Materialism

[Louisa Bannon]

People often look at this problem from the extremes: everything and nothing.

The 1% of the world seem to be obsessed with acquisition for its own sake. Warren Buffet, often considered a fairly decent if extravagantly wealthy fellow, never tires of "compounding." Just as obviously, Buffet is not a normal dude and is almost certainly on the autism spectrum. He likes compounding because he can't let it go - because he has a mental disorder. So now, what is everyone else's excuse? As Olive Stone stated it in the movie Wall Street: "How many yachts can you water-ski behind? How much is enough?"

Then there are those children and villagers we see on late night television. 50 cents a day will change their lives, we are told. We see images of people barely clothed, flies swarm, shelters look like lean-tos. Obviously those folks could use a bit more. Suffering cannot be pleasant. But much of what holds people in poverty is political.

The reality is that like most things what you want is somewhere in between. It is absolutely possible to have enough and simply be happy with that.

The difficulty is this: most people don't realize when they have it good already. You've got to know when you've reached the "enough" phase of life.

[Grimbold21]

The logic of our world trading order and international system is to spread American consumer culture and materialism world wide. That Star Trek fantasy is just clever marketing and RP.

That's a bit on the exaggerating side. I'd like to think that over at this side of the pond we're not all brainless consumers.

On topic: I propose that Stoicism be taught early at school!

[PC2]

The difficulty is this: most people don't realize when they have it good already. You've got to know when you've reached the "enough" phase of life.

I don't think people evolved to be happy by hitting a fixed point. Maybe temporarily, but eventually I think a person will have to keep exploring and self-actualizing to be happy.

[Theodarzna]

That's a bit on the exaggerating side. I'd like to think that over at this side of the pond we're not all brainless consumers.

On topic: I propose that Stoicism be taught early at school!

We've all been made consumers with varying levels of a mind. America might be the most delusional, but Europe isn't that far behind IMHO.

- - - Updated - - -

People often look at this problem from the extremes: everything and nothing.

The 1% of the world seem to be obsessed with acquisition for its own sake. Warren Buffet, often considered a fairly decent if extravagantly wealthy fellow, never tires of "compounding." Just as obviously, Buffet is not a normal dude and is almost certainly on the autism spectrum. He likes compounding because he can't let it go - because he has a mental disorder. So now, what is everyone else's excuse? As Olive Stone stated it in the movie Wall Street: "How many yachts can you water-ski behind? How much is enough?"

Then there are those children and villagers we see on late night television. 50 cents a day will change their lives, we are told. We see images of people barely clothed, flies swarm, shelters look like lean-tos. Obviously those folks could use a bit more. Suffering cannot be pleasant. But much of what holds people in poverty is political.

The reality is that like most things what you want is somewhere in between. It is absolutely possible to have enough and simply be happy with that.

The difficulty is this: most people don't realize when they have it good already. You've got to know when you've reached the "enough" phase of life.

The problem is that our entire economic system depends on there never being an "ENOUGH" point. If there is ever a point of Enough the entire economic structure the United States and Europe is trying to build collapses.

[Molis]

Even without VR, 3D printers or the version of 3D printers that will be around 100 years from now will make all material goods super cheap, that and full automation we humans will live a life of leisure and plenty.

If we were able to make "replicators" out of the 3D printers that would really wipe out all material needs.

[PC2]

The problem is that our entire economic system depends on there never being an "ENOUGH" point. If there is ever a point of Enough the entire economic structure the United States and Europe is trying to build collapses.

Growth based systems have risk and pain, but a static system is guaranteed to fail since it cant outgrow problems like a nearby volcano eruption, asteroids, or a red giant phase.

Also, I'm told that the US and European system wont end in collapse as long as we repel Putin's legion of puppets.

[Theodarzna]

Growth based systems have risk and pain, but a static system is guaranteed to fail since it cant outgrow problems like a nearby volcano eruption, asteroids, or a red giant phase.

Also, I'm told that the US and European system wont end in collapse as long as we repel Putin's legion of puppets.

