Loved ones have since commented that I seem more self-actualized and intentional.
Thanks for taking the time for this comment. Although not as involved as you (kudos) - I have done the same some 20 years ago, and again 10 years ago, although maybe at the time I didn't call them values. I've had some deep conversations with people about this type of thing throughout my life and I've found it interesting (although I suppose not surprising) how much nihilism is out there, people who I otherwise like will act in an off way sometimes or say something weird, and sometimes I get a chance to dig in and I've found many people just think, life is awful and nobody else is living a moral or just life, nobody else has values, so why should I? However then I also think, well they probably do have values they're just no the same as mine! Anyway, I thought it was interesting you mentioned it and I appreciate you providing the thoughts. :)
It really doesn't need to be that deep. Or pretentiously moralistic.
Yeah, they literally just cleaned their room and the immediatly jumped on a conclusions for external “you” moralistic.
Seriously. That opening is textbook depression.
The points in the essay are not as exaggerated or extreme as some comments suggest. I think the central message is simple: we acquire and accumulate things we don't need for psychological or spiritual reasons, and we need to regularly introspect on our attitudes toward spending.
Our spending mostly depends on our income.
Deciding certain spending is bad doesn't really help.
I went to IKEA store last weekend, to return something I never needed. Felt happy when I got the money back. But then made the mistake of going into the maze again. The maze led to the checkout counter and I ended up spending all that. Got back home, looked at what I bought, and couldn't find a thing which I don't want to return again.
If the author is going to over apply a new idea she's found, she should go all the way.
Consumption isn't just buying things. It's the media, food, drink, and substances you consume as well. Sitting in an empty house watching videos/playing games on your phone all day is just as vacant of a lived life than filling your time with shopping and products.
The real spiritual problem is not having hobbies or interests, or only having surface level versions of those two things.
Actual title: "You're overspending because you lack values"
"Without values, desires lead you astray by following ads and algorithms and the envy of friends-a state commonly known as "being distracted"."
Great idea: Use the computer network for delivering ads. The medium used for work, research, recreation, etc. will also be the vector for delivering ads
And that's not all. Use the computer network to perform surveillance on internet subscribers. The data can be used to inform the delivery of ads
Computer networks were not always used for these purposes. It's a truly innovative idea, very creative
Depending on what you think of data collection, surveillance and ads
I think overspending usually is indeed trying to reduce some other negative feeling without solving the underlying problem that caused it.
I don't think though the same mechanism is at play with the feeling of lust for some person, as seems to be implied. The lust is in our DNA for good reasons. 'Overconsumption' or over indulging into it, is what we should avoid indeed, but that doesn't make lust a vice.
I would promote the feeling of love - in the broad meaning of the word. Love is what we truly desire, that is what can provide as well to our fellow people. We can do that without overspending, simply showing care can go a long way.
Well, the good news is that overspending also stimulates the economy. For every person that purchases a sandwich or cup of coffee they don't really need, that's also some other persons salary.
But as others have mentioned, reckless / impulse spending can also be a sign of conditions like depression, BPD, ADHD, and the list goes on...
Paying someone to break a window, and then someone else to fix it, will also stimulate the economy. But it's clearly not a rational use of our time here on earth.
Replace window with house, and you basically described a lot of the market?
There are also interesting efficiencies in there. Fixing a window is not as quick as just replacing it.
Not sure I understood your comment. How often do you pay people to break your house / phone / car, just so you can pay someone (else) to fix it?
I presume you just mean the farcical "break a perfectly working thing" idea. But, demolition is a thing. Similarly, turning a usable vehicle in for scrap is also a thing.
Don't need to be rational all the time for your whole life. Sometimes you just want an extra sandwich.
Many of my most memorable moments stem from from a bout of irrationality.
You aren’t really aware of the realities of the modern economy are you.
Games like these are everywhere.
I mean this comment is like the epitome of sweet summer child.
And ? How does that changes the second sentence of gp ? "But it's clearly not a rational use of our time here on earth"
Because the alternative game for 10,000 years has been war and violence.
Please read the Price of Peace.
While I understand the sentiment, it is important to distinguish between mindless consumption and wanting a better quality of life. Buying all kinds of useless crap (usually items of small value and little utility) should not be conflated with wanting to have better things. Better quality house, appliances, clothes, etc.
