How Much Is Enough?

[tentative]

Lizbeth opened a thread on consumerism and the discussion prompted a new question: How do we define need -vs- want? We are, and always will be, consumers of those material things that sustain our lives, provide us with safety and security, ensure procreation opportunities, and all the other activities in which we indulge ourselves. But beyond basic food, clothing, and shelter, the line between need and want becomes blurry, and in this grey area we begin to have questions.

So how do we define need in today's world? Do you need a salad shooter? Do you need a 60" HDTV? What do you need to consume compared to what you want (to consume)? Look around at your possessions and ask which articles were based on need and which ones simply because I wanted them? Make your list and post it here. It might be an interesting eye-opening exercise... The reasons behind the choices might be even more interesting.

[ScavengingVulture]

Anything beyond basic primary survival is a want.

[uglypeoplefucking]

It's almost an impossible question. "Need" in order to do what? Survive? Why stop there? Survive comfortably? Survive happily? Who decides what any of those things even mean? Something tells me needs and wants are not necessarily all that distinct from one another - at least not until you've specified a purpose. Do i "need" my smartphone? Well, my job requires me to have it, so i need it if i want to keep my job. Our needs and wants depend on one another. They follow one another. Do i need to have a job? i could probably survive without one. Do i need a bed to sleep in? i could probably survive without one. Do i need my arms? i could conceivably survive without them. And then again, why do i even need to survive? The universe will almost certainly continue without me. i only need to survive because i don't WANT to die.

[Smears]

I think you should have one of everything and 2 extras.

[lizbethrose]

It's almost an impossible question. "Need" in order to do what? Survive? Why stop there? Survive comfortably? Survive happily? Who decides what any of those things even mean? Something tells me needs and wants are not necessarily all that distinct from one another - at least not until you've specified a purpose. Do i "need" my smartphone? Well, my job requires me to have it, so i need it if i want to keep my job. Our needs and wants depend on one another. They follow one another. Do i need to have a job? i could probably survive without one. Do i need a bed to sleep in? i could probably survive without one. Do i need my arms? i could conceivably survive without them. And then again, why do i even need to survive? The universe will almost certainly continue without me. i only need to survive because i don't WANT to die.

upf, I do so like your on-line name. Every time I read it, it conjures really funny pictures in my head.

There are real needs--food, water, shelter, comfort enough to be able to think beyond the immediate (see Epicurus)--there are felt needs--how much food, beverages, shelter, comfort--and there are created needs. I'd say both felt and created needs overlap to a certain degree, depending on the skill of the marketer.

I think both tent and I would like to talk about the created needs. Tent has his approach and I have mine. Both are equally viable. (Isn't that great?) Let's see if between us we can differentiate the two approaches. I deplore excess when it comes to depletion of non-renewable resources simply to satisfy a created need; e.g., buying a hi-def, 60', flat screen tv, a new computer every year or two, or a new car every year or two, simply to 'keep up' with the newest and the latest.

I have other things in mind, as well, but if I mentioned them, I might be de-railing tent's thread and I really don't want to piss him off ( ), so I'll leave it up to him.

[tentative]

I have other things in mind, as well, but if I mentioned them, I might be de-railing tent's thread and I really don't want to piss him off ( ), so I'll leave it up to him.

I deliberately left this wide open figuring it would wander around depending on the POV of all respondents. Mostly, the fun part is for the individual to examine their own need-want world. It's just a guess, but it might slow down some of our overt (and ridiculous) consumerism. Oh, you can't piss me off. I don't get pissed off - ever. People can keenly disappoint me now and then, and I might say something about that from time to time, but I refuse to waste energy being pissed off at anything or anybody.

What disturbs me about rampant consumerism isn't the waste of valuable materials, it is the waste of needed assets (cash) and time. Most of us generate an income that allows our needs to be met - if we don't get stupid with kidding ourselves that a lot of what we say we need, is really just a want.

