The Student Room Group

Will humans get past consumerism?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by BobbyFlay
There is no system that forces you to consume though... You have the choice to consume. Even if there is a lot of propaganda, it is inevitably still a choice made by an individual. Also the only reason that modern day goods and services exist (such as your Starbucks example) is because there is a demand for it, people want it = profitability = products.


Assertion, no evidence.


I agree, there are multiple externalities due to production and consumption. But is this really reason enough to scrap out our entire economic and political system rather than passing a few new laws or enacting a reform?


How are consumers not citizens? What are you talking about here?


It depends on what you define as happy. I'm sure there are plenty of people completely satisfied with working to consume. Again, you are making the assumption that people have to consume at all, no one is forcing you to go buy the latest iphone. Peer pressure and advertising might play a role, but the final decision is still a choice. You do not get punished for not consuming.
To combat the use of advertising we could force companies to disclose all effects of consumption clearly on the packaging, like they currently do with cigarettes in most countries.


I don't agree with the statement in your response, which I highlighted.

When looking at psychological theory, it is to suggest that it isn't really our choice. I mean, how many people are actually cognisant of how their 'wants' are manipulated as to countermeasure this?

We make choices, but ultimately for most people, those choices are heavily influenced. As such is the role of marketing - the manipulation of human want - and many if not most swallow it up. Adverts essentially brainwash - and how many people are exposed to these? Assume most, and close to almost all.

Look at Christmas, for instance...
It is ubiquitously observable that people buy things which are entirely superfluous, just because its new and deemed as a marker of success or some other attributes. Mobile phones are probably the best example.

It has been suggested that we define and also express ourselves through what we own, and is in sort of a way, a language by which we present ourselves to others and serves to maintain a sort of social identification and relates to status (e.g. as shown with ownership of branded products).
Original post by Bill_Gates
Will humans get past consumerism?

Or is it something we're essentially "born with". I can't help but notice all the waste around Christmas time i.e all the gifts people didn't really want.


No we weren't born with it...we are programmed by the sytem/society/media.

All you can do is BE the change you want to see...Lead by example and seek out others who see things as you do!

I believe things will change for the better in time... just keep spreading love and good energy! :-)
Original post by hellodave5
I don't agree with the statement in your response, which I highlighted.

When looking at psychological theory, it is to suggest that it isn't really our choice. I mean, how many people are actually cognisant of how their 'wants' are manipulated as to countermeasure this?

We make choices, but ultimately for most people, those choices are heavily influenced. As such is the role of marketing - the manipulation of human want - and many if not most swallow it up. Adverts essentially brainwash - and how many people are exposed to these? Assume most, and close to almost all.

Look at Christmas, for instance...
It is ubiquitously observable that people buy things which are entirely superfluous, just because its new and deemed as a marker of success or some other attributes. Mobile phones are probably the best example.

It has been suggested that we define and also express ourselves through what we own, and is in sort of a way, a language by which we present ourselves to others and serves to maintain a sort of social identification and relates to status (e.g. as shown with ownership of branded products).

I don't disagree with what you've said, it was mean't in the context of the comment i was replying to. Which alluded to people being forced to consume under capitalism and being unhappy.
Marketing does play a role in what we choose to buy, though to what extent? As far as i've seen there are many contradictory studies out there regarding the effects of marketing. Some saying that people only give in to marketing if they have the money (disposable income) to do so, hence suggesting the degree of the marketing is not all that effective.*citation needed* Can't remember which study i read this in...

In your Christmas example, do you not think that there are more factors at work than just marketing for why people buy Christmas goods? Religion, culture etc...
I do agree that branding can be seen as a form of social identification, but why exactly is this a problem? If that person has bought these goods and services under the influence of marketing, it is his choice, his decision. If that person is perfectly happy why is it a problem? You were arguing that it is bad due to brainwashing, but i have not seen any studies or evidence of this, hence i cannot make that assumption. Do you have any citations?

To clarify, I do think that the extent to which companies can market their goods and services should be regulated heavily, hence i added this point towards the end of my previous reply.
"To combat the use of advertising we could force companies to disclose all effects of consumption clearly on the packaging, like they currently do with cigarettes in most countries."
Original post by Zweihander
They're talking specifically about excessive consumption - consuming more than you need (e.g. do you really need an iphone 6, when you bought the iphone 5, just a year and a half ago)


are you suggesting consumerism is a matter of disorder-psychology? why does it *have* to be a matter of need? I don't *need* anything other than oxygen, water, warmth etc yet I *want* a house, a television, etc - why can't I "want" when I have money?
Original post by sleepysnooze
are you suggesting consumerism is a matter of disorder-psychology? why does it *have* to be a matter of need? I don't *need* anything other than oxygen, water, warmth etc yet I *want* a house, a television, etc - why can't I "want" when I have money?