It is the latter that is useful and brings peace. People won't get too mad if their neighbors have more stuff as long as their stuff allows them a pretty good quality of life. But problems arise when you cannot buy the better stuff to improve your life and instead the focus is redirected to stupid items.
This is what the article is about, in my opinion. In the end, filling your house with gadgets and gizmos of dubious usefulness/quality does not improve your life substantially. But this is what much of the population has been relegated to, and it has a soul-crushing effect.
Adding it to my reading list.
But still, are you saying that I'd better consume things I actually don't need because that's the only way to avoid war ? I'm not saying that you should stop buying things. We need objects in our life.
But are Apple Watches, Airpods or VR headsets or foldable phones protecting us from war ? I hope not because that sounds depressing.
(Asking genuine qestion, I'm not doing virtue signaling here, I do own a VR headset, a pair of airpods and an Apple Watch and none of those objects are making me happy actually)
The price of peace historically explains how most war is faught over resources or local status games. Both of those behaviors were mostly captured by world trade and consumerism which replaced each respectively.
But then what emerged is that the largest consumer engines of production and consumptions could control the global trade and resources in a way that would suppress warfare globally by creating an economic MAD game alongside the nuclear one.
People don’t understand how much violence this likely saved us. However it is of course not without consequences. I'm just saying so far the side effects have FAR FAR outweighed the sickness (world war)
Can you cite an example?
> You aren’t really aware of the realities of the modern economy are you.
OK, but you did recognise that it was a reference to the parable of the broken window by the 'sweet summer child' Claude-Frédéric Bastiat?
Yes and it's completely falsely applied, and maybe even arguably wrong to begin with. It's moralizing not reality. Geeze guy, do you not get this?
No, I don't get 'this', because you have not actually said anything. Across this post and the ones above it you have pretty much only insulted me witouth saying anything I can either understand or misunderstand, because there is no content.
In a sibling I see that you actually drop the name of a book, as if you expect the world to read a book to respond to you.
I propose you formulate your argument, if you actually have something to say. Even if it is a summary of a book, summarise it into a argument which is relevant for this conversation. Who knows, maybe even I manage to understand you then.
My guy, the fundamentals of Neoliberalism are like newtonian physics at this point, if it's not my job to explain them for you from first principles. Born out of WW2 and specifically thrived from 'fixing the broken window of Europe and Japan.'
But basically speaking, games of destruction can be obviously extremely economical incentivized regardless of what humans call 'productive.' And economies and markets have never ever promised to be narrowly productive for a specific moral world view. Quite the opposite actually.
Please don't claim insult where basic knowledge is simply lacking.
> For every person that purchases a sandwich or cup of coffee they don't really need
But that's also a toll to the environment.
Really the problem is that we are alive?
It's pretty easy to be alive and not harm the environment in the outsized way we do. We have the technology!
We do not. We simply moved your outsized impact to places you do not see.
Hmm... no, not really, even considering rare earth mineral mining, the total elimination of fossil fuel combustion would dramatically reduce human environmental harm.
There is zero way with current technology and economic development that we could support even half of the current worlds population without fossil fuels.
We certainly could not continue providing the current world with latest gen iphones, you are right.
Feeding and housing them though? Absolutely doable. It would require a significant change in our societies, but we know enough things about the universe to accomplish this.
If you're saying, politically, this is impossible, sure, you're probably right.
Ho man, the level of delusion here. Have you ever visited India? China? This isn’t a ‘latest gen iPhone’ (which, btw, is well out of reach of your typical Indian already).
This is a ‘the entire world economy is based on fossil fuels, and attempting to redo the entire worlds economy to use non-fossil fuels is not currently doable’. Even the best case emergency scenarios would have to use even more fossil fuels to try.
Germany and California have tried elements of it, but even despite massive investment they are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels for almost all the baseline parts of their economies (transportation, heating, industrial uses, etc).
If we all went on a wartime footing and devoted our entire economies to completely retooling the worlds economies, maybe - but realistically, it’s clear that people would rather blow each other up (which will also solve this problem a bit !) than do that.
And a big reason why is a lot of people are likely to starve to death or be pushed into poverty to attempt it.
You carefully ommitted China who is working (and will succeed as they always do unlike Germany and California…) on post-fossil world way before fossils become scarse
You can't be serious. China does invest in renewables, but that is just on top of their ever-increasing fossil fuel consumption.
They are not powering their industries with renewables. If you believe that, I don't know what to tell you.
