Early Retirement Extreme Forums

theanimal wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:09 am

Buy Now: The Shopping Conspiracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVfZw_e ... el=Netflix

A new anti-consumerism doucmentary on Netflix. The doc features interviews from an array of high level executives and employees from multinational corporations (Adidas, Unilever, Amazon, Apple and more) who discuss some of the strategies and techniques that companies use/have used to get people to buy stuff as well as some of the effects of so much consumption.

I just watched this and instantly had flashbacks to https://verdant.net/ showing the same mountains of "product". It was sad and depressing to see how little has changed in the past 20+ years except the size of the mountains of trash.

Verdant was one of three websites (the other two were Jay Hanson's dieoff site and the dollarstretcher both of which now look rather different than they did back then. Verdant still looks the same.) that pretty much triggered an existential crisis or perhaps more accurately a complete shift in values that set me on the path that eventually led to ERE. Also see https://www.sloww.co/ego-development-th ... -stage-4-5

Two things that have been bugging me and which watching this documentary shed some light on.

It is in this space very rare anymore to find people who actually take personal responsibility and personal action to reduce their consumption. Instead the focus is on "organizing to hold corporations responsible" and typically pressure those corporations to sell more responsible products. People who become aware of this typically do not look to reduce their own consumption as much as they're looking for replacement products "that are made responsibly". The paradigm of "buying the stuff one needs" or "spending less" is never questioned. It's likely just the water these fish swim in. Ditto on the ordinary mind's tendency to compartmentalize. Many of the very same people who organize to "hold corporations responsible for wasteful production" also insist that people living in poverty should be given more money so they can enjoy a higher level of spending. It makes my brain explode (on their behalf).

In the personal finance- or FIRE-space (FIRE has become so diluted at this point that they are practically indistinguishable), ERE ("jacob") is often cast as someone who is ultra-frugal. I've even thought of myself that way but what I realized is that I am fundamentally not frugal (a difference in degree) as much as I am an anti-consumerist (a difference in kind). This is important because the motivation from the two different perspectives is different. Even the actions and knowledge required are different (compare ERE to being poor). There's actually a big difference between "can't afford it" alternatively "looking to spend less" and "just not interest in buying the product in the first place". Again, this distinction is lost on the fish because "buying product" is the water they swim in.

Based on the final comments in the documentary (as with any documentary, it's likely edited and dumbed down to a general audience so to be fair to the people interviewed, they probably know/do more than was possible to get on TV) the only one who seemed to "get it" was the iFixIt guy. The road away from mountains of trash goes through "repair it yourself" rather than "holding corporations responsible"-type political activism.

As such the best way to portray ERE might not or at least no longer be "if you're super frugal, you can retire in 5 years" but rather "if you can repair/make anything you want, you're not part of the problem". However, I fear that this strategy is not a solution either because I bet only a few people actively care about those mountains(*) of trash.

(*) And I don't think the documentary did anyone a favor by vastly exaggerating the size for effect. In reality, most of this trash is entropically dispersed in people's attics and basements.

I've been feeling the pain on this too and it's the inspiration for a lot of the writing I've been doing. Now that I'm doing several major life things pretty weirdly I'm starting to feel the alienation. Every new person I meet, I have to explain my entire life to. I've honestly come to value my graduate degree and brain surgery job more, as they make it clear that I am choosing to and not forced to live the way that I do.

Questioning cultural heuristics is not something we're trained to do. I think cultural heuristics serve a purpose, but when they are interpreted as law of the universe rather than custom of my people, they become stifling.

Consumerism as religion is a strong cultural heuristic in the first world. It is the promise of the modern value meme, ever more progress begets ever more stuff, which equals improved "quality of life." It's really hard to convince people that having more money doesn't equal more happiness.

This is why I've become so obsessed with needs and emotions. Buying stuff to store in one's attic on the way to the landfill clearly isn't solving a material or physiological needs. So what is it doing?


ETA: The paradox that I'm trying to unpack is that consuming more doesn't increase quality of life. In many cases it decreases it while also contributing to problems that most people say they would like to solve. If consumption really made us happy, but also killed the environment, we'd have a different problem. But instead we see consumption making us worse off in a lot of ways AND ruining the environment, but there is a collective delusion that consumption makes us better off (based mostly on cultural heuristic).