Just for the record, there is very little material that is "non-renewable". We may not have the technology at present to convert all materials into useful forms, but almost everything is renewable. In fact, all of our 'garbage' residing in landfills is a savings account for the future. At some point, those landfills will be mined and what is garbage today will be a rich resource tomorrow. It just waits for the technologies to catch up with us.

But there is no reason to take easily used materials and turn them into less-usable forms just to fulfill wants. We will never stop consumerism, but we can slow it down and make it a little easier for future generations. So how do we slow things down? It's up to each of us. I'm not into sanctimonious superiority self-denial crap. If I NEED something, I'll figure out some way to have it, and what I need will be different than what anyone else needs. The idea is to be thoughtful and honest with ourselves about defining need -vs- want. I could be wrong, but I suspect that most of us could live with a hell of a lot less than we routinely acquire.

I find it interesting that we have people who routinely complain about being a "slave" to the system, and yet they have enough excess capital to own a computer, pay for internet service, and have the luxury of time to sit and bang away on a keyboard - complaining about being a slave. ?????? There is a disconnect there of some kind...

OK. That's enough for the moment. Hopefully, we'll get a few more different viewpoints going...

[Ierrellus]

The basic problem of deciding what is a need and what is a want may be who decides which is which. Example--food stamps cover sodas and potato chips, junk food. They do not cover toilet paper. Something's wrong about these preferences, but for a government to decide which is which is intolerable to most people. Capitalism as we know it demands consumerism regardless of whether or not what is consumed is a necessity.

[ScavengingVulture]

Insatiable appetites. It's never enough.

[lizbethrose]

The basic problem of deciding what is a need and what is a want may be who decides which is which. Example--food stamps cover sodas and potato chips, junk food. They do not cover toilet paper. Something's wrong about these preferences, but for a government to decide which is which is intolerable to most people. Capitalism as we know it demands consumerism regardless of whether or not what is consumed is a necessity.

When I was on food stamps (which I had to buy, by the way) they covered essential food stuffs--they didn't cover toilet paper because they were food stamps. But you're correct, of course, when you say our form of capitalism demands consumerism.

[Ierrellus]

The basic problem of deciding what is a need and what is a want may be who decides which is which. Example--food stamps cover sodas and potato chips, junk food. They do not cover toilet paper. Something's wrong about these preferences, but for a government to decide which is which is intolerable to most people. Capitalism as we know it demands consumerism regardless of whether or not what is consumed is a necessity.

When I was on food stamps (which I had to buy, by the way) they covered essential food stuffs--they didn't cover toilet paper because they were food stamps. But you're correct, of course, when you say our form of capitalism demands consumerism.

They are now known as direction cards, but the direction is still food, or what is considered food. Sweetened sodas are a real cause of the USA epidemic of obesity; but the brain-washing advertisement agencies could care less. Self-indulgence is bankable! Some schools are now getting rid of their soft drink and fast food machines to the horror of many who see it as going against their personal rights.

[Kriswest]

I admit I am spoiled and will fight to keep my wants. I don't care. Its mine I worked and earned them. Yes I waste things. I don't care. I am tired today.I have dealt with alot of stress. Its mine all mine, I need my wants to relax and not go berserk. Touch them and I will smack you with a rolled up newspaper.

[PavlovianModel146]

They are now known as direction cards, but the direction is still food, or what is considered food. Sweetened sodas are a real cause of the USA epidemic of obesity; but the brain-washing advertisement agencies could care less. Self-indulgence is bankable! Some schools are now getting rid of their soft drink and fast food machines to the horror of many who see it as going against their personal rights.

If you think the soft drinks are bad, the Direction Cards (in Ohio, anyway) can now be accepted by home delivery food companies such as Schwann's.

[tentative]

I admit I am spoiled and will fight to keep my wants. I don't care. Its mine I worked and earned them. Yes I waste things. I don't care. I am tired today.I have dealt with alot of stress. Its mine all mine, I need my wants to relax and not go berserk. Touch them and I will smack you with a rolled up newspaper.

