Deconstructing consumerism: Reinforcing circle of needs

As we are getting more technologically advanced our thirst for goods is increasing. To understand the root cause of the issue we need to study basic human needs. These would include eating, living in physically comfortable surroundings and esteem needs among others. And with the fulfillment of each need we gain satisfaction or pleasure. So pleasure is something that is derived from our need to eat, feel proud etc. But what happens when our needs our fulfilled. (Here i am assuming that these basic needs are quantitatively limited.) Then two additional needs crop up. One is to pass time and the other is to seek pleasure and both these needs are connected. So once these basic needs are satisfied we look to fulfill the need for pleasure. And this need is not limited. One can gain as much pleasure as one wants. Except that the marginal utility of gaining pleasure reduces. That is, if 1 beer gives x amount of pleasure then an additional beer gives less than x amount of pleasure.

Now in this backdrop, lets analyze what has been happening over time. As we are getting more technologically advanced, we are doing things faster and more efficiently. So if earlier to satisfy the need to talk to others we needed to walk miles now we can just call them. What this has done is that we are fulfilling our needs faster and thus overdosing on goods. If one keeps using the same thing over and over the pleasure gained from it keeps going down (marginal utility) and a time comes when we would rather buy another product than use the old one. And with more and more efficient products, the needs are being fulfilled more efficiently and quickly.

Faster consumption of diverse products raises aggregate demand and to match this we produce new products. These new products fulfill our basic needs much faster thereby increasing the need for pleasure which leads us to consume more products further raising demand for such products. So the result is that a reinforcing loop has been created which is fueling consumerism.             

Ethics of Prostitution

In my last post i argued that prostitution is ethical. This was on relativistic grounds. Now, I would take a look at ethics of prostitution from an absolutist perspective. Intercourse can be viewed as either a higher order need (expression of love) or as a physiological (basal) need. If it is viewed as a higher order need then naturally it would be wrong to exchange it for money. And if it is a basal need what is its purpose? The need for sex or hunger comes from the need to preserve the genetic pool or for the survival of the species. The pleasure that is derived from it is an inducement to engage in it. So then would it not be unethical to subvert from the true purpose of procreation/survival to seeking pleasure. 

Legalize prostitution on ethical grounds

People who actually enjoy their work and would rather work then spend time on leisure activities are hard to find. It can be said that a majority of people would rather just "chill" than work if they were financially secure. Which means that a majority of people are selling their intellect to fill their stomachs. And in some jobs the tasks are so routine that they are just selling their physical presence.

So then what is so wrong about prostitution. One is intellectual slavery and the other is physical. And there is no evidence that one is better than the other. I would rather say that it is a matter of preference. Now then would it not be unethical for us to selectively ban an activity where two consenting individuals buy and sell physical service.

A Democratic Crisis

The concept of democracy has come to pervade all aspects of public life. But there are issues cropping from the application of this concept that need to be addressed to face the complex challenges of today and tomorrow.

In the Indian context, approximately, 70% people vote and of that the winning party requires about 35% of the vote. Which essentially means that the government is representing only a minority, about 25%, of the people. Another way to look at it is that if the right to recall is incorporated then no government is going to last for a full 5 year term. Perhaps, one way to address this issue could be to introduce proportional representation. But even then the government would only  require a simple majority.  Who looks after the minority then (And this is assuming the interests of the majority are taken care of)? The judiciary with the aid of the constitution can provide some relief but that would not be enough to lift them out of their present deplorable condition.

Perhaps one can say that we do not live in a true democracy. Votes of people are bought with liquor and bread with the money  provided by capitalists who in return milk the system for their private benefit. But even a mature democracy like USA faces some complex issues. Here, just like in India, the system has been compromised even before elections have taken place. How? Because of political funding by private institutions. One solution to this can be public funding of elections, but then so far as a private party is willing to give money and a public authority willing to take it this issue cannot be resolved.

Another issue with the present system is the short termism built into it. With elections every four/five years the attention of every political party is on how to put in policies that would reap results in the short term. So instead of investing in health, education and skill development the politicians implement easy credit policies. This is one of the most important causes of the 2008 crisis. But a party that would invest in education or other long gestation policies would lose to a party that would provide cheap credit or a farmer subsidy. This is the sad truth of present times. A majority of men and women , even educated ones, would chose short term benefits against policies that would help in creating a sustainable society. For that would require sacrifice. And this is the Achilles heel of democracy.

Another example would be that each and every citizen and/or his children on this planet will be affected by climate change in an adverse way. Why aren't then people rallying to tackle climate change?  In India where most people fight for survival every day, it is understandable. But in America, the epitome of democracy, where most people are educated and comparatively well off, it is not.  My contention is that by giving voice to every Tom, Dick & Harry (and i know i am going to get a lot of stick for this) we have diluted the voice of those who are best fit to lead us to face the complexities of the 21st century.