For
a long time Americans have engaged in what is called conspicuous
consumption. Conspicuous consumption means spending money on
something largely in hopes that other people will notice how you have
spent, and think to themselves: wow, he must make good money,
or wow, he must be raking in the dough.
Back
in the 1960's, conspicuous consumption was a little bit hard to
practice. If you bought a new car, it was pretty easy – you would
just leave the car parked out in front of your house where people
would be sure to notice it. But if you bought some fancy new
household item, it might be a lot harder to get people to notice it.
For example, if you bought a 26-inch color TV (which most people
didn't have in those days, because they were pretty expensive), you
might have to throw a party to get people to notice your fancy new
expenditure. Or if you went on an expensive vacation, you would have
to make sure to send postcards to all of your friends, so that they
would notice your lavish consumption.
But
nowadays it is so much easier to practice conspicuous consumption.
You simply spend some money lavishly, and then go to your favorite
social media, to make a type of post that I call a conspicuous
consumption post. Such a post is designed to get your friends to say to
themselves: wow, he must have a pile of cash.
A "conspicuous consumption" post on social media looks like this
These
days the conspicuous consumption post has become so common that what
I will now suggest may be regarded as an unforgivable social heresy.
What I suggest is that in most cases when you see this type of
“conspicuous consumption" post, you should deliberately not
grant it a “like” vote on your social media.
There
are four reasons I can think of for denying “like” votes to
conspicuous consumption posts. The first reason is that when many
hundreds of millions of people practice conspicuous consumption, it
tends to worsen global warming. Most examples of conspicuous
consumption involve increasing your carbon footprint, the amount of
carbon dioxide that you are contributing to the atmosphere. If, for
example, you take your vacation by traveling all the way to a Pacific
island to go swimming (rather than swimming at your local beach),
you are greatly increasing your carbon footprint. Or, to give another
example, if you buy a second or third car that you don't really need,
the manufacture of such a car involved (directly or indirectly) a
large increase in your carbon footprint. So if conspicuous
consumption practiced by the masses is a large contributor to global
warming, then we should not be encouraging conspicuous consumption
--- and it seems that we do encourage it when we give “like”
votes to social posts that trumpet someone's conspicuous consumption.
Such votes establish a kind of reward system for conspicuous
consumption behavior that may be inappropriate from an environmental
standpoint.
The
second reason I can think of for denying “like” votes to
conspicuous consumption posts is that such votes may encourage
behavior that (when practiced by many millions) tends to worsen the
problem of resource depletion. Resource depletion is the fact that
many important human resources such as oil, coal, water, and various
metals are being used up at an alarming rate, creating a severe
danger that within a few decades there may be grave shortages of some
of these things. There is a quite significant chance that oil
production may peak within 10 or 20 years, and that oil shortages
will be one of the biggest problems of the 21st century.
As discussed here, we are tapping out many of the aquifers that are used to supply
freshwater, meaning that water shortages may be one of the biggest
problems of the 21st century. The projected supply of
some of the main metals used by consumers is only a few decades.
Given such troubling resource depletion issues, it would seem that to
live frugally and modestly is the most socially responsible way to
live, not to live according to a “conspicuous consumption”
lifestyle. It would also seem that we should not (with our social media
votes) be encouraging conspicuous consumption in our friends.
The
third reason I can think of to avoid giving “like” votes to
conspicuous consumption posts is that such posts may help to
encourage unwise or inadvisable financial behavior. Here's an example. You know a
restaurant cook in Westerly, Rhode Island, a guy who is struggling to
meet his mortgage. Rather than taking his vacation enjoying the
beautiful beaches near Westerly, the cook takes his vacation in
insanely ritzy and ridiculously expensive spots in southern France.
The cook then puts up some social media posts, hoping to get those
“like” votes. By giving such posts “like” votes, you are
encouraging this guy to engage in the same financially reckless
behavior next year. It would seem to be better if such a person gets
no social media reward, and starts to spend his money more
cautiously.
Or,
to give an another example, suppose you know some old man (with two
adult daughters) who is using up his modest savings on a “bucket
list” tour of the world. If you see his social media posts of this
tour, why give “like” votes that almost send an “I approve of
you spending money this way” message (if you actually think he
should be saving the money so that his daughters can inherit it)?
The
fourth reason I can think of to avoid giving “like” votes to
conspicuous consumption posts is that if we reduce the number of
conspicuous consumption posts, perhaps our social media experiences
will become more intellectually and spiritually rewarding. Aren't you
sick of an endless stream of “look what I bought” posts and “look
at this fancy place I went to” posts? Wouldn't it be better to read
more social media posts that explore the feelings and ideas of your
friends, rather than how they are spending their money?
I
admit that denying “like” votes to conspicuous consumption posts
is difficult, so let me suggest some exceptions to such a rule (so I
won't sound like such a dour old skinflint). If I know someone spends
his money responsibly, and doesn't have too high a carbon footprint,
I may well give him a “like” vote for a conspicuous consumption
post, particularly if I think the consumption he is displaying is
just a kind of “rare indulgence” type of thing. If a conspicuous
consumption post shows some great scene of natural beauty, or some
scene of tender emotion, I will also give a “like vote” to that,
on the grounds that my “like” vote is a salute to the scenery or
the emotion, rather than the related consumption. Also, if a person
says something clever or witty in his conspicuous consumption post, I
may also give a “like” vote to it, on the grounds that I am
saluting that person's words rather than his conspicuous consumption.
But
what if you see the ordinary, uninspired, all-too-common “look at my lavish
feast at this fancy restaurant” post or “look at my fancy hotel
room” post or “look at this expensive thing I just bought”
post? My suggestion is: stiff them, by not clicking that “like”
button.
No comments:
Post a Comment