You really... really.... really are wrong here. Reality vs propoganda needs to be known
few things you can read
https://archive.ph/J0bew
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/11/06/chinas-clean-en...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-14/trump-us-xi-china-tra...
https://huabinoliver.substack.com/p/what-is-really-going-to-...
None of it actually addresses the points, and is quite literally propaganda when the CCP is the one who states what the internal numbers are and mean? (Which notably, is where the US is going very rapidly now too).
it specifically addresses the entire world economy is based on fossil fuels, and attempting to redo the entire worlds economy to use non-fossil fuels is not currently doable
- it is currently doable
- china is working on it
- they will succeed
- while we flip the two insane political parties in power every 4 to 8 years that each kills everything previous one did just out of spite if for no other reason
They’ll make some progress - while also burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, sure.
And maybe in 20+ years we’ll be closer.
But that is not the same as what was being discussed.
What are you reading that we're not? The PRC seems to be leading in building new green energy sources. It's not like I'm a fan of them - I live in Taiwan - but credit where it's due.
Leading is in no way actually replacing. And that isn’t even counting major economic factors like international shipping, where we are approximately 1% towards replacement.
hehehe yea, for sure that’s it
Yes I agree with you that it would be politically probably impossible, since it would, as you imply, require dismantling capitalism.
But, it's not like we need fossil fuels to farm, and there's already enough housing for all the humans. If we engaged in expropriation, it's certainly physically possible.
It wouldn’t require ‘dismantling capitalism’. Notably, none of the really big countries involved here are capitalist (even the CCP, which is very business oriented, is a authoritarian market economy, not a capitalist one).
It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this? (And think for a second what you would do if you were on the other side of the equation.)
It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks.
> It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks.
Expropriation mostly means taking from corporations and giving to everyone, and maybe you're in a more developed nation but in the USA that would just mean giving it to nearly the majority of the people there. E.g. clearing out grocery stores and giving people food, and moving people from slums into empty luxury condos. Plenty of housing to fit the homeless as well, but they're a small slice.
If the PRC isn't capitalist, neither is the USA. Market dynamics drive everything in the USA, they have a concept of private property (no 99 year rule has triggered), and the means of production are owned by a capital class that uses it to exploit labor for further profit. Just because they have strong regulations and the government injects money all over the place doesn't mean it's not capitalist. It's just like a supercharged version of some highly socialized version of a European nation, plus an oversized secret police operation, but that's more on the political side than the economic one.
> It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this?
Mostly corporations, so, capitalism over, so, nothing lol. If you mean their billionaire owners, I guess they would probably be keeping their heads down in this kind of situation. The idea is the improvement of quality of life for all people, even the billionaire class could hardly complain at a massive reduction in poverty and thus crime.
They've been stealing for the majority of people for so long I think it's only fair to expropriate it back.
But ok, how do you shift the entire world off fossil fuels without dismantling capitalism? What profit motive would drive someone to choose a more expensive energy solution that requires reconfiguring equipment?
You never answered my question. Why would they go along with it?
> Why would they go along with it?
It's not a relevant question, in the same way the desires of the Confederacy for independence were irrelevant when they lost the Civil War.
But also, I did answer it: Some would probably go along with it because of the obvious overall improvement to society that would result, which they would enjoy just as much as anyone else. After all, they already pay taxes so that roads exist and homeless are at least fed (and thus not harassing people as much). I said this in my previous comment.
It absolutely is a valid concern when the other party controls all the wealth, and guns, and governments! Unless you like losing anyway.
Do you think the civil war was a pleasant or productive one for anyone?
The British did it a different way re: slavery, and notably did not burn half their country to the ground - and still banned it.
Yeah we could. Just not to the extremely wasteful American standards of living. Even America can only support them because it controls the whole world's money printer.
That's easy to solve.
Just encourage them to take part in some low-cost digital alternative like Sports Predictions.
But that's a false benefit. You don't want to stimulate the economy for the sake of it, you want to stimulate the economy to the extent that it satisfies genuine human wants. It would be better if that other person's salary came from doing so, not from Making Number Go Up.
If someone drinks a cup of coffee, there is one less cup of coffee in the world. The money that other people get is just a piece of paper, it is not useful for anything. Wasteful consumption of real resources is not 'stimulus', it is just waste.
It's still a waste. If you saved that money for an emergency, you might not need to take on debt in the future. If you invested it, you might help start a business that people need. Or you might help yourself retire sooner.
Spending for the sake of spending is silly.
