This article is a year old, but it's still relevant:
Approximately 1.7 billion people worldwide now belong to the "consumer class"—the group of people characterized by diets of highly processed food, desire for bigger houses, more and bigger cars, higher levels of debt, and lifestyles devoted to the accumulation of non-essential goods..."Rising consumption has helped meet basic needs and create jobs," Christopher Flavin, president of Worldwatch Institute said in a statement to the press. "But as we enter a new century, this unprecedented consumer appetite is undermining the natural systems we all depend on, and making it even harder for the world's poor to meet their basic needs."...
The increase in prosperity is not making humans happier or healthier, according to several studies. Findings from a survey of life satisfaction in more than 65 countries indicate that income and happiness tend to track well until about $13,000 of annual income per person (in 1995 dollars). After that, additional income appears to produce only modest increments in self-reported happiness.
Increased consumerism evidently comes at a steep price.
People are incurring debt and working longer hours to pay for the high-consumption lifestyle, consequently spending less time with family, friends, and community organizations...
Some aspects of rampant consumerism have resulted in startling anomalies. Worldwatch reports that worldwide annual expenditures for cosmetics total U.S. $18 billion; the estimate for annual expenditures required to eliminate hunger and malnutrition is $19 billion. Expenditures on pet food in the United States and Europe total $17 billion a year; the estimated cost of immunizing every child, providing clean drinking water for all, and achieving universal literacy is $16.3 billion.
There is, of course, no easy solution to the problem. The authors call for green taxes (to reflect the true environmental costs of a product), take-back programs that require manufacturers to recycle packaging or goods, and consumer education and awareness programs.
But first and foremost we need to reorient our way of thinking, says Gardner.
"The goal is to focus not so much on sacrifice, but on how to provide a higher quality of life using the lowest amount of raw materials," he said. "We need to change the way we produce goods and the way we consume them."
Darryl, I wish someone would point out to me in the scriptures the part where Jesus declared himself to be a card-carrying Malthusian.
Wasn't Malthus a card-carrying Christian?
Mike, this isn't about population growth; it's about consumerism.
Forgive me, Rev. Mike, but I fail to see your point. Elucidate, please?
Malthus is about more than just population growth alone. He's also about the limits to resources. The only reason for which I can think one would object to consumerism in relation to my consumption versus someone else's (I am NOT trying to take on the ENTIRE topic of consumerism -- just this one facet) is if you think my having something I want means that someone else doesn't get to have something they want. Malthus seems to apply in that kind of limited resources framework.
I'm not so sure that people are starving because Americans spend billions of dollars on pet food. But it probably ought to have implications for how those of us who have a lot live.
Such as?
Thank you for the clarification, Rev. Mike.
I can't speak for Darryl, but I for one, agree with you to a certain extent. I don't believe that we should all "sell everything we own, give it to the poor" and go on the dole ourselves. I do believe, however, that if we cut back a little on FRIVOLOUS spending and paid a little more attention to the needs of others, we could make a huge difference.
I wonder: If God prospered us as we gave,
instead of asking us to give as we prosper,
how would we make out?
I read today that Manitoba is the most generous province. The average person gives 0.83% of their income to charity.
We've been given a lot. Theologically, I believe we've been given a lot so we can use it for the benefit of others. The more we have, the more opportunity we have to share with those who don't.
I guess there is a lot of economic theory that we could debate, and I think it's important. I've always been bothered by Ron Sider's book title "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger". I'm pretty sure those of us who are rich do have some responsibility to those who are hungry.
Darryl, I read Sider fifteen years ago and felt the same way at the time. Would it help you, me and all the other Christian neurotics of the world to feel better to know that Sider has become a free market advocate in recent years? Check out The Evolution of Ronald J. Sider at http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/review.php?id=280.
Mike, how did we get from sharing resources with the poor to being guilt-ridden and neurotic?
I checked today and noticed that Bill Gates, who I think believes in the free market, just donated a boatload of cash to immunizations. I agree. I think you're setting up a false dichotomy. Both/and.
I never used to get it when my homiletics professor used to say that the word "ought" had no place in a Reformed sermon. People can go anywhere and hear the bad news. We already know we can't meet expectations. Where's the good news in hearing it one more time in church?
I hope I get it now. I guess I'm just having one of those weeks where I'm not in the mood to be told I suck because my life is good, and someone else's isn't, and that means I should give it away. I don't think that's setting up a false dichotomy. I think it's saying I refuse to become a self-righteous, Francis of Assisi wannabe so I can feel better about myself. I don't think you're saying any of this, but that's where this line of reasoning usually gets taken.
Sharing resources is not what Sider was about if my memory of the book is clear. But Bill Gates, champion of the free market? Dude, c'mon -- maybe a free market of one! :)
One reason I like the article is that it didn't go in that direction. It ended, "The goal is to focus not so much on sacrifice, but on how to provide a higher quality of life using the lowest amount of raw materials..."
I think it's possible to paint a picture of a better way that isn't all about guilt and self-righteousness. The better way is better even for us, not just for those we share with.
The odd time I stumble on Jesus when he says to sell everything and give it to the poor. I can handle the rich young ruler time, but then he said it to his other disciples too. I don't think he was saying we shouldn't own anything, but it probably does mean that we have to think of how we own things, and what we're living for.
Anyway, don't forget that I come from Canada and we hardly believe in capitalism up here anyway. ;)
Mike, are you the same guy who got "pissed off" because you felt you had to do all the work to get a school in your area? I guess you can understand then, when the other parents in the area say to themselves, "I'm not in the mood to be told I suck because I didn't do anything to help that guy get the school for this area."
I don't think that anyone is suggesting we suck because God has blessed us. I don't think Darryl is hinting that we should give everything away, or that we shouldn't have nice, and sometimes frivolous, things. (Not to say that you are accusing Darryl of holding that view.)
I am on record as saying that we should NOT give because of some legalistic arguement or guilt trip placed on us by some "do-gooders." But I agree that we ARE blessed, and we do have a lot compared to others.
I said to Darryl in one of our e-mail discussions that "there is nothing to eat in here," often means I still have more in my 'fridge than some people see in a month.
I believe that along with those blessings comes a moral and ethical responsibility to share with the less fortunate, - never mind the spiritual implications.
I said "share." I did not say "support forever." I did not say "allow them to take advantage of, or abuse our generosity." I did not say "give everything you have, or else you suck."
That last remark, by the way, is not directed at you personally, Mike, (or any one else in particular.)
Good point, Arthur. Neither you nor Darryl are saying this. My frustration is directed towards so many who do. I'm doing a pretty lousy job on my side of the conversation here, so last night I dug up a D.Min. case study on an experience I had. I'm reworking it as a blog post and hope to have it up today. I hope it at least sparks further discussion even if it far from reaches any helpful conclusions.