Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote:We are the same...whether you like it or not. Your denial of that doesn't change the facts. 

I don't deny that we have similar values. I respect that about you.

doodle wrote:First off, growth doesn't have to be exponential to be problematic. 2 Billion consumers in China and India and another 2 Billion in Africa and South America all with aspirations to live like you and I do is plenty problematic for the Earth's ecosystem.

Oh dear. Now NO growth in any country is acceptable in your book? You gotta be kidding me.

doodle wrote:Just off the top of my head though, if human population growth has been exponential over the last century or so, and if per capita consumption were to stay the same over the same time period (which it hasn't). Wouldn't consumption also be exponential as well? I know that technology makes certain things more efficient and smaller, but a fork is a fork, a bed is a bed etc. etc.

Yes, but that's not what you were arguing. You were so convinced that the average person was consuming "more and more" when you said...

doodle wrote:I'm trying to talk about the mechanics of HOW a low/ concious consumption society would work under the hypothetical that people didn't always want to consume more and more. Unfortunately I keep getting pulled by Gumby and others into the "WHY" they wouldnt want to consume more and more. I think there are many reasons why they might not want to constantly consume more.

Well, doodle, I don't consume "more and more". You totally imagined that. I consume pretty much the same food each month, the same energy each month, the same services each month, the same occasional treat each month. It's called a household budget. (Actually, I installed L.E.D. lightbulbs this year, so I'm already consuming much less energy than I was at this time last year!)

It sounds like you have more of a problem with population, not consumption. But, then you say something like...

doodle wrote:By the way, I recognize that population growth is leveling off. But consumption in the rest of the world is ramping up at the same time.

Well, if population is leveling off, consumption will clearly not become exponential. That's not how consumption works. Plus, the wealthier a country becomes, the slower the population grows.

If it makes you feel better, we are "brothers" in that we both want everyone to reduce their environmental footprint. But, let's not invent "exponential" problems that clearly don't exist beyond population growth (which is leveling off).

The availability of resources will limit growth without us worrying about it. Either we'll see improvements in efficiency, new sources of resources, or a massive reduction in population due to war. Or we could just see reductions in our standard of living. I'm not sure why anyone thinks the laws of supply and demand will break down just because Africa wants HD tv.

Slotine,

I will look it up. Thanks!

RuralEngineer,

I'm not worried about the laws of supply and demand. They will of course always be in effect. What Im worried about is that the world might be in the process of making the same mistakes that led to the downfall of Easter Island. Jared Diamond wrote a book called "Collapse" where he lays out the reasons societies fail.  He identifies five factors that contribute to collapse: climate change, hostile neighbors, collapse of essential trading partners, environmental problems, and failure to adapt to environmental issues.

These following environmental problems (all of which mankind is facing today) have according to him historically contributed to the collapse of past societies:

Deforestation and habitat destruction
Soil problems (erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses)
Water management problems
Overhunting
Overfishing
Effects of introduced species on native species
Overpopulation
Increased per-capita impact of people


Further, he says four new factors may contribute to the weakening and collapse of present and future societies:

Anthropogenic climate change
Buildup of toxins in the environment
Energy shortages
Full human utilization of the Earth’s photosynthetic capacity

Gumby,

The United States currently constitutes 5% of the worlds population and roughly uses about 25% of the worlds energy. I know that things are getting more efficient and renewables are increasing (albeit very slowly) but the other 95% all want to consume like us. If environmental concerns are not considered, this could create a crap ton of toxic pollution and be very destructive to the ecosystem of our planet.

Unlike most of the western world, India has a largely subtropical climate. Despite this probably less than 10% have air-conditioning. Can you imagine if every Indian installed central air conditioning and expected the internal temperature of their house to be 72 degrees in the summer like the majority of Americans do?

