[Jolly2 (OP)]

Arguing that electric cars are more environmentally friendly because they are electric as many do while ignoring the real environment damage that is comming more from the mining of the materials to make the cars and the system of overall production, beside the fact that the energy source that powers the vehicle can also be highly damaging to the environment, seems to me rather rediculas.

Hence I consider the suggestion that electric cars are more environmentally friendly as merely an expression of green wash.

There will surely be no environmentally friendly vehicles until the entire production line, energy sourses, waste and repair management are also environmentally friendly.

This goes down the line with everything we produce I would argue, as such the issue has never been consumption it has always been production.

If products are created in an environmentally friendly way, sustainably,  with limited waste that doesnt damage the environment, there should be no issue at all with consumption.

Yet somehow producers have managed to shift the blame for their production choices onto consumers, when often consumers have no idea about the actual production methods in use by a given company and they certainly do have the ability or time to check every available product or necessarily they dont even have the necessary skills to identify what is or is not environmentally sustainable and that's also with in a background where companies seek to hide their negative behaviours intentionally.

Ergo throwing all the blame on to consumers is a joke and a half.

I heard recently that 100 companies produce 70% of the worlds Co2, it has been a rather long standing statistic that corporate business practice accounts for around 75% of all environment damage and pollution, yet somehow its consumers that are to blame?

The constant mantra about lowering consumption which is comming from the corporate sector that is in control of the environmental narrative as they fund the research, own the media companies and are driving the ideas and are using their position simply to lay the blame where it doesn't belong.

Ofcourse they want to maximize profits and not pay the true cost of their business practice. But if that practice isn't addressed as the principle issue,  I argue no amount of change is going to achieve anything.

Ultimately the corporate sector made the problem and it appears rather then actually attend the issue they seeking to carry on regardless but force mankind to compensate their failures and lack of willingness to pay the true cost of their production.

I find it hard to believe those responsible will ever be capable of solving this problem. Ergo we need a better option.

Suggestions welcome.

[evan_au]

Ergo throwing all the blame on to consumers is a joke and a half.

The idea of capitalism is that businesses should provide what consumers demand.

If consumers demand more environmentally friendly products, then a capitalist economy should produce them, fairly efficiently.
- I agree with you that this environmental assessment should cover the whole lifecycle
- That is why some European legislation is aimed at the manufacturer paying the costs of disposing of the product, so they design products that have a long lifetime, and are easier to recycle.

There is a limited number of consumers who want to buy a car in a given year. A car manufacturer can probably get 3x the profit from a car that has 3x the price, 3x the mass, and consumes 3x the petrol; so their corporate mission becomes "persuade the consumer that they need a gas-guzzler".
- As I recall, several decades ago the US car industry painted itself into a similar corner. The US car industry crashed, as small Japanese cars took their market (now a number of other small cars from Asia, Europe and USA are available)
- Now the electric cars seem to be the flavor of the decade

Economic studies have shown that green industries generate as much economic output as traditional industries (and inspire more innovation than traditional manufacturers). But politicians today are being sponsored by the big manufacturers today, not the big manufacturers of tomorrow, so "bought" politicians are always looking backwards, never forwards.

By promoting an awareness of "green" credentials, we should be steering consumer choices, and government incentives towards effectively solving the needs of tomorrow, not the propping up creaking achievements of yesterday.

[alancalverd]

Pretty much every part of a gasoline or diesel engine can be replaced or reworked with very little environmental impact. Body shells can be melted down and re-formed, and a fair bit of scrap plastic now appears as vehicle moldings. Unlimited but unreliable free electricity from wind can be used to convert biological waste into reliable fuel and oil, which then gets recycled as the next generation of  plants converts the exhaust CO2 and H2O back to sugars.

So with a bit of capital investment the internal combustion vehicles already on the road, on the sea and in the sky  can be made to run on sunshine. Jet engines are a bit more complicated but nobody was manufacturing turbine blades from single crystals a century ago, so who knows what next? What's not to like?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Pretty much every part of a gasoline or diesel engine can be replaced or reworked with very little environmental impact. Body shells can be melted down and re-formed,

I'm sure there is some pollution, with gas releases from that process, and possibly waste from elements of body shells that can't be remoulded, or residues from cleaning processes in preparation for remoulding.

They would have to be addressed also. But I see your point.

. and a fair bit of scrap plastic now appears as vehicle moldings.

As above.

Unlimited but unreliable free electricity from wind

Again the manufacture of wind turbines is not environmentally friendly currently. There need to be a shift in production methods.

can be used to convert biological waste into reliable fuel and oil, which then gets recycled as the next generation of  plants converts the exhaust CO2 and H2O back to sugars.