Just grab a cold one, light up a cigarette and relax.

[Kriswest]

Did but mommy was needed. Point is without wants fullfilled how sane or happy could we be.If we are dissatisfied then what happens socially?

[Ierrellus]

Did but mommy was needed. Point is without wants fullfilled how sane or happy could we be.If we are dissatisfied then what happens socially?

We shoot each other!

[Kriswest]

Yep.

[lizbethrose]

Kris, wants need to be fulfilled--that's progress. I wanted a house. In order to get the house I wanted, we scrimped and saved and built one, doing a lot of the work ourselves--and not going into debt except for the mortgage. But there's a difference between a personal desire for something and a created desire. Maybe we're getting caught up here in words.

I think the majority of people in the US are slaves to advertising which creates wants, needs, desires we might not otherwise have. Add to that, ever increasing technology and the fact that Boomers grew up in an atmosphere of 'plenty' (while parents had grown up in an atmosphere of 'want') and we not only have a couple of generations of 'throw away' consumerism; we also have an increasing division between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. And there's little understanding between the two.

I read over and over again how certain political factions think the only thing the have nots need to do is get a job, work hard and ye shall succeed. This is a bunch of bull hockey! Technology--the very technology considered 'progress'--has wiped out jobs--and is wiping out an entire social class.

Sorry, rant's over--maybe.

[Kriswest]

I agree about advertising and most of your post.
Question:
Since advertising is a prime cause why not use that method to fix it?

[Mowk]

How much you "need" varies depending on what you are doing. Even within consumption of the basics of eating drinking and breathing there is variation is requirement based on metabolism rates which is driven by what you do. If I am working hard I end up breathing harder and as result need more oxygen. If I'm working hard I am burning more calories to perform that work and must consume more to replace them. If I'm working and breathing harder, then likely, I am perspiring as well and would also require the consumption of additional water to maintain hydration.

What we need in any given moment is directly related to what we are doing.

Could the question be answered based on the ratio of what is consumed as "productively useful" and what it generates in the process of consumption as what is considered waste, or that which goes unused?

If I were to consume x calories performing the work to build a swimming pool and only one person can use it compared to a pool that the public can use. There is a much higher ratio of productive use of the pool to what was consumed to construct it when it is built for the public to use compared to the one built of a single individuals use. Every moment the pool of the private owner sits unused the calories used to construct it are going to waste. That is to say the work performed is being wasted because it has resulted in something that has potential for utility that is not being tapped. It is going unused.

So when waste in excess of usefulness is generated , you've consumed too much.

[Kriswest]

Did you get paid to build the pool?

[Mowk]

Paid? Perhaps I have missed something... how does that influence the relationship between energy required by the work performed within a physical system?

So lets play the game. Yes I got paid x times the calories I consumed in the process of building the pool. X being a portion for each person in my family based on their metabolic needs to insure healthy growth and assuming a family unit of some size is required by society to maintain a stable population within a physical system and provide the diversity required to maintain that system and its governance.

The source of calories and their "cost" in economic terms is the result of how much energy is required to harvest and deliver them to where they are needed. What source of calories will I be paid in?

[Kriswest]

Well just how can it be a wastte of calories if you were paid an agreed amount? I presume you would use the money to support yourself and or family. If you did not get the money how could you pay for food, housing, etc.?
Unless you squandered it only on things for
fun.Then I could grasp waste. But then then that would speak ill of you not the system

[Mowk]

If tax dollars are spent to build a bridge that no one can use, politicians call that wasteful spending. Still wasteful, even though a monetary exchange took place. So I don't get your point.

[lizbethrose]

Mowk, is a swimming pool being built in an area where temps for much of the year would make such a luxury reasonable, although still a luxury. Or is it being built in an area with a mean high temp of 75F for a total of 2 months out of the year, usually separated by days of 65F wet and cloudy weather? I'm exaggerating somewhat--but...