> As such the best way to portray ERE might not or at least no longer be "if you're super frugal, you can retire in 5 years" but rather "if you can repair/make anything you want, you're not part of the problem". However, I fear that this strategy is not a solution either because I bet only a few people actively care about those mountains(*) of trash.

I think you're right about that fear. ERE "retire in 5 years" provides focus.

I came in for ERE "retire in 5 years". It taught me to articulate my latently present, but vague existing wish to reduce and focus my (dependence on) consumption and as such provided me with strategy and tactics to be less of a part of the problem.

In the past, I was attracted to projects like opensourceecology.org too. That's a not too successful expression of "if you can repair/make anything you want". The free and open source software world is much more successful at this, but still fails in the sense of being just one useful building block within a strategy. These projects are too overwhelming, too all over the place to be usable as tools for personal transformation.

I see a very strong link between mindless consumption and "mindless attention" btw. I really recommend the book "The distracted mind" by neuroscientist Adam Gazzaley. Mindless consumption very much being professionals fooling the weak points of our monkey brains, perhaps gains in "conscious consumption" ERE can be made by closely following that corner of research?

P.S. I should have spent some time making this comment more readable. I hope it's still a useful contribution...

jacob wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2024 8:58 am

Instead the focus is on "organizing to hold corporations responsible" and typically pressure those corporations to sell more responsible products.

I suppose this isn't that surprising. People get to blame someone else for the problems caused by their consumption and absolve themselves of any responsibility. What's not to like about that.

jacob wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2024 8:58 am

Instead the focus is on "organizing to hold corporations responsible" and typically pressure those corporations to sell more responsible products.

Predatory consumerism.

I have not watched this yet; however, my son and I plan to start it tonight. (My screen time attention is low.). span

jacob wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2024 8:58 am

As such the best way to portray ERE might not or at least no longer be "if you're super frugal, you can retire in 5 years" but rather "if you can repair/make anything you want, you're not part of the problem". However, I fear that this strategy is not a solution either because I bet only a few people actively care about those mountains(*) of trash.

(*) And I don't think the documentary did anyone a favor by vastly exaggerating the size for effect. In reality, most of this trash is entropically dispersed in people's attics and basements.

I showed up FI from a more alternative upbringing so my two cents on attracting (versus proselytizing) others may be off. Two thoughts:
1) What is the root cause we’re addressing? For me, it’s more of a simple lifestyle that is better for everyone, not how to not have to work as quickly as possible or how to buy stuff as cheaply as possible while living large. These may be components but don’t have to be the end game.
2) Would focusing on people’s attic/basements hoards spark reflection and personal action? I am thinking of something like Peter Menzel’s “Material World: A Global Family Portrait,” but looking as the family’s hoarded castoffs. (As you pointed out, consumerism dictates the appeal tactics selected for the documentary.)

Jin+Guice wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2024 9:31 am

I've been feeling the pain on this too and it's the inspiration for a lot of the writing I've been doing. Now that I'm doing several major life things pretty weirdly I'm starting to feel the alienation. Every new person I meet, I have to explain my entire life to.

Welcome to that alienated space. I have been there for quite awhile and still find it challenging, especially as an extrovert. One thing I have learned to be true for me is that I don’t have to explain myself to anyone unless I choose to do so. Some people are very black-and-white, needing a steady stream external validation from me being just like them. (I get that. I have been there too.)

When i was a kid, I had ants in my room. They annoyed me, but i thought that if i nade myself like their taste, i wouldn't be annoyed by them anymore.
It was a faillure.

Jean wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2024 11:32 am

When i was a kid, I had ants in my room. They annoyed me, but i thought that if i nade myself like their taste, i wouldn't be annoyed by them anymore.
It was a faillure.

Was that because you didn't like the taste or because having marching foodstuff was annoying?

I've recently been approaching this topic from the particular rut in which I've lately found myself stuck. Hazel Kyrk, in "A Theory of Consumption" (1923) makes it very clear that this evil-producer/good-consumer vs good-producer/evil-consumer false dichotomy was already well-formed over 100 years ago (Kyrk landing much more on the good-producer/evil-consumer side.) This dichotomy is false for much the same reason that the contentious dichotomies formed in many less than successful marriages are false. Modern industrial production within capitalism almost immediately gave rise to modern consumerism and modern industrial production within capitalism would not exist absent the clear latent potential for modern consumerism. The early 20th century borrowed-from-the-physicists school of economics pretends that both the consumer-within and the producer-without behave rationally, when in reality neither does. Drive is simply desire rendered active. A firm will eventually fail if not profitable or able to find an adequate market of consumers, but a firm is not a human (nor is a household a solitary human.) The drive to produce that formed the firm will simply resolve itself into the drive to produce of its constituent human members. When there is no more market for the hides of the buffalo, the buffalo will be killed for the meat. When there is no more market for the meat, the buffalo will be killed for the sport. Where there is freedom, there will always be drive towards dominance, absent barriers to drive and trade formed either externally or internally.