So with a bit of capital investment the internal combustion vehicles already on the road, on the sea and in the sky  can be made to run on sunshine. Jet engines are a bit more complicated but nobody was manufacturing turbine blades from single crystals a century ago, so who knows what next? What's not to like?

There are definitely positives.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Ergo throwing all the blame on to consumers is a joke and a half.

The idea of capitalism is that businesses should provide what consumers demand.

No thats AN idea of capitalism, there are many forms a capitalist system can take.

If consumers demand more environmentally friendly products, then a capitalist economy should produce them, fairly efficiently.

The "Should" is a huge assumption. Capitalists refuse to pay the full cost of their business,  and have happily lied about or hidden their real activities, consumer demands can be manipulated, that is why there is a massive investment into advertising and marketing precisely to manipulate consumer demand, and the companies responsible for the problem are the very ones funding the advertisers to promote their products often with green wash; which we see massively happening, "free range eggs" as an example they open the door at the end if the shed allowing any chickens that are able to go outside to wonder around a few square meters of fenced in dirt. The image they sell bares no relationship to the reality.

The very suggestion that consumers drive production is a lie the producers love, it entirely shields them.
Sandwiches had to promoted arround 5 sperate times, years apart, because no one wanted ready made sandwiches,  repeatedly they tried to sell ready made sandwich and everytime they ended up selling none, but eventually after advertising and marketing campaigns people started to buy them. consumers WERE NOT ASKING FOR READY MADE SANDWICHES! Producers decided they would impose a product on people they never asked for.
So its simply a lie that producers respond to consumer demand. Producers rather make their products(widgets) as they choose and then convince people to buy them via advertising.
The little consideration given to consumers by producers is merely "what can we do to make you buy our product?"

As such I categorically disagree with the suggestion consumers can have any serious impact, they can have some but producers hold all the cards.

- I agree with you that this environmental assessment should cover the whole lifecycle
- That is why some European legislation is aimed at the manufacturer paying the costs of disposing of the product, so they design products that have a long lifetime, and are easier to recycle.

Designed obsolescence should be outlawed for most products. Consumers should be able to upgrade and repair products, rather then having to throw them away and buy new every few years.

There is a limited number of consumers who want to buy a car in a given year. A car manufacturer can probably get 3x the profit from a car that has 3x the price, 3x the mass, and consumes 3x the petrol; so their corporate mission becomes "persuade the consumer that they need a gas-guzzler".
- As I recall, several decades ago the US car industry painted itself into a similar corner. The US car industry crashed, as small Japanese cars took their market (now a number of other small cars from Asia, Europe and USA are available)
- Now the electric cars seem to be the flavor of the decade

There are two types of people who buy a car, the first require the functionality the latter want a status symbol. I have little time for the latter.

Economic studies have shown that green industries generate as much economic output as traditional industries (and inspire more innovation than traditional manufacturers).

Inherently they will simply because they have more concerns in the production process.

But politicians today are being sponsored by the big manufacturers today, not the big manufacturers of tomorrow, so "bought" politicians are always looking backwards, never forwards.

Sponsored a word, bribed is a better one.

By promoting an awareness of "green" credentials, we should be steering consumer choices, and government incentives towards effectively solving the needs of tomorrow, not the propping up creaking achievements of yesterday.

Except as you say, governments are under the yoke of old business and old business owns the media, and funds the advertising, and has I would suggest a GREEN WASH solution that doesn't actually change anything.

I think it's time the politics like education are free from the telos of business.

[alancalverd]

I worked as a baker 60 years ago. I don't think I've ever seen an advert for a ready-made sandwich: they fly off the shelves all by themselves. Granted it took some time for packaging to evolve to the point that they could be made in a factory and shipped to supermarkets, but it always seemed to me to be a sensible response to a latent demand.

I once arrived in Linlithgow at 1 pm to visit a client at 1.30. Feeling more than a little peckish I followed my nose to a bakers shop  whose window was crammed with pies, pasties, rolls and sandwiches. On the door was a notice "CLOSED FOR LUNCH".

[syhprum]

I had a similar experience in Scotland I went to a bakers shop to buy a sandwich but was told no sandwiches because the had run out of bread while all around there were wrapped cut loaves for sale, apparently it was a bookmaking problem I had to buy a cut loaf ,unwrap it and had to present the good lady with some slices  and ask her to put some filling in and take the remaining bread away and dunp it

[vhfpmr]

The root of the problem is status competition.

