Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really now... because from where I sit, things haven't changed much. It wasn't called "consumerism", but people have always been forming societies based on production and consumption.
Even back in the caves, you can be sure that people spent significant energy in crafting anything that might aid them in the process of procuring food and shelter for themselves and others in their family units.
Farther down the chain, societies developed more sophisticated and specialized production methods for goods - and people consumed then. The baker in town, the miller, the blacksmith - they all took their place in the market, even as many people were still subsistence farmers to some extent. Wars were fought over production resources. And, by the way, consumption and wealth was highly unequal between the nobility and the serfs.
Still farther down the chain and closer to modern times, production and consumption of goods has not only become highly sophisticated and specialized but also globalized - which, by the way, is the major underpinning factor for our economic pains in the US and Europe. Wars continue to be fought over production resources. Even the socialist and communist experiments tried in the 20th century were heavily oriented on production and consumption of goods - and they had the inequalities to boot.
So really, there has never been a time when the way in which people physically lived wasn't overwhelmingly dominated by production and consumption. GDP may be a new academic concept, but it is a concept that has always and will always apply to any society, because every society always has a value it places on production and consumption. The only thing that changes is the production methods used, the specific goods produced, and the distribution and frequency of who produces and who consumes. It will no doubt evolve, but I don't see how you ever expect this to stop because to date in the history of mankind it never has. And the reason is...you guess it...because human nature does not change. People still covet things that enable them to live a more comfortable physical life.
You are just not thinking through your history. We all come from primitive peoples. Primitive societies were not based on "production and consumption", other than the consumption of food. People in caves individually made tools by hand. There was no commerce in that activity ... and those tools were never disposable. Shelter was always a tribal endeavor if the structure was larger than a simple grass / leaf hut for one family to huddle under. There were no 'contractors' -- and there were no manufacturers or suppliers of materials ... not until just a few hundred years ago. We're talking human nature 50,000 years old ... not recent history of hundreds or even a thousand years. Human nature wasn't evolved in the past few hundred years -- or even in the past few thousand.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution there was no mass production of "products" ... and the Industrial Revolution didn't even start until the mid-1700's -- and certainly didn't have the impact of creating a new world economic paradigm until nearly the mid-1800's ... then it took off. Prior to this, commerce was based mostly on trade, the most aggressive of which was in the risky exotics acquired from arduous expeditions to the corners of the world from Europe. And even the age of those trade expeditions was only a few hundred years long.
You made a claim that human nature itself is based in consumerism. There isn't the slightest support for that theory. It's pure nonsense. Human nature is similar to the nature of all living things: it is activity based on survival and reproduction ... it is opportunistic, and in the case of homo-sapiens, opportunity, with opposable thumbs, has morphed into some very extensional neurosis realized as materialism. Crows and pack-rats collect shiny things. So do humans. And the humans best at collecting shiny baubles were the ones who had a knack for manipulating others and became powerful for their talent. Everyone else is merely trying to emulate that basic royalty.
You are just not thinking through your history. We all come from primitive peoples. Primitive societies were not based on "production and consumption", other than the consumption of food. People in caves individually made tools by hand. There was no commerce in that activity ... and those tools were never disposable. Shelter was always a tribal endeavor if the structure was larger than a simple grass / leaf hut for one family to huddle under. There were no 'contractors' -- and there were no manufacturers or suppliers of materials ... not until just a few hundred years ago. We're talking human nature 50,000 years old ... not recent history of hundreds or even a thousand years. Human nature wasn't evolved in the past few hundred years -- or even in the past few thousand.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution there was no mass production of "products" ... and the Industrial Revolution didn't even start until the mid-1700's -- and certainly didn't have the impact of creating a new world economic paradigm until nearly the mid-1800's ... then it took off. Prior to this, commerce was based mostly on trade, the most aggressive of which was in the risky exotics acquired from arduous expeditions to the corners of the world from Europe. And even the age of those trade expeditions was only a few hundred years long.
You made a claim that human nature itself is based in consumerism. There isn't the slightest support for that theory. It's pure nonsense. Human nature is similar to the nature of all living things: it is activity based on survival and reproduction ... it is opportunistic, and in the case of homo-sapiens, opportunity, with opposable thumbs, has morphed into some very extensional neurosis realized as materialism. Crows and pack-rats collect shiny things. So do humans. And the humans best at collecting shiny baubles were the ones who had a knack for manipulating others and became powerful for their talent. Everyone else is merely trying to emulate that basic royalty.