I think this type of development is possible but IT MUST include very intelligent design and environmental concerns MUST be placed at the forefront. If India just builds a thousand and one coal fired power plants to achieve their air conditioning desires and manufactures their houses in the western style (in other words very inefficiently in terms of energy use) it is my opinion that we are going to have an ecological catastrophe. 

doodle wrote:The United States currently constitutes 5% of the worlds population and roughly uses about 25% of the worlds energy. I know that things are getting more efficient and renewables are increasing (albeit very slowly) but the other 95% all want to consume like us. If environmental concerns are not considered, this could create a crap ton of toxic pollution and be very destructive to the ecosystem of our planet.

Agreed. It's a big problem. But again, you're preaching to the choir. You can't prevent other countries from growing, so advocating a MMM lifestyle isn't going to do anything to stop what you are describing — particularly since other countries are very eager to consume more goods/services.

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:The United States currently constitutes 5% of the worlds population and roughly uses about 25% of the worlds energy. I know that things are getting more efficient and renewables are increasing (albeit very slowly) but the other 95% all want to consume like us. If environmental concerns are not considered, this could create a crap ton of toxic pollution and be very destructive to the ecosystem of our planet.

Agreed. It's a big problem. But again, you're preaching to the choir. You can't prevent other countries from growing, so advocating a MMM lifestyle isn't going to do anything to stop what you are describing — particularly since other countries are very eager to consume more goods/services.

Again this was your quote from the Monsanto forum;

When your food supply is based on purely capitalistic motives, you don't get a better product. You just get a lot of marketing and packaging to convince people to consume a sub-par product

If marketing and packaging and all that jazz can convince consumers to consume a sub-par food product. Don't you think that marketing and packaging can convince consumers to consume a whole host of crap that is "sub-par" in other words the results are nothing like what was promised?

If this is the case, we both agree that humans are not making free rational decisions that are leading to results that are best for them. They are being duped into making decisions that actually run counter to their best interests. It happens with the food they consume (according to you) and it happens with the products they consume (according to me).

Bill Hicks did a stand up routine where he told everyone in the audience that was in marketing to "go kill yourselves".....he wasn't joking either...that was what was so funny.

Right now advertising and marketing is steering people to consume in a certain way. It is conceivable that it could be used to encourage virtuous consumption. Ultimately it does come down to laws, regulations, oversight etc. The market can be used to work for human ends or against them.....just like atomic energy.

This is not simply whining, this is about trying to come up with a solution to problems that are facing the world today. Problems are solved with ideas. This is a place to talk about ideas. There is nothing wrong with that.

As far as action....I realize that I cant change the world....at least in the immediate term. But, if through discussion and logic I come to the sound conclusion that marketing and advertising really are at the root of a lot of evil and screwing things up for everyone, I will heartily harangue and ridicule anyone  I know or meet that works in that field. I really don't give a crap about hurting their feelings anymore than I would have a problem jeering at people who beat baby seals for a living. I know it wouldn't solve much and is very unenlightened, but it would be somewhat satisfying.

doodle wrote: I really don't give a crap about hurting their feelings anymore than I would have a problem jeering at people who beat baby seals for a living. I know it wouldn't solve much and is very unenlightened, but it would be somewhat satisfying.

How old are you?

doodle wrote:Again this was your quote from the Monsanto forum;

When your food supply is based on purely capitalistic motives, you don't get a better product. You just get a lot of marketing and packaging to convince people to consume a sub-par product

If marketing and packaging and all that jazz can convince consumers to consume a sub-par food product. Don't you think that marketing and packaging can convince consumers to consume a whole host of crap that is "sub-par" in other words the results are nothing like what was promised?

Doodle. You can post that quote all you want, but I'm not naive enough to believe that the people in developing countries are being duped into bettering their lives. Are you really that naive?

GMOs aren't consumed because people are duped into being hungry. GMOs are consumed because people are duped into thinking they are food! Surely you must understand the difference. People are going to satiate their hunger whether advertising exists or not.