A consumer society is one in which people compete for status by consuming stuff, and thus the economy, and use of resources grows exponentially as people consume more and more. Marketing men devise ever more manipulative ways making people feel inadequate and inducing them to throw away perfectly good stuff and buy new. This is what the fashion industry does when an elite at the top of society decides to do something different. Conspicuous outrage psychology professor Steven Pinker calls it: demonstrating status by saying "look at me I'm so high status I don't need to conform to society's norms and follow others". The social layer beneath then seeks to acquire status by copying, followed by the next layer down, and the next etc. As this occurs, each layer then has to change again in order to avoid looking like the copycats beneath, and so the process perpetuates indefinitely, consuming resources and creating waste as it goes. In Spent, Geoffrey Miller describes an entertaining example of marketing: luxury car manufacturers advertising in magazines bought by poor people who could never afford to buy one. Why? Because it fuels the jealousy that makes the rich people buy them.

The problem of course is that status competition is a zero sum game. If the Jones' are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Smiths, and the Smiths are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Jones', then they become locked into an escalating war when no amount of consumption can ever make them both happy at the same time.

Then there's habituation. When you're driving to the car dealer's to pick up your new car, you're full of excitement at how it's going to improve your drive to work, but you've completely forgotten that you once felt exactly the same way about the one you're sitting in, and now can't wait to get rid of.

You often hear talk of 'built-in obsolescence' blamed for waste, but this is naive, throw-away products are an inevitable consequence of economic growth (and miniaturisation). Economic growth occurs because automation is used to produce more stuff with the same labour, making everyone richer, but one persons income is another's labour charge, so as we all get richer labour becomes more and more unaffordable, and labour-intensive activities become  uneconomical. Whilst manufacture is easily automated, because it involves repeating the same steps endlessly, repair isn't, because each fault is (relatively) unique. Thus as the economy grows, more and more products become uneconomical repair, who's going to spend £20-30 on skilled labour to mend a kettle when you can buy a new one for £15? (Public services are generally more labour intensive than the private sector too, but people who don't understand this point to the growth of the public sector as evidence of a left-wing takeover when it's actually just another by-product of economic growth.)

As Steven Pinker also points out, waste itself is a status symbol: "Look at me, I can afford to throw away all this perfectly good stuff". I can remember 'money saving expert' Martin Lewis being puzzled that he overheard someone in a queue boasting about spending a fortune on gym membership he never used. No puzzle really, it's an example of conspicuous waste. Buying a Rolex instead of a Timex, buying a Ferrari instead of a Ford, buying gold plated bath taps instead of chrome, all examples of needless consumption in the pursuit of status.

What's needed is an alternative to consumption as a means of competing for status.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

The root of the problem is status competition.

A consumer society is one in which people compete for status by consuming stuff, and thus the economy, and use of resources grows exponentially as people consume more and more. Marketing men devise ever more manipulative ways making people feel inadequate and inducing them to throw away perfectly good stuff and buy new. This is what the fashion industry does when an elite at the top of society decides to do something different. Conspicuous outrage psychology professor Steven Pinker calls it: demonstrating status by saying "look at me I'm so high status I don't need to conform to society's norms and follow others". The social layer beneath then seeks to acquire status by copying, followed by the next layer down, and the next etc. As this occurs, each layer then has to change again in order to avoid looking like the copycats beneath, and so the process perpetuates indefinitely, consuming resources and creating waste as it goes. In Spent, Geoffrey Miller describes an entertaining example of marketing: luxury car manufacturers advertising in magazines bought by poor people who could never afford to buy one. Why? Because it fuels the jealousy that makes the rich people buy them.

I doubt that, seems more likley the rich seek approval amongst their peers the beggars dont fit on their radar.

The problem of course is that status competition is a zero sum game. If the Jones' are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Smiths, and the Smiths are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Jones', then they become locked into an escalating war when no amount of consumption can ever make them both happy at the same time.

Then there's habituation. When you're driving to the car dealer's to pick up your new car, you're full of excitement at how it's going to improve your drive to work, but you've completely forgotten that you once felt exactly the same way about the one you're sitting in, and now can't wait to get rid of.

You often hear talk of 'built-in obsolescence' blamed for waste, but this is naive,

Disagree, products created to be repaired, upgraded, and adapted for other uses,  have a completely different form of production.  And the suggestion that phones that can be repaired,  and upgraded easily would make more waste then what we currently have is rediculas.

throw-away products are an inevitable consequence of economic growth (and miniaturisation). Economic growth occurs because automation is used to produce more stuff with the same labour, making everyone richer,

Doesnt make everyone richer makes those that own the machines richer.

but one persons income is another's labour charge, so as we all get richer labour becomes more and more unaffordable, and labour-intensive activities become  uneconomical.

Disagree the issue isnt labour costs, it's excessive profits. Increased wages increases disposable income,  prices find there position in a fluctuating market place, the argument you espouse is more a complaint those who seek to pay less make.

These are all arguments about profit.

