OFC Meeting 3

OFC Meetings --> here

---

13 Mar 2018:

STUFF

Stuff happens! (I couldn't resist! -- Jess)

(Ah, another angle -- Jane)

This video by George Carlin (click on Stuff Happens) holds a mirror up to society -- and makes us consciously think about our possessions -- our STUFF....

Roland's rejoinder:

Carlin makes several valid points in his "Rant" about STUFF. However, he has only focused on some of the negative aspects of our relationship with our possessions.

His approach is to draw our attention to some of our excesses -- and yes, it's true for most of us reading this -- we could probably do with less STUFF and perhaps we should all examine our attitude about STUFF.

However -- Mr. Carlin does not paint a complete picture here. STUFF can have a very positive impact on our lives as well.

The value of over 70% of the U.S. economy is made up of Consumer Goods. Now, that includes food and necessities as well, but a lot of it is simply STUFF. If we all decide to buy less STUFF, we will definitely slow down the economy. Some may say, "Good -- only the rich will suffer," but that is simply not the case. A slowing economy could upset credit markets worldwide -- possibly creating a crash to rival the Great Depression on a global scale.

The answer to that problem may be to increase the amount of Services that we exchange with each other. That way the velocity of money would stay the same and credit markets would not lock up.

Perhaps (as a society) we have become too dependent on STUFF to give us Joy and Fulfillment in our lives. There are heirlooms and mementos that we cherish because they hold great sentimental value -- and when you come home from a long trip, isn't it nice to walk into your home and be back with all your familiar STUFF. Hotels are nice, but it's just not the same when it's not YOUR STUFF in the room.

Stuff can give you a sense of STATUS. A big home filled with a lot of expensive STUFF can make you feel secure and powerful -- and it lets your guests know immediately that you are "a person of wealth and taste". A big empty house simply wouldn't do that....

Cars make excellent status symbols as well -- when you see a Rolls Royce or Ferrari you know instantly that the person who owns it has high social status. Certain car makers market their products to people who want a car that says "Successful -- High Status" and that most people will recognize as being transportation for the "elite".

It has been said that "Clothes make the Man" (or Woman) -- and dressing up in fine clothes does make us feel special. We even have special clothing (wedding dresses, prom dresses, tuxedos) that are usually only worn once. Fashion tells us that we must have the latest style or we will fail to live up to society's norms of sophistication and success.

Fashion has crept into things like home appliances (of all things) and housing as well. People will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to give their house a "fresh updated look" -- but where does all the old flooring, gyprock, light fixtures, kitchen cupboards, vanities, sinks etc. go? Into the landfill.

Of course -- there is also essential STUFF that we all need to function in our daily lives, and no one would expect anyone to give that up. BUT -- most of us have STUFF that we simply don't need or don't use. Most of that STUFF ends up in landfills -- although there has been a movement toward recycling and re-using the STUFF we no longer need.

[Remark by Jess from Mexico: Here they do not recycle, they "repurpose". You'd be amazed how many uses there are for an old plastic bottle! However, plastic bags and other trash are just discarded, and pile up everywhere. Especially in the ocean. :-( ]

In Nanaimo we are having a great debate about the Nanaimo Recycling Exchange (NRE). The NRE is going to be losing their facility soon and are looking for public funds to replace and improve it. If you've ever gone there -- it is a VERY well used facility and in my opinion, much needed by the people of Nanaimo, but local governments are reluctant to shell out significant taxpayer funds for it. The NRE are proposing a membership drive to raise $!00,00 toward a new facility, to make up for the lack of government enthusiasm for recycling. Where are our priorities? If we are going to keep consuming STUFF -- can't we at least try to make it more environmentally sustainable?

"Let's stop being full time Consumers - and part time Citizens". -- Roland Uphoff

More from Roland:

Lets reexamine our relationship with stuff. To me, STUFF falls into three distinct categories:

First we have things that are necessary in our daily lives and for the proper functioning of our society. Let's just put them aside for now.

Second we have TREASURES. We all have them -- some have more than others but even a homeless person has things they don't want to part with. For millennia people have had treasures -- ancient burial grounds often have primitive jewelry or figurines in them. Pharaohs were buried with their treasures. Treasure was so desirable that men would go on raids and start wars over them. The Mongols, Vikings and Huns are a few examples of people willing to die to get at someone's treasure. Treasure has had a powerful hold on people's psyches for thousands of years. A long discussion could be had just talking about people's fascination with treasure, but for now we will leave that aside as well... which leads us to the third form of STUFF:

The third form of STUFF is stuff we really don't need -- stuff we bought on a whim -- stuff we got because it was a fad or fashion at the time -- stuff we really wanted, but lost interest in -- stuff we got from someone as a gift because they felt obligated to get us something... anything.