Consequently, if your rate of market value production is $20/hr, it doesn't matter whether you limit your production to 8 hours/week or your spending to $8000/year if your goal is reduction of resource consumption. And if your hobby is something like hunting buffalo for sport or chopping down trees to create giant stash in your barn of ugly lawn furniture, you will still be consuming resources beyond the degree to which you participate in any money-facilitated market. Closing the loop to the level of sustainability is the core practice that matters for the terms relevant to resource conservation; the size of the loop only matters because "small" is easier to trace and control or facilitate. Even when the firm and the household are entirely the same unit, practice may be gravely unsustainable often due to lack of knowledge or foresight OTOH, with a high level of knowledge and foresight, productive firms and consumptive social units may become much larger or more distant and remain within bounds of environmental sustainability. If you know that your production of cantaloupes is sustainable and you know that your trading partner's production of buffalo meat is sustainable, barter of these goods will also be sustainable. IOW, if you are making some calculation of an allowance for spending-towards-consumption which is ignorant of practice beyond background-level-of-practice, then a known to be sustainable transaction would not be within this cost assigned to your ignorance.

In conclusion, both consumption and production are simply magnifications and/or extensions of natural human tendencies. The core "evil" at the core of our present predicament is all the wilful ignorance, all the covert contracts, all the stinking drain pipes hidden behind the walls, all the information lost in ratios, etc. etc. etc. inherent in our current system. There is no privileged and pristine preserve where Modern production will survive beyond Modern consumption. The Ideal Useful Screw Production Factory is as illusionary as Marx's Ideal Worker and Smith's Ideal Capitalist partaking in Jong's Zipless Fuck. The sustainable future is entirely and in all parts a much more intelligent Post-Post or the sustainable future doesn't exist. IMHO, MMV

ETA: Also, the original/archaic meaning of "frugal" was more like "good at making things" or "resourceful" , or being a "fruitful" human. It didn't come to mean "spending little money" until there was a lot of different stuff to spend money on. So, actually maybe more in alignment with "ERE" than "anti-consumerism." I am now using the term "wherewithal" rather than "money" or "skill" in my planning. Unless you are highly specific in your desire specification, it is possible to remain almost infinitely optimistic in your planning on the basis of "wherewithal"

jacob wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2024 8:58 am

The road away from mountains of trash goes through "repair it yourself" rather than "holding corporations responsible"-type political activism.

You don't need to repair it yourself, it might as well be repaired by a local qualified person/business. It's even better from the perspective of reducing waste, as they repairmen are less likely to damage the thing in the process.
As to activism, it's important to pressure corporations into making more durable and more repairable products. The things they release today are very difficult to repair (cars, electronics), and in many cases have built in planned obsolescence. For example, I'm in the market for a new mattress right now, and most mattresses sold now are one sided (double sided mattresses can have twice the longetivity, but cost a bit more to make).

I watched the documentary today, after reading this thread.

For me, it's reminiscent of stumbling across Ad Busters magazine in the early 2000's. Those who've seen the light offer a gateway. The message has to be soft, to sustain distribution. In my own case - after initial ideological outrage, personal enthusiasm waned. I began to recognize gaps and didn't have the answer. Instead, while some changes persisted, I played the game and got mine.

For that reason - I don't hold high expectations for the appeal to an environmental ideal. A scarcity mindset fosters excuses and justification. I see frameworks like minimalism or the "freedom to" as more effective. Long term change builds upon rewards.

However, I don't think another version of the documentary makes it through mass distribution. While I have extensive criticism, couched in the distribution constraint, it crumples. The audience wants a villain. They crave outrage. From a "lift one corner up" perspective, right before the holiday consumption season, I'm encouraged. We're talking potential to reach 100's of millions. That's a far cry from one magazine, tucked in the middle rack at Barnes and Noble.


I do believe demand filled by these "evil" corporations is ultimately driven by individual action. I also think audiences need to grow into that message.