Whilst manufacture is easily automated, because it involves repeating the same steps endlessly, repair isn't,

Which is also an answer to the mass unemployment automation threatens.

because each fault is (relatively) unique. Thus as the economy grows, more and more products become uneconomical repair, who's going to spend £20-30 on skilled labour to mend a kettle when you can buy a new one for £15? (Public services are generally more labour intensive than the private sector too,

The only way you are getting a 15 buck kettle is from sweat shops in Asia, terrible mining conditions, and extreme exploitation.  15 buck kettles shouldnt exist and only exist as an example of  the profit driven insanity this system exists by.

but people who don't understand this point to the growth of the public sector as evidence of a left-wing takeover when it's actually just another by-product of economic growth.)

As Steven Pinker also points out, waste itself is a status symbol: "Look at me, I can afford to throw away all this perfectly good stuff". I can remember 'money saving expert' Martin Lewis being puzzled that he overheard someone in a queue boasting about spending a fortune on gym membership he never used. No puzzle really, it's an example of conspicuous waste. Buying a Rolex instead of a Timex, buying a Ferrari instead of a Ford, buying gold plated bath taps instead of chrome, all examples of needless consumption in the pursuit of status.

This is consumption by the 1% it's not as wasteful as you suggest simply because it is limited by the numbers engaging in it.

What's needed is an alternative to consumption as a means of competing for status.

Disagree we simply need better products,  produced in a better way. Quality not price should drive economic incentives,  and sustainability should be a mark of high quality

[vhfpmr]

The root of the problem is status competition.

A consumer society is one in which people compete for status by consuming stuff, and thus the economy, and use of resources grows exponentially as people consume more and more. Marketing men devise ever more manipulative ways making people feel inadequate and inducing them to throw away perfectly good stuff and buy new. This is what the fashion industry does when an elite at the top of society decides to do something different. Conspicuous outrage psychology professor Steven Pinker calls it: demonstrating status by saying "look at me I'm so high status I don't need to conform to society's norms and follow others". The social layer beneath then seeks to acquire status by copying, followed by the next layer down, and the next etc. As this occurs, each layer then has to change again in order to avoid looking like the copycats beneath, and so the process perpetuates indefinitely, consuming resources and creating waste as it goes. In Spent, Geoffrey Miller describes an entertaining example of marketing: luxury car manufacturers advertising in magazines bought by poor people who could never afford to buy one. Why? Because it fuels the jealousy that makes the rich people buy them.

I doubt that, seems more likley the rich seek approval amongst their peers the beggars don’t fit on their radar.

It’s obvious that all levels of society compete with their peers for status. Even the poor will buy consumer goods they don’t need (often on credit from loan sharks) when they can barely afford essentials, simply because they see their friends & family with the latest iPhone or TV or whatever. They don’t want to feel left out, because it’s humiliating, so they will pay for the things that people notice by skimping on something that’s less conspicuous instead.

The problem of course is that status competition is a zero sum game. If the Jones' are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Smiths, and the Smiths are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Jones', then they become locked into an escalating war when no amount of consumption can ever make them both happy at the same time.

Then there's habituation. When you're driving to the car dealer's to pick up your new car, you're full of excitement at how it's going to improve your drive to work, but you've completely forgotten that you once felt exactly the same way about the one you're sitting in, and now can't wait to get rid of.

You often hear talk of 'built-in obsolescence' blamed for waste, but this is naive,

Disagree, products created to be repaired, upgraded, and adapted for other uses,  have a completely different form of production.  And the suggestion that phones that can be repaired,  and upgraded easily would make more waste then what we currently have is rediculas.

I designed radios for a living, you won’t get far lecturing me how they’re manufactured and repaired. Electronic consumer goods are less repairable than they were because they’re integrated, miniaturised, and cheaper to manufacture whilst the skilled labour of a repairman has just gone up and up in price, along with his income.

throw-away products are an inevitable consequence of economic growth (and miniaturisation). Economic growth occurs because automation is used to produce more stuff with the same labour, making everyone richer,

Doesnt make everyone richer makes those that own the machines richer.

So the poor in society still live like mediaeval peasant farmers then, with no electricity, potable water, healthcare, education, transport etc? Yes, of course they do. All but the very poorest enjoy some level of consumer goods too, such as washing machines, fridges, cookers, TVs, and radios. There weren’t many of those around in the Middle Ages.

but one persons income is another's labour charge, so as we all get richer labour becomes more and more unaffordable, and labour-intensive activities become  uneconomical.

Disagree the issue isnt labour costs, it's excessive profits. Increased wages increases disposable income,  prices find there position in a fluctuating market place, the argument you espouse is more a complaint those who seek to pay less make.

These are all arguments about profit.

You’ve just contradicted yourself. First you say there are excessive profits then you say prices find their own level in a competitive market place. Profits or not, as labour gets more expensive, labour intensive activities also get more expensive, that’s why a lot of employment has moved to the far east.