You've either grossly misunderstood the obvious here, or you're trying to be provocative.
Original post by Zweihander
You've either grossly misunderstood the obvious here, or you're trying to be provocative.


what's the obvious?
Original post by BobbyFlay
I don't disagree with what you've said, it was mean't in the context of the comment i was replying to. Which alluded to people being forced to consume under capitalism and being unhappy.
Marketing does play a role in what we choose to buy, though to what extent? As far as i've seen there are many contradictory studies out there regarding the effects of marketing. Some saying that people only give in to marketing if they have the money (disposable income) to do so, hence suggesting the degree of the marketing is not all that effective.*citation needed* Can't remember which study i read this in...

In your Christmas example, do you not think that there are more factors at work than just marketing for why people buy Christmas goods? Religion, culture etc...
I do agree that branding can be seen as a form of social identification, but why exactly is this a problem? If that person has bought these goods and services under the influence of marketing, it is his choice, his decision. If that person is perfectly happy why is it a problem? You were arguing that it is bad due to brainwashing, but i have not seen any studies or evidence of this, hence i cannot make that assumption. Do you have any citations?

To clarify, I do think that the extent to which companies can market their goods and services should be regulated heavily, hence i added this point towards the end of my previous reply.
"To combat the use of advertising we could force companies to disclose all effects of consumption clearly on the packaging, like they currently do with cigarettes in most countries."


Thanks for the thoughtful response! (I'll embolden for clarity - let me know if I didn't reply to a key point).

I think that marketing has a massive effect on what we choose to buy. We are essentially told what is favorable and what is not, through advertising. The commodities we consume become and their companies become almost alive in our human perception - Nike, Adidas, Nokia, Rolls Royce... they are all something that have come to be perceived as something which is part of the construct of social reality that we live in.

The point about the ability to follow what marketing suggests is an interesting one. I'm not sure that I can see the effects of a sort of prevention due to lack of funding. Those who lack funds, i.e. the poor, still want goods which more well off people have, and have similar perceptions of those goods. I see people with little money, and they have IPhones, and its crazy, but seems to be what happens. I assume people will find means to achieve this, like using credit, or shops like Bright House (massive interest rate on goods, but monthly extended payments).

The point I made about Christmas perhaps isn't the best example... maybe it is, I'm not sure. But Christmas has become a time of huge spending, as completely separate to other connotations that it used to have - in Paganism, then Christianity, and then it has sort of been taken over by capitalism (i.e. Coca Cola).
Both consumerism and goods, brands, and technology etc, sort of become culture and what we know as the world in which we live - and really take on a massive significance, I think, in a way akin to language.

The thing is with branding, like you say, is not necessarily a bad thing. In a way, it can sort of augment our social relations etc. and make life I guess in a way, more vivid.

I do think that we are indeed brainwashed to a very high degree, which took me a psychology degree later to realise. We ultimately make our own decisions, but the variables and the importance of specific variables over others, and constraints of thought are in a way determined by external sources.

I'm not too sure what you mean in the last bit, with the sort of countermeasure as is the case with packaging.

I don't have references at the moment, and not a sociologist. Though I did write a psychology essay for university on the subject, and find it very interesting. There are some absolutely amazing books on how we are influenced, such as Thinking Fast and Slow, and another by... Cialdini on the methods of influence. Can't remember the name.

Something I'm interested in and would be happy to discuss! :biggrin:
Original post by hellodave5
Thanks for the thoughtful response! (I'll embolden for clarity - let me know if I didn't reply to a key point).

I think that marketing has a massive effect on what we choose to buy. We are essentially told what is favorable and what is not, through advertising. The commodities we consume become and their companies become almost alive in our human perception - Nike, Adidas, Nokia, Rolls Royce... they are all something that have come to be perceived as something which is part of the construct of social reality that we live in.

The point about the ability to follow what marketing suggests is an interesting one. I'm not sure that I can see the effects of a sort of prevention due to lack of funding. Those who lack funds, i.e. the poor, still want goods which more well off people have, and have similar perceptions of those goods. I see people with little money, and they have IPhones, and its crazy, but seems to be what happens. I assume people will find means to achieve this, like using credit, or shops like Bright House (massive interest rate on goods, but monthly extended payments).

The point I made about Christmas perhaps isn't the best example... maybe it is, I'm not sure. But Christmas has become a time of huge spending, as completely separate to other connotations that it used to have - in Paganism, then Christianity, and then it has sort of been taken over by capitalism (i.e. Coca Cola).
Both consumerism and goods, brands, and technology etc, sort of become culture and what we know as the world in which we live - and really take on a massive significance, I think, in a way akin to language.