A red giant phase is a billion years from now. What are we sacrificing in the hear and now for the sake of a problem that is a billion years off?

As for systems, ours is incredibly fragile. Owing to its fixation on efficiency (Which is the logic of liberal capitalism and interdependence). This is done in exchange for robustness. Chaos would thus topple such a system, and as for growth based systems. We've hit the limit, there is nobody on the moon to buy iPhones.

[Tijuana]

As the nature of society moves forward from our social constructs such as race, sex or orientation. Thinking beyond that I recognize that progress and moving forward require sacrifice, to get what something else, sometimes it requires to give up something else.

Putting aside any social conflicts that we are still to overcome what exactly will be the next step forward?

Are we going to have to start thinking about our resources and how our environment works in totality?

At some point will the age of materialism going to need to come to an end, along with our ideas of what, we have vs what we want, and what we are going to have to give up?

I disagree with the premise of the poll choices. I would select material things are not important to me, but why do I have to also accept that they are not for others? What a default Liberal way of looking at it, to assume my vote should count for everyone. I'm ok with others caring about material things more than me. To each his or her own. /shrug

[IIamaKing]

I am just a material girl, and we are living in a material world.

People like things, people like to have things others do not have. Its part of the human condition. While a select few may be able to move past this, its a common trait among our species.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I disagree with the premise of the poll choices. I would select material things are not important to me, but why do I have to also accept that they are not for others? What a default Liberal way of looking at it, to assume my vote should count for everyone. I'm ok with others caring about material things more than me. To each his or her own. /shrug

That is a pretty even handed approach, I would understand your reasonings even I agree with some of it, including the liberal all or nothing approach, I disagree with your choice, but the premise behind that decisions is reasonable.

[Theinquisition]

Wake me up when replicators are a thing, until then, we will be a species concerned with material things.

[Doctor Amadeus]

A problem nobody wants to seriously solve, and most work to actively promote one way or another. Materialistic Consumer Culture is something very few actually want to overturn, even if the results of it are atrocious and unsustainable, few westerners could survive outside it.

I would actually for the first time agree with you on the points of something concerning the reality as it sits now. Even though we disagree on the overall approach.

- - - Updated - - -

Materialism is one of the main driving forces to what we have today, without it we would still be stunted by 100s of years of development. And materialism will drive us into the stars. It's not going anywhere and there really is no need for it to go anywhere.

Not talking about the past so much as going forward, I don't disagree that it has worked bad and good, but the point is the entire system is failing, and breaking down, if we don't move towards better options for sustainability and having a driving force for progress, we might have hit the end.

[Tijuana]

That is a pretty even handed approach, I would understand your reasonings even I agree with some of it, including the liberal all or nothing approach, I disagree with your choice, but the premise behind that decisions is reasonable.

Are you against property rights or something?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Are you against property rights or something?

Nope not at all BUT, I do understand that resources are going to reach a point where there is no more. Without managing resources in the most productive way, society as a whole can't move forward, if that is the aim of all individuals.

Only so much land, only so much stuff, any or all people can ever really hold, and then at what point is it a enough. Even if we want more, like hoarding.

- - - Updated - - -

Wake me up when replicators are a thing, until then, we will be a species concerned with material things.

You make a point but the problem is that without another war, we aren't going to move forward. What happens when an unstoppable force meets an impenetrable object?

My take is everything is destroyed. the object will not be moved, or the force is going to move it.

[Tijuana]

Nope not at all BUT, I do understand that resources are going to reach a point where there is no more. Without managing resources in the most productive way, society as a whole can't move forward, if that is the aim of all individuals.

Only so much land, only so much stuff, any or all people can ever really hold, and then at what point is it a enough. Even if we want more, like hoarding.

- - - Updated - - -



You make a point but the problem is that without another war, we aren't going to move forward. What happens when an unstoppable force meets an impenetrable object?

My take is everything is destroyed. the object will not be moved, or the force is going to move it.

Ok but, I thought you were a Liberal. Capitalism is the most efficient way to manage the use of the resources, obviously.