Covid times provied that people can live without 50% of what they usually spend and majority of jobs will disappear if people do that. Most jobs are catering to people's overspending.
Or people’s overspending is propping up the economy
> Or people’s overspending is propping up the economy
Good thing people are still religious and have a god to worship and make sacrifices.
Hasn't this been known for decades?
> Covid times provied that people can live without 50% of what they usually spend and majority of jobs will disappear if people do that.
I don't think either of these things are remotely accurate lol
Uh it is specifically and exactly what it proved. It changed the entire planets awareness of needs and has since changed the direction of humanity.
Many don’t need to commute, purchase lunch food, shop downtown, buy commuter consumables etc. we do so because we have in the past. And I say this as a life long lover of the classic pre covid city life.
Now we discovered most people are content at home with some food, entertainment and a few hobbies. The rest of the consumption is a mix of boredom and ritual.
And more than half the population would be out of a job without that
My point is this isn't normal, this is representative of a small slice of (at least American) society: https://retailwire.com/discussion/wealthiest-us-households-s...
There is no such thing as normal, you're using the term morally. It simply was true for some segments, enough to make it real.
The argument—independent of the author's illustration of it—is a valid one. But her writing does not appear to be an arena where it will be resolved in truth.
The problem is that she presents no direct stance as to what values a person should have in order to resist overconsumption. I suspect that's because this post itself is a sort of product to be consumed and it really doesn’t matter what the reader may buy less of under its influence...as long as it’s not y’know...a Substack subscription.
You might be able to make a case that for this, the specific values don't matter. What matters is having some, and knowing what they are, and keeping them in mind when you make purchasing decisions. (You'd have different purchases, depending on the values, but you'd still buy less than if you aren't guided by some kind of values.)
I understand why a person may come to support that idea and I don’t think that it’s that simple and I don’t think that if the underlying issues are at all to be taken seriously that the universal gesture toward ~~values~~ is useful to people with the spiritual defects described in this post.
It’s important that people who have the nerve to present these sort of arguments to color their appeal with some sort of objective stand beyond what’s bound to appeal to the broadest audience/target demographic. Or else the reader might as well go back to whatever Netflix series they’re in the middle of. Unless these sort of posts are meant to be consumed in conjunction with said series...
This is the single biggest rub between eastern and western philosophical traditions. Of course we could all sit quietly on a pillow in zazen pose, minds blank, freeing ourselves of want and desire, living happily and peacefully with nothing. But that sounds boring. Give me all of the things. I will only live once, and I want them. If I die still desiring them, it will have been better spent than convincing myself I didn't.
I hear this a lot but take a peek into any Japanese, Taiwanese, or PRC person's house and you'll unburden yourself of this idea of the east as a Marie Kondo paradise immediately.
In all my time in the USA I've encountered one person whose home looked like they had some kind of genuine medically diagnosable hoarding problem. If I walk down a small alley in Taiwan and peek into the homes, I would say 50% of them look slightly cleaner than that man's home, and 10% look just the same. I can pass about 15 ground floor units on either side of me with about a minute of walking. There is a lot of hoarded garbage here.
Relatable, the crap my PRC friends order EVERYDAY is...more than me in 3 months? And it all comes in a bag, box, wrapping, another box, another baggie etc. Moving to PRC i had thrown ALL my stuff away and it felt great, but I just entered the next level of consumerism...next level as I am afraid this is not even the end boss.
I wonder if it's the same thing that happens on a personal level in other countries, just happening on a more macro scale.
Thinking about my own life, when I moved to university all my possessions fitted in a car with both me and my mum as well. I was happy. After university, I went travelled for a year and all my possessions fitted inside an 80L rucksack. I was happy.
I came back to my own country. Got a job. Got money. Started buying toys because I could, but everything still fitted into my room in a shared house (plus a few things in the common rooms).
5 years later, I bought a house and all my possessions fitted in 2 car loads, but this time with just me driving. But then, I wanted furniture, so I got a load of big bulky things delivered. And over the years, I've been buying more and more things and never really felt like I needed to throw anything away because I had lots of space.
Now, if I do the exercise in the article, I agree. Everything I can see is stuff I wanted. I might not have used it for 10 years, but it's still in good condition, I still have the purpose in mind that I bought it for, and it's wasteful to just throw away. But despite that, it makes me sad because it's just clutter. Every I look in my house, it's just stuff, most of which I don't really need and haven't used in years, but... I might. Just today, there was an article about Kobos, and I dug out my 3 Kobo's that have been untouched for years. Would I have been sad if I'd thrown them out and couldn't now use them? I'm not sure. When I go travelling for a month or more at a time and only use half of the things in my suitcase, I kind of wonder what the purpose of everything else in my house is.