The thing is with branding, like you say, is not necessarily a bad thing. In a way, it can sort of augment our social relations etc. and make life I guess in a way, more vivid.

I do think that we are indeed brainwashed to a very high degree, which took me a psychology degree later to realise. We ultimately make our own decisions, but the variables and the importance of specific variables over others, and constraints of thought are in a way determined by external sources.

I'm not too sure what you mean in the last bit, with the sort of countermeasure as is the case with packaging.

I don't have references at the moment, and not a sociologist. Though I did write a psychology essay for university on the subject, and find it very interesting. There are some absolutely amazing books on how we are influenced, such as Thinking Fast and Slow, and another by... Cialdini on the methods of influence. Can't remember the name.

Something I'm interested in and would be happy to discuss! :biggrin:

Thanks for the response!

As far as marketing is concerned, I'm not too sure if really does have an effect. I don't think I would rule out the possibility though. I would imagine that only specific, well thought out marketing is what affects what consumers buy. Specifically targeting the wants desired by the consumer. Things like marketing for toys has a small affect on adults - at least in general.
I would argue that marketing is targeting a want rather than telling us what to buy. Using marketing to change perception and subsequently leading to consumers wanting to buy a product, is what I consider to be the problem. Essentially false advertising.

My point regarding those with low disposable incomes not being wanting to buy the same goods and services as those with higher disposable incomes, was meant to show that marketing (influence) does affect everyone the same way and hence could therefore be less of a problem. Though i suppose you are right about still wanting to crave those branded products. Inability to purchase does not necessarily mean that the marketing didn't have an affect.
I think it becomes a question of whether or not people had pre-established wants and opinions of the branded product and whether or not marketing had a major affect on their opinion of the branded product.
Of which i haven't seen much data on... Though it's pretty interesting now that I think about it haha.

The packaging bit there was my example of potentially offsetting a major negative affect of marketing, things like the tobacco industry and it's effects on children smoking in third world countries. Though there are obviously many other damaging forms of marketing which should be tackled.

I've read Think Fast And Slow! Though unfortunately i don't quite remember it too well, i used to read it really early in the mornings on the metro haha.
Original post by BobbyFlay
Thanks for the response!

As far as marketing is concerned, I'm not too sure if really does have an effect. I don't think I would rule out the possibility though. I would imagine that only specific, well thought out marketing is what affects what consumers buy. Specifically targeting the wants desired by the consumer. Things like marketing for toys has a small affect on adults - at least in general.
I would argue that marketing is targeting a want rather than telling us what to buy. Using marketing to change perception and subsequently leading to consumers wanting to buy a product, is what I consider to be the problem. Essentially false advertising.

My point regarding those with low disposable incomes not being wanting to buy the same goods and services as those with higher disposable incomes, was meant to show that marketing (influence) does affect everyone the same way and hence could therefore be less of a problem. Though i suppose you are right about still wanting to crave those branded products. Inability to purchase does not necessarily mean that the marketing didn't have an affect.
I think it becomes a question of whether or not people had pre-established wants and opinions of the branded product and whether or not marketing had a major affect on their opinion of the branded product.
Of which i haven't seen much data on... Though it's pretty interesting now that I think about it haha.

The packaging bit there was my example of potentially offsetting a major negative affect of marketing, things like the tobacco industry and it's effects on children smoking in third world countries. Though there are obviously many other damaging forms of marketing which should be tackled.

I've read Think Fast And Slow! Though unfortunately i don't quite remember it too well, i used to read it really early in the mornings on the metro haha.


Yeah, if I remember right Fast and Slow was on cognitive biases, and essentially how our thought processes are absolutely pickled with error - essentially efficiency at the expense of correctness.

I think marketing of toys to adults even, would have an effect. Everything does. You will form an opinion and a liking of that thing, just with it being presented to you and framed in a particular way. You can evaluate this, but a lot of it is done under consciousness - not consciously.

Personally to summarise, as seperate from marketing but just in the context of consumerism; I think that it is in a way inseperable from what we are as humans, a bit like religion - and that it exists within our culture and is formed both by people and by powerful organisations who tell us what is 'good'. Sort of like a 2 way street, as people sort of determine what they want too.
All rather deep stuff, really, how society is constructed... when you try and pull it down to the bones.

Gonna look for my old essay now. Can't remember what BS I wrote in that.
We are the Nietzschean Last Men, our lives now dictated by consumerism. Men kid themselves into thinking they are happy, but really, they are more isolated, directionless and purposeless than ever before. There is a reason why groups that appeal to the irrational and the mystical, like cults, are so successful. They speak to a special human need that capitalism cannot seem to provide.

The lack of purpose or values will drive men into nihilism, a situation which will lead to social tensions, depression and calamitous and bloody wars. We are seeing this unfold right before our very eyes.

Quick Reply

Latest