Whilst manufacture is easily automated, because it involves repeating the same steps endlessly, repair isn't,

Which is also an answer to the mass unemployment automation threatens.

This is so obviously untrue it’s absurd, it was the Luddites argument, and history has proved them spectacularly wrong.

(In England) 500 years ago, 58% of the workforce was employed on the land just to grow enough to feed everyone, now it’s 1.2%. Why, because most of the work is now done by mechanisation. Are the other 57% all unemployed? No, of course they aren’t, because they now have jobs producing all the wealth we simply wouldn’t have if they were still needed to feed us. The reason we have wealth like cars, TVs, washing machines, fridges etc. is because automation has freed up spare labour that would otherwise have been needed elsewhere.

because each fault is (relatively) unique. Thus as the economy grows, more and more products become uneconomical repair, who's going to spend £20-30 on skilled labour to mend a kettle when you can buy a new one for £15? (Public services are generally more labour intensive than the private sector too,

The only way you are getting a 15 buck kettle is from sweat shops in Asia, terrible mining conditions, and extreme exploitation.  15 buck kettles shouldnt exist and only exist as an example of  the profit driven insanity this system exists by.

The reason goods are cheaper to manufacture in Asia is that their labour is cheaper, because they are less wealthy, because they are less developed, because they started to industrialise later. If allowed to continue, trade will eventually level out the difference in wealth, and our labour will become more competitive again, but therein lies the problem, the environment can’t sustain the level of economic activity we already have, let alone more. What’s needed is a reduction in consumption by the first world who consume the most.

but people who don't understand this point to the growth of the public sector as evidence of a left-wing takeover when it's actually just another by-product of economic growth.)

As Steven Pinker also points out, waste itself is a status symbol: "Look at me, I can afford to throw away all this perfectly good stuff". I can remember 'money saving expert' Martin Lewis being puzzled that he overheard someone in a queue boasting about spending a fortune on gym membership he never used. No puzzle really, it's an example of conspicuous waste. Buying a Rolex instead of a Timex, buying a Ferrari instead of a Ford, buying gold plated bath taps instead of chrome, all examples of needless consumption in the pursuit of status.

This is consumption by the 1% it's not as wasteful as you suggest simply because it is limited by the numbers engaging in it.

Around 90% of the world’s wealth is consumed by just 10% of the world’s population. That’s us in the first world, we are the problem. With just a 20% reduction in our consumption you could triple the income of the poor without any additional burden on the planet.

What's needed is an alternative to consumption as a means of competing for status.

Disagree we simply need better products,  produced in a better way. Quality not price should drive economic incentives,  and sustainability should be a mark of high quality

And by the time you’ve finished producing these utopian products, there will still be a population competing to consume more and more of them in order to outdo their mates. The problem is that status is measured in relative consumption, but environmental damage is measured in absolute consumption, meanwhile, the ones who already have the most are the ones striving hardest to consume more. If you want to fix a problem you need to identify the cause first.

One final word on status: it really is important, and not the fatuous pursuit that my posts may have made it appear. Professor Michael Marmot has done a lifetime of research into this, and status is one of the biggest determinants of both mortality and morbidity. Low status kills, and before you come back with the obvious retort: yes, poverty kills too, but low status kills as well, quite independently of poverty. It’s a serious problem for society, because as I said above, status competition is a zero sum game.

In this respect, I think that the Scandinavian countries have it nearer to right than the rest of us. They’ve reduced wealth inequality to a much lower level than most, and it appears they are less preoccupied with status, and have lower levels of many of the social ills that plague western societies.

The ethos of the meritocracy has a lot to answer for in my view. On the face of it, it sounds entirely reasonable: “you too can win the race if you just run faster”, but the problem is that that implies that if everyone runs faster they can all win, which is patently absurd. Winning (and status) is a zero sum game, so in a society where everyone runs as fast as they can (or consumes as much as they can), there will still be some who come last, and by the light of the meritocracy, they’re lazy good-for-nothings who deserve their position in society. There have to be winners and losers, but the winners don’t have to win by such a large margin.

[Aeddan]

Yes it is greenwashing.
Even if a car could be 100% renewable they still require parking spots & roads (void of life).
Then there is the noise negatively effecting animals behaviours.
An ever increasing number of cars. The size of cars seems to be increasing.

Cars are fantastic but most of the population would be better off never owning a car & just hiring one a few times of year.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Ergo throwing all the blame on to consumers is a joke and a half.

The idea of capitalism is that businesses should provide what consumers demand.

Not the issue, it's a question of how they provide, not what they provide.

If consumers demand more environmentally friendly products, then a capitalist economy should produce them, fairly efficiently.

Again doesnt solve the problem of green wash.

- I agree with you that this environmental assessment should cover the whole lifecycle
- That is why some European legislation is aimed at the manufacturer paying the costs of disposing of the product, so they design products that have a long lifetime, and are easier to recycle.