I'm sure that we could all add a lot to the this third list -- but now we are going to bundle all this STUFF up and see what happens to it. Some STUFF is donated to charity, and some of that is reused. Some STUFF gets sold on Used Nanaimo or Kijiji or CraigsList and is reused. But most of it simply ends up in the landfill. Most of us would agree that filling up landfills is not a positive thing now -- or for the future.

So -- if what we are doing with STUFF is undesirable, perhaps we should examine ways to reduce our consumption and the waste that goes with it.

[Comment from Jess: What happened to the fourth type of stuff you so eloquently defended earlier: stuff that makes you feel proudly superior -- elite -- and makes others feel inadequate by comparison? You seem to have backed away from that position here. Just sayin'. ;-) ]

Fads and Fashion are a great way to ensure that our garbage dumps will always be overflowing. Where did they come from? For most of human history the 99% could afford only the basic necessities, with an occasional treasure. Then came the Industrial Revolution in the 1700's in Great Britain - soon to be followed by the rest of the world. Goods became cheaper and much more plentiful. STUFF became available to the common man (or woman). As production ramped up, much more STUFF became available. A lot of it was necessary stuff that made life less difficult; but then something changed. The factories didn't stop producing when everyone had their share of necessary things -- so MARKETING was born. Now people had to be convinced to buy stuff they didn't even know they needed. Fads and fashions came and went and marketers began to convince people -- through an ever expanding media presence -- that they simply MUST have the latest and greatest thing or be a social outcast.

I will give two examples that come to mind. In the late 1800's a large quantity of high quality diamonds were discovered in South Africa. There were many more diamonds than the market could use. SO the largest diamond company in the world (DeBeers) had to find a way to sell all the excess diamonds. They turned to a very clever marketer who started an ad campaign that convinced every potential bride that she MUST have a diamond ring (or her suitor didn't love her). Voila! Debeers had no problem selling all their diamonds for massively marked up prices.

The second example is automobile marketing. In 1923 Chevrolet made some minor styling changes to the 1922 model and introduced the 1923 Chevrolet as the "All New 1923 Chevrolet". Before this, cars were not identified specifically by model year - but Chevrolet convinced people that they couldn't be seen driving "last year's" model; and soon every other automobile manufacturer started using the same marketing tactic. Styling changes became dramatic -- so it was easy to distinguish one vintage from another. Now your neighbors could see if you were "keeping up".

Marketing is something that has not always served the greatest needs of mankind. In fact, some would argue that it has had a negative influence on us. Marketing is often at the root of fads and fashions and also in excessive consumerism. Perhaps we should take another look at how we are influenced by marketing. Do we really need all that new STUFF that they tell us to buy? Is there a better way? -- Roland Uphoff

Comment from Jess: If you have not been following Terry o'Reilly's "Under The Influence"] series on CBC, you've missed a gold mine of information about the shenanigans of advertising. You can catch up with the podcasts here. I invite everyone to join me in the Consumer's Pledge: "I will never buy anything for which I've seen an unsolicited advertisement." That may seem radical, but I think it's the only way to really hamstring the manipulators. It goes well with the Voter's Pledge: "I will never vote for a candidate for whom I've seen a paid campaign ad." :-)

[Comment from Philip (Mar 2, 2018): Yes, all three things we can do about Stuff, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle are important but Reduce is most important I think because it also reduces the burden of protecting, storing, learning to use and ultimately recycling the stuff. It is also for a society the best way to reduce the burden on the planet and to provide every person more time to do the things that are important to them rather than having to work in a possibly soul-crushing job and having to deal with their stuff. Let us aim for the 15 hour work week promised by John Maynard Keynes in his essay “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren”.]

Jane Juda's opinion:

Stuff... emotions... environment

My view is that stuff is not necessary. We can live without it. We are brainwashed into thinking we need it and media and marketing make temptation irresistible on many levels. The sad thing is that people go into debt thinking it will improve them or make them happier. This is where the emotions kick in. It will not. The sadder thing is that all the stuff that is being created will end up in the earth. Is this good for our planet?

If by some disastrous fluke you end up losing all your stuff by an act of God, you can still live without it. You will not die if you do not have stuff. Oh, of course, you will grieve and lament your loss but you can go on living without your stuff.

