the other press Op-Ed Section Editor: Erin Culhane March 19, 2003 opinionsubmit@hotmail.com sroad’s Eye View ALL P Columnist Well, well, well it seems there are a few people who do indeed read the Other Press! This is good to know but it is rather unfortunate that it takes an admittedly one-sided rant to flush you out. I am of course referring to the two reader responses submitted to Mailbag in the March 12th issue of the paper. It appears I tweaked some noses by cham- pioning a certain band that played at the OP/DSU pub night. Here's a brief recap of what went down: I felt that the students of Douglas College were irritatingly apathetic toward the headlining band The Polys. It bothered me that most students were far more for interested in free pens and t-shirts than the band that came out to perform for them. The two Douglas College students (Lynda and AB) who responded to my remarks felt that the Polys were not deserv- ing of such courtesy and that I was perhaps out of line with my “scolding.” Okay, duly noted. Thank you for sharing your opinions; I welcome debate and it is a novel thought to think that people actually read this column. I also appreciate that Lynda and AB were gra- cious enough not to launch any sort of personal attack toward me. | will cheerily return the favour. Having said that, I will of course have to have the last word—because I can. Here I go: First, I must clarify that the Polys are not a dis- satisfied little trio as described by Lynda—they are in fact a dissatisfied little quartet. I really don’t think the Polys were that loud. Certainly not louder than the Drycleaners, and people were front and cen- tre for them. Mind you, the Drycleaners were wearing Fezzes and had giveaways—admittedly an edge, but vol- ume-wise they were on a pretty level playing field. Sure, the Polys have a little bit of a rock star attitude, but at least they have the talent to back it up. Personally I like my rock stars a little on the aloof side—friendly rock stars freak me out. | mean who do you respect more—Oasis or the Barenaked Ladies? Actually, please don’t answer that—I don’t want to know. I don’t know what to say about the discrepancy in the cost of the CDs other than if it wasn’t an honest mistake—it ‘s a shitty thing to do. But, AB you did say that you were being deafened—perhaps you heard wrong? Okay, okay—I’m reaching here—$5 to $15 is pretty ridiculous. And like I said, if it was intentional there is no excuse for it. As for the offer to supply Lynda and her friend with canes and assistance leaving the building—sorry but I think that’s kind of funny. Would I feel the same way if they'd said it to me? Probably not, but they didn’t, and so I stifle a giggle. So I figure, we just agree to disagree. You both made good points and I’m grateful for your feedback. And, hey—at least we had the cake. Cake is the tie that binds. Consumer Culture No Accident David tat ost people I talk to today understand that humanity is flicting harsh damage on the planet’s life support sys- pms of clean air, water, soil, and biodiversity. But they Pel so insignificant among 6.2 billion people that what- er they do to lighten our impact on nature seems triv- . Lam often asked “What can I do?” Well, how about kamining our consumption habits. Not long ago, fru- ality was a virtue but today two thirds of our economy built on consumption. This didn’t happen by accident. The stock market collapse in 1929 triggered the Great Depression that engulfed the world in terrible suffering. orld War II was the catalyst for economic recovery. erica’s enormous resource base, productivity, energy d technology were thrown into the war effort and soon s economy blazed white hot. With victory imminent, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors was chal- lenged to find a way to convert a war economy to peace. Shortly after the end of the war, retailing analyst Victor Lebow expressed the solution: “Our enormously produc- tive economy. . demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption. . .we need things con- sumed, burned up, replaced, and discarded at an ever- accelerating rate.” President Eisenhower’s Council of Economic Advisors Chairman stated: “The American economy's ultimate purpose is to produce more consumer goods.” Not better health care, education, housing, transportation or recre- ation or less poverty and hunger, but providing more stuff to consumers. When goods are well-made and durable, eventually markets are saturated. An endless market is created by introducing rapid obsolescence (think clothing, cars, lap- top computers). And with disposability, where an article is used once and thrown away, the market will never be saturated. Consumer goods aren't created by the economy out of nothing, they come from the earth and when they are used up, they will be returned to the earth as garbage and toxic waste. It takes energy to extract, process, manufac- ture and transport products, while air, water and soil are often polluted at many points in the life cycle of the product. In other words, what we consume has direct effects on nature. And then there are social and spiritual costs. Allen Kanner and Mary Gomes state in The All-Consuming Self: “The purchase of a new product, especially a ‘big ticket’ item such as a car or computer, typically produces an immediate surge of pleasure and achievement, and often confers status and recognition upon the owner. Yet as the novelty wears off, the emptiness threatens to return. The standard consumer solution is to focus on the next prom- ising purchase.” Ultimately, it goes beyond pleasure or status; acquiring stuff becomes an unquenchable demand. Paul Wachtel says in The Poverty of Affluence: “Having more and newer things each year has become not just something we want but something we need. The idea of more, ever-increas- ing wealth, has become the center of our identity and our security, and we are caught up by it as the addict is by his drugs.” Much of what we purchase is not essential for our sur- vival or even basic human comfort, but is based on impulse, novelty, a momentary desire. And there is a hid- den price that we, nature and future generations will pay for it too. When consumption becomes the very reason economies exist, we never ask “how much is enough,” “why do we need all this stuff,” and “are we any happier?” Our personal consumer choices have ecological, social and spiritual consequences. It is time to re-examine some of our deeply held notions that underlie our lifestyles. To discuss this topic with others, visit the discussion forum at . ms ©