There is a limited number of consumers who want to buy a car in a given year. A car manufacturer can probably get 3x the profit from a car that has 3x the price, 3x the mass, and consumes 3x the petrol; so their corporate mission becomes "persuade the consumer that they need a gas-guzzler".
- As I recall, several decades ago the US car industry painted itself into a similar corner. The US car industry crashed, as small Japanese cars took their market (now a number of other small cars from Asia, Europe and USA are available)
- Now the electric cars seem to be the flavor of the decade

Economic studies have shown that green industries generate as much economic output as traditional industries (and inspire more innovation than traditional manufacturers). But politicians today are being sponsored by the big manufacturers today, not the big manufacturers of tomorrow, so "bought" politicians are always looking backwards, never forwards.

By promoting an awareness of "green" credentials, we should be steering consumer choices, and government incentives towards effectively solving the needs of tomorrow, not the propping up creaking achievements of yesterday.

Changes nothing, when the issue is business' produce the majority of the problems and refuse to pay the costs of producing in a better most sustainable way.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

The root of the problem is status competition.

A consumer society is one in which people compete for status by consuming stuff, and thus the economy, and use of resources grows exponentially as people consume more and more. Marketing men devise ever more manipulative ways making people feel inadequate and inducing them to throw away perfectly good stuff and buy new. This is what the fashion industry does when an elite at the top of society decides to do something different. Conspicuous outrage psychology professor Steven Pinker calls it: demonstrating status by saying "look at me I'm so high status I don't need to conform to society's norms and follow others". The social layer beneath then seeks to acquire status by copying, followed by the next layer down, and the next etc. As this occurs, each layer then has to change again in order to avoid looking like the copycats beneath, and so the process perpetuates indefinitely, consuming resources and creating waste as it goes. In Spent, Geoffrey Miller describes an entertaining example of marketing: luxury car manufacturers advertising in magazines bought by poor people who could never afford to buy one. Why? Because it fuels the jealousy that makes the rich people buy them.

I doubt that, seems more likley the rich seek approval amongst their peers the beggars don’t fit on their radar.

It’s obvious that all levels of society compete with their peers for status. Even the poor will buy consumer goods they don’t need (often on credit from loan sharks) when they can barely afford essentials, simply because they see their friends & family with the latest iPhone or TV or whatever. They don’t want to feel left out, because it’s humiliating, so they will pay for the things that people notice by skimping on something that’s less conspicuous instead.

Which doesn't matter if the products are produced in an eco friendly and sustainable way

The problem of course is that status competition is a zero sum game. If the Jones' are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Smiths, and the Smiths are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Jones', then they become locked into an escalating war when no amount of consumption can ever make them both happy at the same time.

Then there's habituation. When you're driving to the car dealer's to pick up your new car, you're full of excitement at how it's going to improve your drive to work, but you've completely forgotten that you once felt exactly the same way about the one you're sitting in, and now can't wait to get rid of.

You often hear talk of 'built-in obsolescence' blamed for waste, but this is naive,

Disagree, products created to be repaired, upgraded, and adapted for other uses,  have a completely different form of production.  And the suggestion that phones that can be repaired,  and upgraded easily would make more waste then what we currently have is rediculas.

I designed radios for a living, you won’t get far lecturing me how they’re manufactured and repaired. Electronic consumer goods are less repairable than they were because they’re integrated, miniaturised, and cheaper to manufacture whilst the skilled labour of a repairman has just gone up and up in price, along with his income.

Sure. Certainly less resources involved in fixing a broken device, then throwing it away, and then buying a new one.

Wages need to go up. Cheep Labour is all about a select few pocketing the difference in increased profits.

throw-away products are an inevitable consequence of economic growth (and miniaturisation).

Only under the current system that is obsessed with profit.

Economic growth occurs because automation is used to produce more stuff with the same labour, making everyone richer,

Doesnt make everyone richer makes those that own the machines richer.

So the poor in society still live like mediaeval peasant farmers then, with no electricity, potable water, healthcare, education, transport etc?

A nonsense reply

Yes, of course they do. All but the very poorest enjoy some level of consumer goods too, such as washing machines, fridges, cookers, TVs, and radios. There weren’t many of those around in the Middle Ages.

And, we are not living in the middle ages, but if everyone had a phone they could simply upgrade and repair. The waste we see wouldn't exist.

 

but one persons income is another's labour charge, so as we all get richer labour becomes more and more unaffordable, and labour-intensive activities become  uneconomical.

Disagree the issue isnt labour costs, it's excessive profits. Increased wages increases disposable income,  prices find there position in a fluctuating market place, the argument you espouse is more a complaint those who seek to pay less make.