People in India and China and South America are consuming more because they want to consume more. They are buying air conditioning because they are hot, not because a commercial told them they are hot. They are buying cars because they want to move around more easily, not because a commercial told them they need to move around more easily.

We've already established that hedonistic consumption has been happening long before there was any marketing or advertising. So, this is purely about developing countries and population growth.

doodle wrote:This is not simply whining, this is about trying to come up with a solution to problems that are facing the world today. Problems are solved with ideas. This is a place to talk about ideas. There is nothing wrong with that.

You're right. This is a place to talk about "ideas". And after all this time, you still have presented a single viable "idea".

It must be nice to be able to condense all the evils of the world and lay them at the feet of the people who brought us the Budweiser Frogs.

Of course this ignores the very obvious fact that humans have been consuming as much as our technology and economy allows at least since the start of recorded history.

I'm also glad to know you feel a person's profession is cause for rudeness and harassment. I design lubrication systems for diesel engines used in mining, forestry, and petroleum industries (among others). I'm curious as to where I rank on Doodle's list of Evil.

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:Again this was your quote from the Monsanto forum;

When your food supply is based on purely capitalistic motives, you don't get a better product. You just get a lot of marketing and packaging to convince people to consume a sub-par product

If marketing and packaging and all that jazz can convince consumers to consume a sub-par food product. Don't you think that marketing and packaging can convince consumers to consume a whole host of crap that is "sub-par" in other words the results are nothing like what was promised?

Doodle. You can post that quote all you want, but I'm not naive enough to believe that the people in developing countries are being duped into bettering their lives. Are you really that naive?

GMOs aren't consumed because people are duped into being hungry. GMOs are consumed because people are duped into thinking they are food!

People in India and China and South America are consuming more because they want to consume more. They are buying air conditioning because they are hot, not because a commercial told them they are hot. They are buying cars because they want to move around more easily, not because a commercial told them they need to move around more easily.

We've already established that hedonistic consumption has been happening long before there was any marketing or advertising. So, this is purely about developing countries and population growth.

doodle wrote:This is not simply whining, this is about trying to come up with a solution to problems that are facing the world today. Problems are solved with ideas. This is a place to talk about ideas. There is nothing wrong with that.

You're right. This is a place to talk about "ideas". And after all this time, you still have presented a single idea.

GMO's are food. I probably eat them everyday. I think there are better studies showing GMOs to be food than than those that can show any correlation between consumption and happiness.

People in India and China and South America are consuming more because they want to consume more. They are buying air conditioning because they are hot, not because a commercial told them they are hot. They are buying cars because they want to move around more easily, not because a commercial told them they need to move around more easily.

Nope. They are being duped that more consumption will lead to more happiness. It is a very elusive storyline for sure. Definitely hard to resist. But it is also a lie and study after study bear that out.

I've been to quite a few developing countries striving towards an American development model. Its a freaking disaster. In China most inner city traffic moves more slowly than someone who is walking. The air is so shitty you can barely breathe from all the car exhaust and traffic jams last for days sometimes, but don't you look all sexy and swanky in that Audi Quattro.

You hate GMO foods that advertisers dupe people into eating thinking they are food. I hate cheap crap and rampant consumption that advertisers dupe people into thinking these will lead to happiness.

Its the same damn thing.

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: I really don't give a crap about hurting their feelings anymore than I would have a problem jeering at people who beat baby seals for a living. I know it wouldn't solve much and is very unenlightened, but it would be somewhat satisfying.

How old are you?

Don't you know you should never ask a lady her age?

RuralEngineer wrote: It must be nice to be able to condense all the evils of the world and lay them at the feet of the people who brought us the Budweiser Frogs.

Of course this ignores the very obvious fact that humans have been consuming as much as our technology and economy allows at least since the start of recorded history.

I'm also glad to know you feel a person's profession is cause for rudeness and harassment. I design lubrication systems for diesel engines used in mining, forestry, and petroleum industries (among others). I'm curious as to where I rank on Doodle's list of Evil.