Back to Anthropology 101.
ok, if you say so... but basically, you said I was wrong and then proceeded to validate my entire argument.
What multiple parts of your post indicate - and what I just said - is that people have been producers and consumers in some form since about the time they came down from the trees. It doesn't matter that they were just initially consuming very simple resources and products aimed at supporting their day-to-day survival - I never said that consumption in the Stone Ages was like modern-day consumerism with "contractors" and stuff, so that straw man argument is completely beside the point. The salient point is that the the drive for people to become increasingly sophisticated producers and consumers is an entirely natural outcome of their human nature. And it's for a very simple truth: people innately desire to enhance their physical comfort in life, and they covet scarce resources that they discover to enable them to do this.
Don't believe this? Let me make this very simple for you with an illustration:
Quote:
One day, prehistoric man Bob discovers a better way to sharpen stones into more effective hunting weapons. Turns out that he's able to really increase his productivity with it.
Prehistoric man Ned sees that Bob is getting way more mastadon meat with less effort than he is. Ned wants what Bob has, because Ned - primitive as he is - knows that catching more prey is better than catching less, all else being equal.
Now, perhaps Ned might have attacked Bob and stolen his stones. Or perhaps Bob teaches Ned, so that Ned can become a producer of sharp stones and a consumer of them - as well as a more efficient consumer of mastadon meat. That all depends on the circumstances.
Or, later down the road, perhaps Bob and Ned discover that they have an opportunity to engage in a barter transaction. Maybe it turns out that Ned has this neat trick for tanning skin hides so that they hold up better in the weather. Ned agrees to give some of his skins to Bob if Bob in exchange gives him some sharpened stones.
And voila - there you have an early market transaction that encompasses the full spectrum of human nature that will eventually lead to the kind of production and consumption that we have today. It also encompasses the fundamental economic principle of comparative advantage.
And you really want to argue with me that this didn't happen repeatedly and with greater sophistication over time? If so, then perhaps you can explain to me why evidence of forms of currencies - i.e., mediums of exchange used for goods - have been found back even before ~1500 BC. I know this well because economic history was a personal interest of mine years back.
The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi goes back to the 1780s BC, and it makes references to money and market transactions.
Around 500-100 BC, parts of modern-day China were using cowrie shells as currency.
The earliest known currency coins date back to the 650s BC from modern-day Turkey.
The Chinese were using bronze coins the 3rd century BC.
The Greeks and Romans had financing processes - early banks, basically - back before Christ.
So, to recap: while the trappings of modern-day consumer society are obviously very different from the past, the point is that in addition to a desire to survive and reproduce, people have always wanted stuff - more, better, nicer than what they had. And they've developed market-based ways over time to cater to those desires. And that's never going to change, I can absolutely guarantee you. You're a consumer too (and perhaps a producer), and you always will be in some form or fashion.
The campers(I think we distinguish this group from the actual Occupiers) are now deciding whether or not to invade, infest and kill Uptown, which is the centerpiece of Oakland's urban revitalization and revelopment.
Not surprising ... not particularly underhanded, either ... in fact, predictable ... but evidential that the OWS is having an effect ... a very substantial effect: Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street By Jonathan Larsen and Ken Olshansky, MSNBC TV
A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on OccupyWallStreet and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program “Up w/ Chris Hayes.”
... etc. I'll link below, but since this is from MSNBC, the left equivalent of FOX, I am not quoting further from content ... just posting as another example of the growing effects of OWS. This story is being covered by other, more neutral, sources, as well. Open Channel - Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street
ok, if you say so... but basically, you said I was wrong and then proceeded to validate my entire argument.
What multiple parts of your post indicate - and what I just said - is that people have been producers and consumers in some form since about the time they came down from the trees. It doesn't matter that they were just initially consuming very simple resources and products aimed at supporting their day-to-day survival - I never said that consumption in the Stone Ages was like modern-day consumerism with "contractors" and stuff, so that straw man argument is completely beside the point. The salient point is that the the drive for people to become increasingly sophisticated producers and consumers is an entirely natural outcome of their human nature. And it's for a very simple truth: people innately desire to enhance their physical comfort in life, and they covet scarce resources that they discover to enable them to do this.
Don't believe this? Let me make this very simple for you with an illustration:
And you really want to argue with me that this didn't happen repeatedly and with greater sophistication over time? If so, then perhaps you can explain to me why evidence of forms of currencies - i.e., mediums of exchange used for goods - have been found back even before ~1500 BC. I know this well because economic history was a personal interest of mine years back.
The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi goes back to the 1780s BC, and it makes references to money and market transactions.
