I, like most of us (I would guess), am not a fan of consumerism. In general I view it as pretty close to something that is inherently bad. While I see a need and value in consumption, consumerism has failed to impress me. However this art exhibit in Germany takes a deeper look, and digs into some things that need to be considered. Particularly interesting is the role shopping plays in one's perception of independence, freedom, or one's role as a lover or caretaker. It points out that in many countries shopping is one of the rare opportunities in which it is acceptable for women to have some degree of agency, or to even leave the house. And it points out the power of shopping and market places as cultural and social areas (though in many parts of the U.S., I would question how true that is. Still, I know of one grocery store where I'm from where people often go and spend time socializing with people from around the area, and the southern side of my family has recounted tales of getting dressed up to go to the local grocery store, so I can see it).
What I really liked about what this exhibit does is that it seems to critique consumerism merely by calling attention to it, but it does not attack an essentialized straw man. Rather it sounds as though it attempts to dig deeper into what consumerism is, both positive and negative, and judge it on those grounds rather than merely give it the more general abuse it usually recieves.
The title phrase is a well-known book title as well, from Robert Heilbroner's Worldly Philosophers of 1953. Both this article and Heilbroner's book, however, are talking about economics. These authors argue that economics has, over the last several decades, approached problems much like dentists, "modest people who look at a small part of the body but remove a lot of pain." For all its virtues, this approach provides no nuance nor guidance when everyone plainly realizes that our economic system is a mess, and we need informed people to ask big questions about it. They see the Occupy movement as asking these questions, and call on economists to offer answers. This recommendation rings at the heart of a liberal arts education, and is why in ENVS 220 we collectively struggle to connect the data and methods we work with to larger theories and frameworks, larger philosophical stances that remind us there are choices to be made in how to understand and fix this world.
A fascinating review, certainly to understand the technological advances of this "sustainable city" but also to understand its shadows: "[the designer's] fantasy world is only possible as a meticulously planned community, built from the ground up and of modest size. What Masdar really represents, in fact, is the crystallization of another global phenomenon: the growing division of the world into refined, high-end enclaves and vast formless ghettos where issues like sustainability have little immediate relevance." Is this what we are after?
Looks a lot like GIS to me. But what's this? Not using a broad tract system to generate region averages, but instead more detailed and neighborhood specific system?
These maps only show racial segregation, but its a promising basis for the improvements for which Davidson advocates in EJ analysis.
Here's Portland's map: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4982015862/in/set-72157624812674967/
This is an important and significant perspective. Compared to other cities, we're not working with a lot when we talk about diversity and segregation in regards to environmental justice. Comparing our EJ mapping to EJ mapping in cities with much more significant segregation would be interesting! (Who wants to do some more GIS mapping for fun over fall break??)
This (http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?chicagodots) is Bill Rankin's website, the cartographer who first produced one of these detailed maps in 2009 and inspired Eric Fischer to produce all the others (found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/72157624812674967/with/4981417821/). Check out the downloadable files on Rankin's website (there's one for race and one for income); he includes includes a traditional GIS map of the same data for comparison. (I recommend saving them to your computer and viewing them at a smaller scale to see the patterns more easily.)
This is from his website:
"There are indeed areas where changes take place at very precise boundaries... But transitions also take place through gradients and gaps as well, especially in the northwest and southeast. Using graphic conventions which allow these other possibilities to appear takes much more data, and requires more nuance in the way we talk about urban geography, but a cartography without boundaries can also make simplistic policy or urban design more difficult - in a good way."
Economics and Politics.
"In essence, endless growth puts us on the horns of a seemingly intractable dilemma. Without it, we spiral into poverty. With it, we deplete the planet. Either way, we lose.
Unless, of course, there's a third way. Could we have a healthy economy that doesn't grow? Could we stave off ecological collapse by reining in the world economy? Could we do it without starving?"
An old idea revisited with a slightly lengthy (but easily read) background on limits to growth and it's place in economic history, plus a new perspective on how a limit to growth might actually work, and what that might look like.