Given the amount of human energy expended and the amount of resource energy it takes to heat the latter pool to maintain the users' comfort levels, I'd say the latter pool is 'too much!' Is such a luxury really needed?

[Mowk]

Hello Liz,

I think a swimming pool is a luxury as you have stated, where ever and for whom ever it is built. Even a shower with running water is a luxury, when you compare it to a hand drawn bath in a drinking trough or waiting around for a good downpour with washcloth in hand.

What I am attempting to address is living at a level that could be shared by everyone on the planet without unbalancing the environment. If you look at the resources consumed in the process of living by a single individual, could that amount of resources be consumed by every member of the population without causing harm to the environment. That would at least have a possibility of achieving sustainability.

"How much?" Mankind seem an insatiable beast and likely there is no answer to such a variable question. How much of what? The value of currency; its purchasing power, is variable. While the relationship between calories and the work that can be performed appears more fixed. What caloric intake is required to maintain a healthy body mass. Even when at rest this body is performing work. Calories are burned performing the "work" of maintaining life. Our bodies are "working" 24/7, working to stay alive. So if we are always "at work to a variable degree", how much of that work should go to pay for an others standard of living? You see by the relationship of energy and mass that a resources "cost" in real terms is directly reducible to how many calories are required to perform the work at a rate. There is a relatively standardized relationship between how much oxygen and water are needed by the consumption of calories. Each of our bodies have variations in metabolic rates and how efficiently it converts calories to work but the variations are relatively insignificant.

The calories an apple provides, provides those calories regardless how much the apple costs financially, and from the calories in the apple I am able to perform so much work. I can "work" very slowly, barely above my resting metabolic rate, and as result get very little accomplished beyond simply staying alive, or I could work very hard and burn the calories up at a much faster rate, but lets face it, I have got to be alive to perform any work at all. If I am to accomplish any work at all, in addition to the work of staying alive, then it would require I consume additional calories above and beyond what it takes to stay alive, or I'd be worked to death, starvation.

The cost of any food item in real terms is simply the amount of energy required to provide it where it is needed, but the price of any food includes the variation in standards of living proportionate to their extreme. As people achieve higher and higher extremes in standards of living the price of the apple goes up, yet there has been no increase in the energy provided by consumption of the apple and as result the work that can be done beyond staying alive. Excesses in the extremes of living standards exponentially inflate the price of any good or service.

I don't expect anyone to be required to work to maintain my standard of living, but isn't that sort of the way it is currently. What employers are you aware of that live at a lower standard then those they employ? Corporations aggressively seek out these variations in standard of living to reduce 'their' perceived cost in an effort to increase 'their' profitability, and we are paying them to do it, every time a purchase any of "their" goods or services is made.

I think "enough" would be a level at which every member of the population world wide could experience without harm to the environment we rely upon for our survival. The ingenuity of mankind makes it possible that this isn't a fixed amount. In fact the question isn't at all about how much, but rather how the whole of it, how ever much it turns out to be, is distributed. Our American football is an incredibly wasteful and exploitative pastime as are all spectator sports. Moving a pigskin back and forth between two markers a hundred yards apart doesn't accomplish all that much but it is a great example of funneling wealth from the many to the few through cultural indoctrination. All the rags to riches stories are simply more of the same. I can find no examples in history where any degree of wealth has been accumulated without exploitation taking place. Exploitation in real terms is simply the orchestration of getting more from an exchange then you have physically worked to achieve.

There are no needs beyond those required by our bodies metabolism to stay alive. All the rationalizations of needing a car, cause if I didn't have a car I couldn't work, are just that, rationalizations. Work is something no one on the planet can avoid. Even the laziest person in the world has to work. It doesn't require a car, it requires calories and if the price of those calories continues to be inflated excessively by our lust for a standard of living, then we will end up working ourselves to death or if you are shrewd and without ethical character, you will work your fellow man to death first, without worry, as there are many more where they came from, which is pretty much where capitalism has taken us with nearly a third of the population on the planet being worked to death.