Stuff is a ball and chain. Until you let go of your stuff you are its custodian for the rest of your life.

'Wealth consists not in having great possessions but in having few wants.' - Epictetus

I am trying to be a minimalist. Not quite there yet, but I have downsized many times. I'm presently living in approximately 600 square feet and still feel I have too much. Trying to get to the point of only owning what I currently use. I still have stuff, like my camping gear (I did a lot of canoeing in Ontario trying to retrieve my sanity in nature before heading back to the City and the financial district). Will I go camping again? Only went once last year. Sleeping on the hard ground, in the rain, is becoming less and less appealing. So why am I not getting rid of camping gear that is probably superseded by current technology, you ask? Ah, that's Roland's department. :-)

[Image:iphone.jpg|600px]

And that is my view on stuff. -- Jane

Thoughts about stuff from Hendrik Witmans:

Just my few cents' worth on the upcoming meeting on Stuff. Reading through Roland's bit, I cringed at some of what he said: Stuff a status symbol? Keeping up with the Jones etc. etc? I don't think so! Anyway, more about that on the next meeting, for sure. For now I would like to bring your attention to a short movie about “stuff”. I think it should be required viewing at every high school or college!

The movie is: "The Story of Stuff" at The Story of Stuff Project.

You have to navigate through the movie menus until you find the one called: Story of Stuff. It explains the dark side of our obsession with 'stuff'. I thought it was very good. That's it from me. -- Henk

More Commentary from Roland:

Henk: Thank you for putting your ideas on the wiki -- I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts at the next meeting and I am sure there will be a lively discussion.

Jane: Thank you for your thoughts on STUFF, as well as the lifestyle of minimalism. Minimalism may well be the way of the future, and I hope we spend some time discussing this important topic.

As most of you are probably aware, my views are different from those of Jane and Henk. I don't consider myself an extreme consumer, hoarder or great status seeker, but I do like stuff more than some people.

During the past few weeks I have been thinking a lot about STUFF and I have come to realize that stuff definitely has a downside (as Henk mentioned) but we must start looking at ways to make stuff friendlier to the environment and the marketers should take a step back (in the future) and stop promoting consumerism as a quasi-religion.

Corporations have a vital role to play as well. We need to go BEYOND Reuse, Recycle, Reduce -- what we need is to Re-Design and Build Better.... We need better designed stuff that will last longer and can be easily repaired. Think of the mufflers you used to have on your car 40 years ago -- they used to rust out all the time. Now we use stainless steel and aluminum for our exhaust and my 32 year old car still has its original muffler. So you see, we can do better. We don't have to dump all our old stuff in the environment if we don't need to constantly change it. Some stuff is actually built to FAIL -- it is known as Planned Obsolescence. I consider this kind of thinking to be criminal. I believe that most people would agree that planned obsolescence should be outlawed! To me it is a fraud committed on the consumer and a crime against the Earth itself. Corporations need to change in the future.

Attitudes toward marketing can change as well. Marketers used to tell you how most Medical Doctors preferred Camel cigarettes. Attitudes toward smoking changed, and the public convinced the marketers to publish anti-smoking ads. Perhaps we can change our minds about other things as well. Perhaps in the future, we will put more thought into the stuff we buy and think about WHY we are buying this stuff. Do we really need it, or are we buying something because we have been manipulated into buying it (fad, fashion, marketing) or because we feel insecure and need it to show our status to the world. Let's make better decisions in the future.

Lets spend a little more time in the future thinking about the consequences of STUFF. The debt traps that we fall into when we buy luxuries on credit -- or the environmental damage done by over-consumption. I still love stuff, but I am willing to have a dialogue with the other members of the O.F.C. about how I can still love stuff, but perhaps in a more responsible way. -- Roland

Last minute addendum from Jess:

I feel like we should have some nice pro-consumerism links in addition to Roland's comments, to even out the references. Here are a few that seemed interesting to me:

1. "In Defense of our Wicked, Wicked Ways" by Patricia Cohen of The New York Times (2002)
2. "In Defense of Consumerism" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. of the Mises Institute (2006)
3. "In Defense of Consumerism" by Dan Hannan in the Washington Examiner (2015)

I don't think these links make many new points, but they make the old ones fairly eloquently. To me, it boils down to privileged people complaining about humourless PC Police trying to spoil their fun just because it will eventually spell the collapse of human civilization. :-) -- Jess

---

Minutes of Third OFC Meeting

---