Once one experiences unbounded consumption, the perils become self evident. I think the featured business leaders get it. Conveying it looks impossibly self-serving though. Someone sitting on a 8+ figure net worth, can't come after your second car or 3rd bathroom. Let alone suggest living on $10k per year.

My hope is actions taken in pursuit of ideology, offer the nuanced lessons. Boycott Amazon. Buy off Ebay instead, to find it arrives new from Amazon anyways. Experience someone profiting off you, exploiting your desire to consume with moral superiority. What now? That's the education.

I think the Lipstick effect is a factor. With stagnant wages (for decades) and the wealth gap increasing, it's no surprise that people might compensate for their falling status by buying more (albeit less valuable) stuff. OTOH, 'underconsumption core' is a thing now, so ... hopeful sign?


See also: the thread/book Empire of Things.

I didn't like how ants tasted.

I think consumerism is life.
Nearly all life forns are consumerists.
This is one of the rare occurence in the history of life where one specie would benefit from an ability to moderate its consumption.
Usually, consumption is moderated by outside factors.
It's just that our ability to consume is too great for our own good.
Our ability to see those outside factors before they stop us isn't enough to make us stop. But the factors will stop us anyway, or we'll overcome them, who knows.

What i mean is that i don't care about that huge pile of trash.
No one gave me autorithy to solve the pile of trash.
So i'll just avoid it.
Or sometimes, i'll even learn to love that pile of trash.
The pile of trash will always be here. It will always grow bigger.
And the world before that pile of trash is like isle royale timbleberries.
I'll probably never have them again. But I can have it now.

In terms of the personal responsibility component, I think it is worth considering how much control the average person has when confronted with clever psychological manipulation in the form of modern marketing that hones in on their fears, anxieties, hopes, and other emotions. I think of it in terms of Haidt's Elephant and the Rider analogy. As a society, we might not have as much control as we like to believe. Our thinking brain isn't necessarily driving the car...or steering the elephant.

In a forum slanted towards INTJs and hyper-rational members, perhaps leaning into expectations for personal responsibility is a blind spot? It comes much easier to us.

jacob wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2024 8:58 am

As such the best way to portray ERE might not or at least no longer be "if you're super frugal, you can retire in 5 years" but rather "if you can repair/make anything you want, you're not part of the problem". However, I fear that this strategy is not a solution either because I bet only a few people actively care about those mountains(*) of trash.

I'm not sure either of those is particularly compelling. I'd argue for something along the lines of "if you avoid consumerism and embrace an anti-consumerist lifestyle, you'll lead a richer, more exciting, creative, and spiritually-rewarding life." Tweak or adjust the verbiage based on the particular audience or values of the speaker.

Western Red Cedar wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 26, 2024 1:44 am

In terms of the personal responsibility component, I think it is worth considering how much control the average person has when confronted with clever psychological manipulation in the form of modern marketing that hones in on their fears, anxieties, hopes, and other emotions. I think of it in terms of Haidt's Elephant and the Rider analogy. As a society, we might not have as much control as we like to believe. Our thinking brain isn't necessarily driving the car...or steering the elephant.

Absolutely. Please allow me to make one more bit of publicity for the book "The distracted mind" by Adam Gazzaley here. Even if the focus is different at first sight, it brilliantly explains most of the fundamental biological limitations underpinning this.

In a forum slanted towards INTJs and hyper-rational members, perhaps leaning into expectations for personal responsibility is a blind spot? It comes much easier to us.

More prefrontal cortex informing INTJ decisions?

Western Red Cedar wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 26, 2024 1:44 am

I'm not sure either of those is particularly compelling. I'd argue for something along the lines of "if you avoid consumerism and embrace an anti-consumerist lifestyle, you'll lead a richer, more exciting, creative, and spiritually-rewarding life." Tweak or adjust the verbiage based on the particular audience or values of the speaker.

Another unusual factor that characterizes INTJs and certain other types is an independent "get'er done" streak. Whereas for very many intentions matter more than outcomes and it's more important to be seen or heard by others as making an effort (or not making an effort) than it is to actually do something. The shared sentiment matters more than solving the actual problem. Indeed, the high irony is that solving the problem will remove the ability to share the sentiment. (For example, people always pissing and moaning about "struggling to get ahead" but refusing to do anything that will even move them forward. The INTJ perspective is kinda blind to how commiserating with others is a feature and not a bug.)