Also, I don't think hoarding of resources is an actual thing. Even ultra wealthy jet setters like Al Gore, are not just storing oil on their land and keeping it from others or whatever.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Ok but, I thought you were a Liberal. Capitalism is the most efficient way to manage the use of the resources, obviously.

Also, I don't think hoarding of resources is an actual thing. Even ultra wealthy jet setters like Al Gore, are not just storing oil on their land and keeping it from others or whatever.

I am a liberal, Capitalism was never good as managing resources, but it was good the best economic tool for organizing countries around the globe.


Hoarding is a thing, when cash and money represents more than they should and that leads into resources that aren't being used for the over all majority of the planet, that is a huge problem.

It's the reason we have other countries falling apart now, why refugees and immigrants have to flee war torn countries that are in process of organizing and doing the same thing to compete, the problem is we aren't competing for life, we are competing simply because we can at the expense of everything and everyone else.

[PC2]

A red giant phase is a billion years from now. What are we sacrificing in the hear and now for the sake of a problem that is a billion years off?

As for systems, ours is incredibly fragile. Owing to its fixation on efficiency (Which is the logic of liberal capitalism and interdependence). This is done in exchange for robustness. Chaos would thus topple such a system, and as for growth based systems. We've hit the limit, there is nobody on the moon to buy iPhones.

Nobody is stopping people from proposing a new system better than current mixed economies. Nothing is off the table. It will help if it is measurement-based and not sentiment-based.

[Cæli]

I don't get any sense from what is being said by op;
I can understand how we can wonder if possessing things is needed (is that the definition ?), the answer is yes, we are meant to be complete by possessing things, however when getting more advanced those things could possibly take less space and only exist in the mind; still existing though.

[Tijuana]

I am a liberal, Capitalism was never good as managing resources, but it was good the best economic tool for organizing countries around the globe.


Hoarding is a thing, when cash and money represents more than they should and that leads into resources that aren't being used for the over all majority of the planet, that is a huge problem.

It's the reason we have other countries falling apart now, why refugees and immigrants have to flee war torn countries that are in process of organizing and doing the same thing to compete, the problem is we aren't competing for life, we are competing simply because we can at the expense of everything and everyone else.

LOL

Uh, the notion that poor countries exist, because of rich countries is ridiculous. Abject poverty is man's natural state. Only through working together are we able to achieve all this. Russia has fantastic resources, yet Russians have been poor for most of their history. Geography is a much of a factor as resources are.

Nations hoarding oil is factually not a thing. What on earth are you on about with that? Is the US hoarding, in your mind, via our usage, or via our not drilling much of our own oil?

[Doctor Amadeus]

LOL

Uh, the notion that poor countries exist, because of rich countries is ridiculous. Abject poverty is man's natural state.

No it isn't most countries around the world have resources and people that live there generally have access to it, unless other factors outside of that capitalise on that.

Only through working together are we able to achieve all this. Russia has fantastic resources, yet Russians have been poor for most of their history. Geography is a much of a factor as resources are.

Not true Chinese workers work together, they aren't anywhere near the kind of wealth you have had access to most of your, your efforts nor mine are specifically responsible for the world we live in. Our work or working together has to do with our success relative to where we live here in the U.S but depending on geographically where you are born what you will realize most of your life is pretty well set.

Nations hoarding oil is factually not a thing. What on earth are you on about with that? Is the US hoarding, in your mind, via our usage, or via our not drilling much of our own oil?

I didn't say anything about oil specifically although we do use and consume by comparison to the rest of the world many times our weight and size. That isn't because we especially deserved that, and it is becoming a problem because as I stated above if those resources aren't available where they are taken, those that rely on it are going to come looking for it.

Just like those nations that have it, if not made reasonably available to the majority, eventually that system will break down, as it is now.

The idea that Capitalism puts and keeps everything where it belongs or he and his according to their ability is wrong. It doesn't matter if that is intentionally or not. It is a problem, and the breaking point for those that view this is when they think well, all that is required is for everybody to go back to field and work.

Uh yeah, that isn't going to work.