These are all arguments about profit.

You’ve just contradicted yourself. First you say there are excessive profits then you say prices find their own level in a competitive market place.

There is no contradiction.  Wage costs and the price people are prepared to pay for a good or service fluctuate. They are not interlinked, especially when  people have more disposable income.

Profits or not, as labour gets more expensive, labour intensive activities also get more expensive, that’s why a lot of employment has moved to the far east.

they moved to increase their profits, and save on labour costs they didnt need to they just wanted more money.

Whilst manufacture is easily automated, because it involves repeating the same steps endlessly, repair isn't,

Which is also an answer to the mass unemployment automation threatens.

This is so obviously untrue it’s absurd, it was the Luddites argument, and history has proved them spectacularly wrong.

Not a luddite arguement,  machines can still produce, it's a question of repairing or throwing away what they produce.

(In England) 500 years ago, 58% of the workforce was employed on the land just to grow enough to feed everyone, now it’s 1.2%. Why, because most of the work is now done by mechanisation. Are the other 57% all unemployed? No, of course they aren’t, because they now have jobs producing all the wealth we simply wouldn’t have if they were still needed to feed us. The reason we have wealth like cars, TVs, washing machines, fridges etc. is because automation has freed up spare labour that would otherwise have been needed elsewhere.

because each fault is (relatively) unique. Thus as the economy grows, more and more products become uneconomical repair, who's going to spend £20-30 on skilled labour to mend a kettle when you can buy a new one for £15? (Public services are generally more labour intensive than the private sector too,

The only way you are getting a 15 buck kettle is from sweat shops in Asia, terrible mining conditions, and extreme exploitation.  15 buck kettles shouldnt exist and only exist as an example of  the profit driven insanity this system exists by.

The reason goods are cheaper to manufacture in Asia is that their labour is cheaper, because they are less wealthy, because they are less developed, because they started to industrialise later. If allowed to continue, trade will eventually level out the difference in wealth, and our labour will become more competitive again, but therein lies the problem, the environment can’t sustain the level of economic activity we already have, let alone more. What’s needed is a reduction in consumption by the first world who consume the most.

Wrong! The only reason why production is in Asia, is because the corporate producers can exploit them more.

but people who don't understand this point to the growth of the public sector as evidence of a left-wing takeover when it's actually just another by-product of economic growth.)

As Steven Pinker also points out, waste itself is a status symbol: "Look at me, I can afford to throw away all this perfectly good stuff". I can remember 'money saving expert' Martin Lewis being puzzled that he overheard someone in a queue boasting about spending a fortune on gym membership he never used. No puzzle really, it's an example of conspicuous waste. Buying a Rolex instead of a Timex, buying a Ferrari instead of a Ford, buying gold plated bath taps instead of chrome, all examples of needless consumption in the pursuit of status.

This is consumption by the 1% it's not as wasteful as you suggest simply because it is limited by the numbers engaging in it.

Around 90% of the world’s wealth is consumed by just 10% of the world’s population.

You mean America and Europe.

That’s us in the first world, we are the problem. With just a 20% reduction in our consumption you could triple the income of the poor without any additional burden on the planet.

"Could" but wouldn't,  the corporations currently exploiting them would just pay them even less

What's needed is an alternative to consumption as a means of competing for status.

Disagree we simply need better products,  produced in a better way. Quality not price should drive economic incentives,  and sustainability should be a mark of high quality

And by the time you’ve finished producing these utopian products, there will still be a population competing to consume more and more of them in order to outdo their mates.

Dont agree, you are soo indoctrinated by the current system, you cant see past it.

The problem is that status is measured in relative consumption,

Only in the current system,  anything can become a symbol of status

but environmental damage is measured in absolute consumption,

No it isn't, is measured by rain forest destroyed,  rivers polluted,  water supplies filled with lead, ocean oil spills or habitat destruction. Certainly not measured by consumption .

meanwhile, the ones who already have the most are the ones striving hardest to consume more. If you want to fix a problem you need to identify the cause first.

Which is how we produce products, not the consumer that buys them

One final word on status: it really is important, and not the fatuous pursuit that my posts may have made it appear. Professor Michael Marmot has done a lifetime of research into this, and status is one of the biggest determinants of both mortality and morbidity. Low status kills, and before you come back with the obvious retort: yes, poverty kills too, but low status kills as well, quite independently of poverty. It’s a serious problem for society, because as I said above, status competition is a zero sum game.

You mean low paid.

In this respect, I think that the Scandinavian countries have it nearer to right than the rest of us. They’ve reduced wealth inequality to a much lower level than most, and it appears they are less preoccupied with status, and have lower levels of many of the social ills that plague western societies.

The ethos of the meritocracy has a lot to answer for in my view.

The problem isnt meritocracy,  the problem is the elites don't want one.