Anyway, that was long and rambling, but my point is just that as we get older and have more capacity, we naturally want to buy nice things that we want in the moment. I have had times in my life when money was scarce (for my family in childhood and also when I was out of work for about 3 months during the financial crisis), and so the urge to keep things that are in good condition is very strong. If I fall on hard times again, I could still use them.
If you look at society as a whole in China and Taiwan, you see a place where the vast majority of the population were poor if their lifetimes. I remember reading an article once about how the average family in 1980s Beijing would aspire to own (not even own, just aspire) a family bicycle, a watch and a radio. Compared to the West, their lives were incredibly frugal, not out of choice, but out of necessity. As their society's standards of living and purchasing power has rocketed over the last few decades, people are obviously able to buy more, but the older generation will always remember the hard times. Changing your scarcity mindset is incredibly difficult - I've wanted to declutter my house for at least 3 years, but it's really hard to actually do it, especially when you have the space to store things. Now just extrapolate that up to a whole society, collectively going through the same process, but because they're all in a similar mindset, that just reinforces the idea that this is normal and the right thing to do.
It's weird though. Whenever I'm walking down the road, and someone has their curtains open and the lights on and you can't help but look - whenever I see something really sparse - a sofa, a TV, maybe a cabinet or bookcase, I feel so jealous that I can't just do that myself. It's not like I even need to buy anything to make that happen, I just need to dispose of everything else!
Personally, I've made a plan to take at least one full carload of stuff to the tip and take a bag of stuff to a charity stuff over this Christmas holiday, just to try to start the ball rolling on changing my mindset. But I know it won't be easy, because I've had the same thoughts in previous years...
If you think eastern philosophical traditions have resulted in comparatively less consumerist desire in Asia, you’re in for a disappointment. You don’t have to transcend to some spiritual enlightenment. I understood what the author was getting at very well, and it makes sense to me. When you have a mission in life, things that don’t serve your mission are worthless to you. When you don’t have a mission, it’s easy to get caught up in vain consumerism.
>If you think eastern philosophical traditions have resulted in comparatively less consumerist desire in Asia, you’re in for a disappointment.
I'm actually saying that Western philosophy won, even in eastern cultures today. Eastern thought worked well for penniless peasant societies that could never hope to improve their condition, and likewise pre-enlightenment Western thought was very much the same. But it evolved, and we got Rosseau and Nietzche and others who unveiled the true driving force of modern man. We all want, and if we can satisfy those wants, we will.
> Of course we could all sit quietly on a pillow in zazen pose, minds blank, freeing ourselves of want and desire, living happily and peacefully with nothing. But that sounds boring.
Nobody said you have to do this alone.
I'm an overspender, probably for mental health reasons or whatever. Still I know that what I'll remember on my death bed will not be my Apple Watch or my car.
I'll remember laughing with my son, with my wife, partying with friends, learning rollerblading, riding rollercoasters, I'll remember the good movies, the good videogames, the good music. I'll remember the theatre. I'll remember the people I loved.
That doesn't sound boring at all.
An acquaintance of mine bought a really beautiful car, a brand new Porsche 911. I actually like it but he doesnt want anyone to touch it and barely drives it himself because he is afraid of damaging it. To be able to buy this car, he sacrificed his familly life and saw his wife and daughter only on weekends for years. That, to me, sounds boring.
> But that sounds boring. Give me all of the things. I will only live once, and I want them.
I don't think anyone in western society argues for consumerism, either.
Actually not all eastern. Hindu tradition does include the right acquisition of wealth and material comforts (dharma, artha, kaama, moksha).
I mean declutter if you feel suffocated. But values really have nothing to do with it.
Like many people, I have a bad habit of visiting Slickdeals, and buying things I might never use, because they're a good deal.
A lot of people also have the problem of visiting /r/somehobby and then buying things because other people are buying them.
It's kind of mind-blowing to look at all the stuff you bought this year and didn't end up really using.
Obvious counter-argument: You're overspending because "stuff" is no longer super-cheap (inflation, tariffs, cost of living) and you're too busy to stick to a budget or find a good deal for "stuff".
