I think I was feeling a little defensive because I hear all the time, “You have too much time on your hands.” But you’re right. Screw that. I’m tired of feeling bad for having time on my hands, and guilty when I’m not always “making use of it.” So thanks for chiming in.

“And lest anyone think I have a lot of free time because I don’t work at my official job full time, consider all the time and energy I put into this blog and my environmental work. It’s another full time job!”

The fact that you felt compelled to add these sentences speaks volumes about what is wrong with out society. When did having free time become a crime? It’s like we all (myself included) walk around carrying the banner of “busier than thou”, as if not being busy means that you’re somehow lazy, or indulgent or “unworthy”.

I’m not saying that you’re not busy, it’s clear to me that you spend an enormous amount of time and energy researching and putting together your posts, let alone the other environmental work that I’m sure you do. But that isn’t my point.

I just think that on some level we’ve all “swallowed the Kool-Aid” and have accepted the notion that doing more is always better. But in truth, I think that “doing more” is a very large part of our societal problem!

And while the giant marketing machine is quick to exploit the Calvinist work ethic in all of us, we’re all complicit in the problem. On some level I think that we’re all afraid that if we slow down we might have to face a whole host of thoughts and feelings that we’d really rather not have to deal with. I know it’s true for me.

Just thoughts to ponder…

One way that I am lucky is that my employer pays for my health insurance 100%. That is one big benefit that I realize a lot of people don’t have and why I believe we need universal health care. But that’s an argument for another blog. Not this one.

And lest anyone think I have a lot of free time because I don’t work at my official job full time, consider all the time and energy I put into this blog and my environmental work. It’s another full time job!

Yes, it’s up to us to reject that stuff. But it’s also up to companies who care about the environment to find better ways to promote their products. Not all companies give out packaged samples. Some give out coupons. Some have large-size testers you can try. (Vulva balm anyone? That one’s for Jen.) Some simply try to win you over by promoting the culture of their company. There are all kinds of ways to market without creating extra waste.

The title of this post really came from Barry Schwartz’s talk, and I think I should have made it more of a discussion question than a statement because I can see both sides of the choice issue. But I don’t see both sides of the waste issue. Or I should say, I don’t agree with both sides.

And Jen, I am so looking forward to Sunday and the mushroom/walnut veggie burgers I plan to make and bring over.

In a consumer-driven society, if many of these products disappeared, what would replace them? People need to earn a living.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine if all products had the qualities of a table fork. Good ones are made of an indefinitely recyclable material (metal) and with care, can last for a very long time. Now just extend this a little and imagine that they were designed to last indefinitely so that you could bequeath them to your children and they in turn could pass the forks/consumer products/house/car/civilisation etc on to the next generations. Let’s call these thought products forks+. Imagine that buying new things for fashion’s sake was made unfashionable and durable, long-lived classically designed goods were cool.

One more “imagine” to come. Imagine that the population of the world was stable so that the numbers of people inheriting the forks+ items stayed the same from generation to generation.

After the initial work to mine, process, design and manufacture the forks+ just about everybody would end up with all the material goods they need forever. A significant part of the jobs which @Pure Mother was worried about will largely
be “redundant”. A large part of the daily grind would become unnecessary because we would already have that which most of our work goes towards purchasing.

The mortgage
Payments on the car
Buying new products endlessly because the old ones were, with planned obsolescence, designed to break down

In this forks+ society, people would need far less income. There would be a need to pay, for example, the likes of school fees and the purchase of consumables such as food, but the people who were “selling” these would also be not requiring such a large income because their outgoings would be very small too so they would need to make and charge a lot less to make their ends meet.

Judged by classical measures of economic success (like GDP) this world would appear to be in a “depression” as there would be far less gross economic activity – and yet everyone would find it far easier to be well off, with the basics of life on tap and more time to enjoy them. True sustainability. Comments?

And as for ‘I believe that is EXACTLY what Beth is doing here’ – that’s why I said – KEEP showing them pictures of albatross, etc. – as in, you’ve done it before, keep doing it…

That’s right – I can disagree with one thing someone says and still agree with many other things. And still have them over for a bbq.

We are all under the influence of a powerful marketing machine and it’s a good idea to learn how to step back and observe the way that machine affects our behavior. It is good to understand how it is supposed to work according to the marketing plans companies have in place, and it’s good to understand how it affects our culture as a whole. It’s also worthwhile to understand how it affects you on a personal level.

If having a lot of choice makes you happy, that is fine, but if you step back and see that it does cause you to buy more, waste more or feel more stress, then that is a good thing to know. Now you may be more inclined to see what kinds of other choices you do have that might actually make more sense to your own personal well-being.

As for sample sizes, I used to like them. I refill them or reuse them for other things. I’ve got some sample sized bottles I’ve been using for decades. Since the new rules about planes they are all too big now to be of use to me. Do you remember those tiny little Pepsodent toothpastes they used to have way back in the 70s? I wish they still made things as tiny.

“The key is to educate people, educate people, educate people.”

I believe that is EXACTLY what Beth is doing here — unless I forgot the part where she called for multiple choices to be outlawed, including any and all shampoo.

You may personally feel that there are too many choices, but we have those choices because we are an innovative (and capitalist) society. You may also choose to not use shampoo, but I do and I won’t be stopping… probably ever, though I don’t care what brand and I buy big, use little, etc. CHOICE is what makes our society different from many. The answer to the plastic problem is not removing people’s choices because you know better than they do (it’s patronizing and I also believe they call it a dictatorship). The key is to educate people, educate people, educate people. Keep showing them pictures of albatross, etc, let people see the consequences of their choices, so that when the marketing person/exec is faced with the question of whether consumers will buy a trial size plastic bottle of Pantene, the answer will be NO.