I find the concept of ' "uneconomic" growth-growth that actually drives living standards downward' (to improve happiness, nonetheless), and the argument behind it, intriguing. This is on page 4.
After page 5 it starts to look like an idealistic no-grow-utopia. But then this is addressed in the conclusion, as well as some theories about the psychological changes that would have to happen. Then they bring it on back home to politics, and last but not least a reminder of our biological-ecological pending doom. Oh, all the environmental interdisciplinary-ness!
"When it comes to determining the shape of our economy, the planet may possess the most powerful invisible hand of all."
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/18/the-no-growth-fantasy.html
A counter. The ghost of Malthus will forever haunt no-growth economists, as the ultimate "we tried that already". And the train of thought is reasonable. Malthusian fears about population are one example. There is also a long list of oil/energy scares where people claimed prices were going up and supplies were going down, but adjusting for inflation proved the error of the former and time proved the error of the latter. When history, politics, and economic theory all oppose the no-growth idea, its no surprise that its viewed with a lot of healthy skepticism.
That said, I'm a big fan of Herman Daly and the idea that the economy needs to be reformed. Because GDP is an awful way to measure prosperity. But to have an alternative is equally difficult - what should the standard of success be for the great human experiment? Happiness is normally the benchmark. And to academics that sounds all right, because happiness is generally seen as people spending time amongst their families, art, and high culture. But is that naturally what makes people happy? Consumerism was in a large part rooted in a desire for happiness also. Growth was meant to make people happy by making their lives better - and it has. Higher standards of living all over do have economic roots, though that is not neccessarily inherent to them.
There is a lot more to say on this, but its a long enough comment as it is, so I'll leave that for another time. I do feel its one of the more serious debates of our (all?) time though, and I'm really glad you brought it up.
Obviously, I don't know or care too much about economics. I dont know how my conversations keep ending up here.
But. "Growth was meant to make people happy by making their lives better - and it has."
Really?
Who, to you, qualifies as "people"? And how do you define better? Soaring rates of depression, chemical dependency, and obesity? Or maybe it's these lives that are better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL0U_xmRem4)?
Perhaps because it relates so much to the various issues we have declared to be running rampant in the world today? It is very much connected to any environmental issue. Among a range of other issues.
Anyways, I wrote a pretty lengthy response to your questions. I'll post the primary response to your questions here. A lot of it is based on the differences between economics, politics, industrialism, capitalism, and consumerism.
In the tradition of Diigo debates, I have crafted a google site.
https://sites.google.com/site/economicresponse/home
The main page directly answers the question. The other page sets up some distinctions I see, personally, beteen various economic systems. I do not cite academic sources there, and I'm sure it would not take long to find economists who disagree with me, for what it is worth. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to flesh it out with other's ideas, and I apologize for that.
So, we can (and should) address domestic poster-child questions such as "what is nature?", but let's not get complacent about the bigger questions: this article talks about the fact that the reality in which we're trying to sustain our existence may not even exist. What to do?
A perspective on the environmental movement that most likely everyone in LCENVS (and beyond) should keep in mind.
"She learned the same thing about growing fruits and vegetables: Anyone can grow shit themselves. Anyone. Broke-Ass was sick of reading about kids who just graduated from art or architecture school manning their self-righteous food-coops with heirloom everything; looking down on everyone who wasn't raising bees on their rooftops in Brooklyn. To Broke-Ass, it all smacked of Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess with her ladies at the Petit Hameau at Versailles. You don't need to have white-kid dreadlocks, a degree from Bennington, or any more than a passing interest in limiting your carbon footprint to raise your own crap. You just need to be hungry."
Moral of the story is (in my opinion), maybe environmentalism isnt limited to the privileged middle/upper classes and we're doing ourselves a disservice by assuming so or treating it that way. Can we extrapolate this from agriculture and apply it to the greater environmental movement? Maybe our priority shouldnt be ecological modernization -- maybe we should focus on taking advantage of sustainability where it already exists and has potential to exist, instead of sending the message that it can only be achieved through college degrees, high tech appliances, and hybrid cars.
Maybe... these are all maybes. But nonetheless I think they're maybes worth considering.