Reading the article one thing occured to me that the wasn't mentioned - but certainly relevant to me at least - all this overspending because lack of values applies to your (and my) time.
Nit: We need to stop calling these blogs “essays”.
This is just an opinion piece with no formal research applied. I feel the “essay” label is overused, often to make the author feel like an authority figure, or make the target audience feel more educated/informed for reading it (even though it’s just another person’s opinion on the subject).
To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with the message in this blog. In fact, I think there’s a lot of truth in over-consumerism.
But there seems to be some stigma with “blog”, and just calling a writing an “essay” doesn’t automatically make it different from a blog.
I have a colleague whom refers to the emails he sends as 'letters'. It was strange at first, but it also implies some effort being taken. I read the 'essays' terminology the same way. If it isn't some textual version of habitual food/travel/life logging, and has some cohesive topic, it's an essay.
I don't see the issue; isn't a blog just a medium anyway, and media can host any kind of content, including essays, which anyone can write.
But this is what essays have always been. Blog posts are a different though partially overlapping concept.
Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
Going, going, going on beyond, always going on beyond, always becoming Buddha.
Consumerism is by and large and widely a huge part of modern life because of one thing:
Boredom.
Moralizing it in this fashion is elitist garbage. The author needs to look in the mirror first.
Free returns solve this!
> Your appetite for novelty and your fear of missing out sucks the joy out of you—the more you eat, the hungrier you are.
I definitely had some kind of shopping addiction when I got my first couple paychecks as an engineer. Suddenly I could just have things, a first for me so far in my entire life (my parents were frugal out of necessity, I'm grateful for it of course). Then I moved, and I had just a whole bunch of bullshit I had to pack and move, which was when I first started wondering about buying stuff.
I'm starting to think of consumerist culture as an ongoing psychic attack. Advertisements are trying to get me to do something that hurts me. I don't need anything any ad shows me, ever, so why the fuck are there so many ads out there trying to convince me otherwise? Why should I trade a slice of freedom (cash is runway for unemployed time) for new shoes, when I have shoes, or a new phone, when I have a phone?
And on that note, why would I ever buy anything new, even when I ostensibly need something? Such as a new laptop? Is the extra thousand or even two thousand for the latest macbook justifiable when I can get the early m1 or m2s for under a thousand bucks, and perform the job just as well? Or hell, just a nice used thinkpad? Genuinely what innovation in the phone world in the last 5 years is so incredible that I absolutely must spend 700$ or more on the latest hottest model, when I can get a still-in-LTS Pixel-something for like 250$? If anything phones have been removing features, like headphone jacks and sd card slots. What do I need 120hz refresh rate screens for? It just drains my battery. What, so the ads on my phone can look smoother?
I challenged myself this year to buy nothing new, to only either repair things that break or get a used replacement if absolutely necessary. Other than, of course, things like underwear or batteries. I even get used HDDs for my homelab. It's been a joy. I went to Japan for Japan Burn and, lacking cold weather camping clothes, just stopped by a vintage shop in Tokyo and got a banger pair of vintage jeans, a nice thick flannel, and a waxed jacket for a combined 100$ (the levy 501 selvedge alone go for 100$ new). My old kobo finally bit the dust and I got a model released this year on facebook marketplace for 20% off since the owner just didn't like that size. My earbuds broke and on a mission to replace them on that same Japan trip, I found a pair of 300$ retail IEMs for 80$ in a used electronics store, in-box, in excellent condition. It's absolutely remarkable the stuff people are selling or throwing away. I genuinely don't know why I'd need to buy anything new ever again.
The other upside for going used and vintage is they really did used to build it better before. Instead of uniqlo puff jackets that are super packable and light but explode if you scratch them wrong, I just wear a thick linen jacket that looks to be 40 years old now and will probably outlive me. My boots are some used Redwings that someone else broke in for me, and all I gotta do is get them re-soled every 5-10 years depending on how quick I wear them down. It's that Pratchett story about the poor man's boots vs the rich man's boots, except I'm still paying less than the rich man.
The last target for me is books. I absolutely cannot kill the urge to buy cool used books I find. My office is far too full of books. But oh well, I feel like at least books are somewhat harmless to keep around, compared to a bunch of junk I used to have around the apartment, dragging from move to move.
I kinda feel it's victim blaming.
You have an entire system built around laws, companies and education that consistently targets your attention (and your wallet).
But hey, if you fall in the trap it's because you lack values.