 On the face of it, it sounds entirely reasonable: “you too can win the race if you just run faster”, but the problem is that that implies that if everyone runs faster they can all win, which is patently absurd.

That's not meritocracy,  that's a line in corporate storytelling. Meritocracy is about the people in power having the merit to be there, today, as business rules,  its about who is the best at exploiting people.

Winning (and status) is a zero sum game, so in a society where everyone runs as fast as they can (or consumes as much as they can), there will still be some who come last, and by the light of the meritocracy, they’re lazy good-for-nothings who deserve their position in society. There have to be winners and losers, but the winners don’t have to win by such a large margin.

You're a bit lost I fear.


Do you know who the priests of the modern era are?
They are not scientists. Never will be scientists because science is terrible at narrative.

No the priests of today are economists and the rulers are the owners of business.

There is now a move to become technocratic, to follow China. And we are seeing certian technocrats take the lead in an attempt to become the priests of the future. But technocracy isnt really about science or based on science, its the same society we see suggested in a Brave new world.

To quote from the book:
On science
“It isn’t only art that is incompatible with happiness, it’s also science. Science is dangerous, we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled.”

Technocracy isnt about building a better world with technology, rather it's about using technology to control the population.

[alancalverd]

The root of the problem is status competition........ Buying a Rolex instead of a Timex, buying a Ferrari instead of a Ford, buying gold plated bath taps instead of chrome, all examples of needless consumption in the pursuit of status.

Now and again, I come across "Jet Life" magazine in the crew room of an airport. It makes a nice change from the weather and accident reports and I assume it is put there by someone with a sense of irony. Never mind Rolex and Ferrari - every aviator appreciates good engineering on a bad day - but my favorite advert was for a $38,000 bikini. Nigel the Navigator said "If that's the new uniform, you'd better get the bloody cabin heater fixed".

[alancalverd]

Science is dangerous, we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled.”

said the pope/president/philosopher.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Science is dangerous, we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled.”

said the pope/president/philosopher.

It's a quote from the book 'Brave New World' statement  was made by one of the ruling elites, related to how the society isnt scientific, it just pretends to be scientific. The only actual experiment they run, is the question of 'wether the system could handle the influence of an outsider,' it does and he hangs himself.

[hamdani yusuf]

Electric vehicles are necessary stepping stones toward independence from fossil fuel. Even when currently working technologies are not as clean as we prefer.

[wolfekeeper]

Arguing that electric cars are more environmentally friendly because they are electric as many do while ignoring the real environment damage that is comming more from the mining of the materials to make the cars and the system of overall production, beside the fact that the energy source that powers the vehicle can also be highly damaging to the environment, seems to me rather rediculas.

Hence I consider the suggestion that electric cars are more environmentally friendly as merely an expression of green wash.

This isn't true at all though. The amount of materials that go into the fabric of an electric car is only slightly more than that of a fossil car, and most of it is, or can be, just as recyclable as a fossil car.

But that's missing the enormous mineral elephant in the room; the huge pile of mineral oil that the fossil car burns over its life! That pile is an order of magnitude bigger than the car and cannot be recycled.

Meanwhile the electric car can overwhelmingly be recycled, even a lot of the battery.

For electric vehicles, we're talking a factor of over 300 more recyclable.

Source:

https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2021_02_Battery_raw_materials_report_final.pdf

[alancalverd]

But that's missing the enormous mineral elephant in the room; the huge pile of mineral oil that the fossil car burns over its life! That pile is an order of magnitude bigger than the car and cannot be recycled.

Er, no. The energy required to make the average family car, from mining to roadside,  is about the same as it consumes  in its working life. That's the weakness of the "all electric now" argument - you have to burn an awful lot of fuel to replace the existing stock of perfectly adequate vehicles.

As far as recycling the hardware is concerned, it's difficult to see the difference. Most of the metal and plastic is the same apart from the steel in an internal combustion engine being replaced by a greater mass of copper metal and lithium salts. Regenerative braking certainly reduces brake pad wear, and much was made of the lack of a clutch, but these items rarely need replacing more than twice before the bodywork falls off.

One is reminded of the traveller who asked the way from Dublin to Cork, and was told "If I wanted to go to Cork, I wouldn't start from here." The time to introduce electric cars is about 100 years ago.
,

[hamdani yusuf]

Er, no. The energy required to make the average family car, from mining to roadside,  is about the same as it consumes  in its working life. That's the weakness of the "all electric now" argument - you have to burn an awful lot of fuel to replace the existing stock of perfectly adequate vehicles.

Don't you think that where the energy comes from really matter?  In your case, the fossil fuel cars would be twice as polluting as electric cars.
Where do you get your data?
How long is the expected working life of a vehicle?
Did you take engine oil changes into account?