Around 500-100 BC, parts of modern-day China were using cowrie shells as currency.
The earliest known currency coins date back to the 650s BC from modern-day Turkey.
The Chinese were using bronze coins the 3rd century BC.
The Greeks and Romans had financing processes - early banks, basically - back before Christ.
So, to recap: while the trappings of modern-day consumer society are obviously very different from the past, the point is that in addition to a desire to survive and reproduce, people have always wanted stuff - more, better, nicer than what they had. And they've developed market-based ways over time to cater to those desires. And that's never going to change, I can absolutely guarantee you. You're a consumer too (and perhaps a producer), and you always will be in some form or fashion.
Hey cool, actually ... I am enjoying this tangent, because it goes to the heart of all human issues: nature. I enjoyed reading your response. You've done a good job of framing your position so I can understand better. I still don't agree with you. But I will allow that part of the difference I feel seems to lie in definitions of terms. Part of the difference I think goes deeper than that, however.
What I read you saying is that: commerce is human nature.
What I say is: commerce is a neurotic expression of the social nature of humans ... and by neurotic, I don't mean a value judgement along lines of morality and ethics ... I mean in a very simplistically scientific sense: it is an expression of anxiety. Human nature is filled with anxiety and that needs expression ... but commerce is not a required form of that expression. Chanting and drum-beating and sporting competitions, among endless others, can do the job
Human beings are a social animal. Sociability and social cooperation is part of human nature. Lots of animal life (and some say plants, as well, and I agree) is classified as social. Some creatures are highly social, some only at mating time, and degrees in between. Humans, and all primates in general, are very highly social. But social cooperation does not rise to the definition of commerce in any animal -- including humans, in my book. What humans do, to take social cooperation beyond basic, instinctual nature, is learned behavior -- with techniques built and passed on from generation to generation. The behaviors of commerce, a complex interaction of abstractual exchange, if not passed on through learned cooperation, would be lost and have to develop anew.
The issue of "inherent / instinctual" vs. "learned" is at the root of our future opportunities on planet earth in numbers rapidly expanding beyond 7 billion now, which numbers can only be supported by learned, cooperative behaviors. Instinctual behaviors, such as manic acquisition of as much as one can grab and run with -- read: accumulations of wealth without need -- won't work in groups beyond a social unit best termed: troupe -- with member numbers, in humans, no greater than a couple hundred hunter-gatherer individuals.
Now then, how that ties back to our OWS signalling a cultural shift, as well as a simple financial / economic attitude adjustment, is: the planet will simply not support instinctual selfish behaviors much longer. So, as a social animal, it is time for homo-sapiens to confront the reality that social animals do not exist to sacrifice the many for the benefit of the few.
We have collected a body of knowledge that can be applied as learned behaviors to survive and laugh and love and reproduce without destroying ourselves -- only if we disallow, forcibly if necessary, destructive selfish dominance as practiced by socio/psychopathic individuals [who sometimes operate in systematic subcultures].
Hey cool, actually ... I am enjoying this tangent, because it goes to the heart of all human issues: nature. I enjoyed reading your response. You've done a good job of framing your position so I can understand better. I still don't agree with you. But I will allow that part of the difference I feel seems to lie in definitions of terms. Part of the difference I think goes deeper than that, however.
What I read you saying is that: commerce is human nature.
What I say is: commerce is a neurotic expression of the social nature of humans ... and by neurotic, I don't mean a value judgement along lines of morality and ethics ... I mean in a very simplistically scientific sense: it is an expression of anxiety. Human nature is filled with anxiety and that needs expression ... but commerce is not a required form of that expression. Chanting and drum-beating and sporting competitions among endless others, can do the job
Human beings are a social animal. Sociability and social cooperation is part of human nature. Lots of animal life (and some say plants, as well, and I agree) is classified as social. Some creatures are highly social, some only at mating time, and degrees in between. Humans, and all primates in general, are very highly social. But social cooperation does not rise to the definition of commerce in any animal -- including humans, in my book. What humans do, to take social cooperation beyond basic, instinctual nature, is learned behavior -- with techniques built and passed on from generation to generation. The behaviors of commerce, a complex interaction of abstractual exchange, if not passed on through learned cooperation, would be lost and have to develop anew.
The issue of "inherent / instinctual" vs. "learned" is at the root of our future opportunities on planet earth in numbers rapidly expanding beyond 7 billion now, which numbers can only be supported by learned, cooperative behaviors. Instinctual behaviors, such as manic acquisition of as much as one can grab and run with -- read: accumulations of wealth without need -- won't work in groups beyond a social unit best termed: troupe -- with member numbers, in humans, greater than a couple hundred hunter-gatherer individuals.