Probably somewhere between Mother Teresa and Advertising Execs.

Doodle, it's ironic that you keep brining up GMOs, because they prove my point... Hunger is innate.

If someone is hungry, that individual is going to satiate their hunger regardless of whether or not they see an advertisement for food. That should be obvious. The only thing an advertisement can do is sway which food item they consume.

How you are unable to see that, I have no idea.

I harpoon dolphins for a living during the summer and hunt elephants in the off season. Where do I rank on your list of evil? Don't hit me with the moral relativism. Some behavior is reprehensible. Targeting children with cigarette and alcohol ads (Joe Camel and Bud Frogs) probably makes its way on that list.

Gumby wrote: Doodle, it's ironic that you keep brining up GMOs, because they prove my point...

If someone is hungry, that individual is going to satiate their hunger regardless of whether or not they see an advertisement for food. That should be obvious. The only thing an advertisement can do is sway which food they consume.

How you are unable to see that, I have no idea.

Food is a need. You don't need to sell a starving person on the idea that he should have a sandwich.

Buying a new pair of shoes every week or consuming a GMO sandwich rely on deceptive or misleading marketing or advertising. They are the same.

doodle wrote:Food is a need. You don't need to sell a starving person on the idea that he should have a sandwich.

Exactly!! Which is why a few billion very hot people in the developing world are soon going to buy air conditioning units whether or not they see an advertisement for air-conditioners. They are very uncomfortable in the heat and have a need to be cool.

You just proved my point!

doodle wrote:Buying a new pair of shoes every week

We already established that someone can only do that if they have the budget to do so. Most people on the planet don't have that kind of money. People don't really consume like that and you know it.

And speaking of food and needs...

doodle wrote: I crave hedonistic consumption too just like i crave food.

So, if you agree that you crave hedonistic consumption, just like you crave food (your words, not mine) then you can see why all of those billions of people in the developing world are going to consume things whether or not they see advertisements.

Hedonistic consumption is innate — you even admitted it. As countries modernize, they will consume more and more. Hopefully you can understand that there is nothing you can do about that need for satisfying hedonistic consumption.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_crisis

This really isn't about advertising, doodle. This is about a small planet and a large population.

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:Food is a need. You don't need to sell a starving person on the idea that he should have a sandwich.

Exactly!! Which is why a few billion very hot people in the developing world are soon going to buy air conditioning units whether or not they see an advertisement for air-conditioners. They are very uncomfortable in the heat and have a need to be cool.

You just proved my point!

doodle wrote:Buying a new pair of shoes every week

We already established that someone can only do that if they have the budget to do so. Most people on the planet don't have that kind of money. People don't really consume like that and you know it.

Gumby, this is pretty entertaining. I'm going to freaking checkmate you though in one of these posts! This discussion has now become a chess match for me. I don't even care about the topic anymore. 

Air-conditioning by the way is not a need. So I don't know how that proved any point you made. I very happily live without AC in Florida....like everyone else did before electrified air was invented in the 50's. I haven't yet figured out how to live without food....hence it's a need.

We already established that someone can only do that if they have the budget to do so.

Money is unlimited. It is a social construct. Humans are constrained by nature and their own productive abilities. Right now our productive abilities can write a check that nature can't cash. In other words (as you are well aware) we have the productive capacity to destroy this world if we set our minds to it. Luckily advertisers and marketing execs are busy convincing everyone that human salvation and happiness lay in whatever it is that they want to sell.

If AC makes people so happy, then why are hot Indians just as happy if not happier than cool Americans?

Gumby wrote: And speaking of food and needs...

doodle wrote: I crave hedonistic consumption too just like i crave food.

So, if you agree that you crave hedonistic consumption, just like you crave food (your words, not mine) then you can see why all of those billions of people in the developing world are going to consume things whether or not they see advertisements.

