Most of the worlds economy is a waste of time and space

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

You're so deep... :rolleyes:

http://xkcd.com/610/

I on the other hand am happy out in my apparent ignorance. I love my iPhone, gps and internet where ever I am has saved me so much hassel and time over the last couple of years. I don't have a smart phone because I was told by an advert that I needed one, I have one because it genuinely makes my life so much easier.

I like that technology has advanced to the point where we can produce so much excess that I don't ever have to look at a farm. Not having to worry about where your next meal is going to come from has left a lot of people with a mighty amount of free time. Time some use to research medicine which helps us all to live longer and more comfortable lives. Some use that free time to create beautiful works of art, I enjoy listening to music and watching movies, I'm fairly certain I wouldn't be happy if I had to spend all my time working and had no time for any entertainment.

So what exactly is so bad about consumerism?

People my be misguided in what makes up a quality, and may be victims of advertising in that respect but that's an entirely different issues.

I wouldnt of used the matrix movie as an example if I wanted to be "so deep" ! !

And in my post I said that I love my iphone . . The fact that you completely ignored the main point of my posts suggests that while you try to ridicule part of my comments, you actually agree with the sentiment . .

As humans, we do plenty of things that are self destructive - drink, eat to excess or to little, take drugs, self harm etc . These are simply habits we just couldnt be arsed changing for our own ignorant or compulsive reasons.

We like to think that we are the most intelligent species ever, but the wasted resources (time, money, intelligence) on insignificant appliances/goods is just a reminder of our impulsive and stupid self destructive nature.

Wanting something that we perceive as quality is not wrong. The problem with consumerism, certainly in its current format, is that it creates a desire for goods/services thats only goal is to appease a short term impulse that in many cases adds little to humanity.

People presume that the concept of growth in markets and sales etc is a positive. . Why exactly ? Oh yeh, cause thats drives the creation of wealth and the innovation of more meaningless sh*t that we dont need.

And btw, just because you like the way technology has advanced, doesnt disprove my point. I am happy the way technology has advanced, like I said, because I love my iphone. But I dont think the world would be a much worse place if the iphone hadnt been invented.

Your presumption, regarding not having to goto farms for food, is based on the principle that technology is being used for the betterment of man, which it clearly isnt. This is the hub of the point, most driving factors are greed/profit, not for the progression of humanity. Sometimes we are lucky when things that actually help improve humanity (like food producing plants/strategies) are invented, but the sad thing is that nowadays nearly everything that is invented is done so out of a desire for profit and is driven by consumer demand (as opposed to what is practical).

What if more research was spent on cures for cancer, alzheimers or heart disease instead of being pumped into , differant kinds of cars or tvs. . How much is spent or wasted on trying to come up with the next "iphone" or the next fizzy drink. If all the money spent on advertising around the world was pumped into space exploration or on trying to come up with ways to ensure the survival of man from asteroids/global warming/disease etc, would that really be a bad thing ? Or would it simply be a bad thing for the consumerism model that needs consumption to survive and grow?

The main point of my posts are that we are wasting our intelligence on profit driven consumerism as opposed to using it for the betterment of mankind. You are arguing about what you want or desire which a differant topic altogether.

c_man wrote: »

Then don't buy one...

You are missing the point . .

We have iphones, now invent something else, not another version of the same thing simply to flog the same product but with a "version 1001" sticker on it . . All these differant iphones or smart phones only add choice to an already invented product which is what the conformed consumers want, not need. Oh great, the samsung galaxy lets you use more applications, well isnt that a giant leap forward for smart phones . .

Like most windows versions are a rehash of the previous one with very few upgrades. The fact that people buys them is not as important as their lazy "extras" or slightly altered versions designed simply to squeeze every penny out of a cash cow.

On a similar level, the reason we have the likes of the mindnumbingly dumb/boring "big brother" is because there was/is a demand for crap reality tv. So people can now watch other people doing nothing on tv, thats a real giant leap for mankind . .

"But thats what people want" some people have been saying . . Again, this is a differant argument, the point of this post is that much of our resources/time/money are wasted on our impulses for sh*t we really dont need because of our consumerist tendancies and the rewards that society bestows on those who invent and rehash the most consumerist orientated goods/services.

Most people who drink too much on a night out or have regular takeaways know its not a health thing to do, but do it anyway. You wouldnt say to them "well dont eat or drink so" . . Likewise, I think its fair to buy an iphone and like using it, but to awknoledge its relative significance to humanitys survival/progression . . What people consider important to them or indeed what is really popular, is not necessarily important to humanity.

c_man wrote: »

Under your rule surely phone development would have stopped ages ago with the first generation of landlines and possibly the first gen of mobiles?

No, under my "rule" (as you put it) we wouldnt have hundreds of versions of the same phone/tv. . You dont have to have 20 differant smart phones before something new is invented with relation to progressing phones. The reason we have differant kind of phones and differant kinds of iphones is so they can exhaust the profits from the product, not because they want to enhance its users experience.

There is a lazy argument made that you need to have loads of versions of the same thing for improvements to be made. Many companies do not strive to improve their product, only to rehash the same thing in a differant package with a differant color or something on those lines.

Heres an idea, how about instead of working on their own differant "perks" for phones, if all the brightest in the mobile phone industry worked together to come up with the perfect phone - small, great signal, internet, smart, touchscreen etc. Has this happened yet ? of course not, because phones, like many products are introduced into the marketplace before they are even finished. And that aside, is there really a motivation to introduce the perfect car/phone etc ? Where do you go then ? If you invent a phone/car that never breaks down, has perfect benefits and doesnt need to be replaced, then where do you go from their ? Consumptism needs more sh*t to be invented, not the perfect product . .

And anyways, in many ways technology can be driven by government projects (military inventions helped the likes of mobiles and GPS - companies piggybacked on these technologies for profits, not to invent something useful).