Now then, how that ties back to our OWS signalling a cultural shift, as well as a simple financial / economic attitude adjustment, is: the planet will simply not support instinctual selfish behaviors much longer. So, as a social animal, it is time for homo-sapiens to confront the reality that social animals do not exist to sacrifice the many for the benefit of the few.
We have collected a body of knowledge that can be applied as learned behaviors to survive and laugh and love and reproduce without destroying ourselves -- only if we disallow, forcibly if necessary, destructive selfish dominance as practiced by socio/psychopathic individuals [who sometimes operate in systematic subcultures].
Have a nice day. See you at the protests?
Yes, it is an interesting debate. I guess we'll have to disagree. I heard this general liberal anthro argument in undergrad as well: "Oh, if only we could somehow cure humans of their obsession with selfishness and commerce, they could start living according to their true human nature."
WAKE UP - This IS their human nature! It is precisely one of the fundamentally unique things that make humans humans. If it wasn't, we'd all still be roaming the fields, living in caves and swinging from trees like the rest of the animal species. Why do you think humanity turned out the way it did? How do you think humans came to "learn" these "artificial" behaviors? Do you really think this is all a coincidence that our societies look the way they do?
I agree that commerce is fundamentally rooted in the social nature of humans, and I'd even go ahead and sign up for your definition of it as "neurotic" or driven by anxiety. But so what? That's natural. People have been "anxious" to come out of the rain, secure food for themselves, clothe their bodies, improve their transportation methods, find better ways to communicate over long distances...see where this is going?
Here's what it boils down to: humans are naturally a dichotomy of socialism and "selfish" individualism, and these two forces have been colliding throughout history, sometimes in conflicting and sometimes in complementary ways. If you go too far toward the individualist/capitalist side, you get some of the problems we have today; if you go too far toward the socialist/communist side, you get a whole different host of pernicious problems that we've seen many times over in places where it's been tried. It's the Great Paradox, and our only option is to try to ride the balance over time as best as possible.
Speaking of which, that whole thing about humans evolving away from consumerism and commerce... sorry, but it's never gonna happen - not for long, at least. Every time that people have made large-scale attempts at this, it's always ended in dismal failure - I know it well first-hand, because I came from one of those countries that suffered through it. The large majority of humans will never be willing or able to "evolve" into this, and so it requires the untenable use of violent force to establish and maintain. And even then, what you'll find is that everyone's quality of life will drop like a rock...and soon enough the whole thing blows up and "selfishness / commerce" thing reasserts itself (because it never went away in the first place). It's destined for failure because it's fundamentally in conflict with human nature; Animal Farm already illustrated that point excellently a long time ago. Heck, even you and probably 99% of protesters out there aren't capable of actually evolving beyond your "selfish" consumer nature for long - you just naively think you are. You're all really commerce-driven consumers par excellance.
Bottom line: you can't "cure" humanity of this, because it is human. If you wipe the slate clean and were to let humanity evolve again over thousands of years...we'd end up more or less right back here.
And this is why even though I respect you and your right to expression, I don't think I can join you at the protests just yet. I mostly agree with the problems you identify, but I find the proposed remedies to be too extreme. Capitalism sucks, but the alternatives are worse. And so we always have to go through these periods of social and regulatory realignment and tinkering with the market system. And even if comes to violent revolt and a new society...we'll likely just be a lot worse off for a while before we later end up back here again anyways. It's like gravity; the "selfish" thing always reasserts itself in the end.
Well, Occupy Oakland is back in the national spotlight:
Quote:
OAKLAND, Calif. - Oakland officials say police are in the process of arresting about 100 Occupy protesters for failing to disperse.
Police Sgt. Christopher Bolton says the arrests come after Occupy Oakland protesters marched through downtown Oakland a little before 8 p.m. Saturday, with some of the protesters entering a YMCA building in the city's downtown.
The arrests Saturday night come after 19 people were arrested in Occupy Oakland protests during the day.
Police used tear gas and "flash" grenades Saturday to break up hundreds of Occupy protesters after some demonstrators started throwing rocks and flares at officers and tearing down fencing.
Three officers were hurt and 19 people were arrested, the Oakland Police Department said in a release. No details on the officers' injuries were released.
I dont get it, the message to the citizens of Oakland yet the voice speaking is acting as if the occupiers are the ones suffering from the cutbacks in services and not the rest of us?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.