Hedonistic consumption is innate — you even admitted it. As countries modernize, they will consume more and more. Hopefully you can understand that there is nothing you can do about that need for satisfying hedonistic consumption.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_crisis

This really isn't about advertising, doodle. This is about a small planet and a large population.

Hedonistic consumption doesn't have to be material. In fact, probably the most hedonistic thing you can consume "sex"....has no negative environmental impact....unless it results in another mouth to feed.

doodle wrote:Air-conditioning by the way is not a need. So I don't know how that proved any point you made.

Ah... but you already admitted that hedonistic consumption is a need, when you said...

doodle wrote: I crave hedonistic consumption too just like i crave food.

Game. Set. Match.

doodle wrote:If AC makes people so happy, then why are hot Indians just as happy if not happier than cool Americans?

It makes no difference whether hot Indians are happier than cool Americans. The moment a hot Indian has the money to afford an air conditioner, chances are he's going to buy one so that he can cool off. After all, you "crave hedonistic consumption" like you crave food, right?

doodle wrote:Hedonistic consumption doesn't have to be material. In fact, probably the most hedonistic thing you can consume "sex"....has no negative environmental impact....unless it results in another mouth to feed.

Um. You don't "consume" sex.

We are talking about hedonistic consumption.

doodle wrote: Ad hominem attacks....nice. Well add that to the straw men and red herrings already here.

Sorry, but we've just been through it all before that you're evidently displaying.  Like teenagerhood, no one really wants to relive the agony again.

doodle wrote: So now that I have justified why I think my hypothetical concious consuming human is at least possible....my primary question again is what would happen to our present economic system if Mr.Money Mustache suceeded in convicing everyone that consuming less and leading a more relaxed lifestyle was a great idea? In other words, if everyone became a virtuous saver and concious consumer? IF that happened, and aggregate demand fell to a lower level (not monastic asceticism for crying out loud...MMM is not advocating that) how could we deal with this lower aggregate demand, still maintain healthy happy lives and not have to convince people to go out and consume more (which according to this hypothetical they don't want to do.)

Here's my answer: It would be like Japan only much worse.

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:Hedonistic consumption doesn't have to be material. In fact, probably the most hedonistic thing you can consume "sex"....has no negative environmental impact....unless it results in another mouth to feed.

Um. You don't "consume" sex.

We are talking about hedonistic consumption.

That depends on your definition of consumption I guess. I usually feel pretty consumed afterwards.

Okay, I would consider consuming certain types of delicious foods a form of environmentally sound hedonistic consumption. Ya gotta eat after all....why not have something delicious.

I consume a lot of time doing activities, playing games, having conversations,...and lately engaging in debates!

I consume a lot of energy exercising.

I consume a lot of information reading and watching and listening to things. If its porno then I guess it would qualify as hedonistic..

That's a start for non material consumption...

MachineGhost wrote:

doodle wrote: Ad hominem attacks....nice. Well add that to the straw men and red herrings already here.

Sorry, but we've just been through it all before that you're evidently displaying.  Like teenagerhood, no one really wants to relieve it again.

Is teenagerhood a real word....cause it sounds made up...

MachineGhost wrote:

doodle wrote: So now that I have justified why I think my hypothetical concious consuming human is at least possible....my primary question again is what would happen to our present economic system if Mr.Money Mustache suceeded in convicing everyone that consuming less and leading a more relaxed lifestyle was a great idea? In other words, if everyone became a virtuous saver and concious consumer? IF that happened, and aggregate demand fell to a lower level (not monastic asceticism for crying out loud...MMM is not advocating that) how could we deal with this lower aggregate demand, still maintain healthy happy lives and not have to convince people to go out and consume more (which according to this hypothetical they don't want to do.)

Here's my answer: It would be like Japan only much worse.

I work with a lady who goes to Japan every year. She thinks it's the absolute shiznit! I would be okay with a Japanese style of living (only much worse....does that mean like With occasional visits by Godzilla and Mothra) if it meant saving the planet for ecological disaster and cutting work weeks to 15 hours.