This is a large fraction of humanity and I don't think finding just the right inspiration is the key that will unlock the "lazy conformity" (<- I couldn't find a better word.)

jacob wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 26, 2024 7:32 am

The INTJ perspective is kinda blind to how commiserating with others is a feature and not a bug.)

That never occurred to me before. That might explain why people always ignore the advice I give them.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2024 2:01 pm

Regarding the false dichotomy, how did this become part of American culture? I was listening to the most recent Throughline on NPR a couple days ago and noting 1) the up-down paradigm and 2) the stark contrast with the Wampanoag:

“In June of 1675, the indigenous Wampanoag people of what is now southern New England were on the brink of war with the English colonists of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the descendants of those pilgrims.

Metacom, a Wampanoag chief, met with Rhode Island's attorney general.

What he said was, you know, when my father, a chief named Ousamiquin, met your ancestors, the Plymouth colonists, he was a great man and you were a little child. And he gave you land to live on, more land than we the Wampanoags have today. He taught you how to plant.

He taught you where to fish. But now here we are, 50 plus years later. Now you're the great man and we're the little child.

And you don't treat us with that kind of respect. That's why I'm going to war”

From Throughline: The Mother of Thanksgiving, Nov 21, 2024
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t ... 9616&r=240
This material may be protected by copyright.

jennypenny wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2024 3:53 pm

I think the Lipstick effect is a factor. With stagnant wages (for decades) and the wealth gap increasing, it's no surprise that people might compensate for their falling status by buying more (albeit less valuable) stuff.

And what’s underneath the falling status? I think of the little luxuries peddled to the working masses over the past couple hundred years as distraction: penny candies, movies, fast fashion, etc. Shame, need for external validation, and/or come to mind.

jacob wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 26, 2024 7:32 am

I don't think finding just the right inspiration is the key that will unlock the "lazy conformity" (<- I couldn't find a better word.)
[/quote]
“Willfully ignorant” and “unconsciously incompetent” come to mind. I suspect that there are different flavors with some more popular than others.

When my son was in fifth grade, I was shocked he still believed in Santa and was looking forward to the next big Lego set. (:lol: That should have been the tip-off right there.) Turns out he didn’t want to risk missing out on the gift and wasn’t ready to have a discussion. I think many adults continue to live in that space.

chenda wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 26, 2024 8:40 am

“The INTJ perspective is kinda blind to how commiserating with others is a feature and not a bug.” Jacob

That never occurred to me before. That might explain why people always ignore the advice I give them.

Some random thoughts:
1) Commiserating, empathy, and shared understanding are not synonymous.
2) Supporting someone to resolve an issue can be complex. That’s probably why clarifying what they need and if they’re open to feedback is important. (Easier said than done from my experience.)
3) Sometimes I notice people want to give directive advice based on limited understanding that paints the recipient in a corner. It ends up isolating both for different reasons unless resolution-focused dialogue with action can occur.

Frita wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 26, 2024 9:51 am

“Willfully ignorant” and “unconsciously incompetent” come to mind. I suspect that there are different flavors with some more popular than others.

"Denial" followed by "Anger" and "Bargaining" if pushed to different degrees. There's something going on here. I've noticed that when talking to someone who values sentiment (subjectivity) over reality (objectivity) insofar they conflict, I somehow appear more convincing to them if I put on an angry face than if I keep pushing the rational angle with more facts. The latter just seems to annoy them. The former seems to convince them temporarily, but it really doesn't. The sudden change of "apparent mind" is but an attempt to restore social harmony. Analogously, they're doing the same to me as I am to them.

@Frita: Yeah, the alienation is real.


I think the behavior y'all are describing has two main drivers:

(1) Social Value Meme *
(2) Trauma/ Shadow behavior


*Social Value Meme is similar to SD, but I like it more. It's from Hanzi, but Wilber also discusses it though I don't think he calls it "social value meme" or defines it to the extent Hanzi does. If you're familiar with SD, Modernism = Orange, more or less.

Social value meme is the set of beliefs a culture downloads into a person. Apparently they appear to work in progressive states that in some ways parallel human ego development. All of the background is fascinating, but the important part is that the dominant cultural value meme in Western society is modernism.

People don't determine what they think by using rationality or constructing the world from scratch. Instead we download a set of cultural beliefs into that person. These cultural memes are powerful, they will to a large extent determine both what and how a person thinks. They will set their cultural heuristics (i.e. you can either vote democrat or republican AND you can either believe democrat or republican).

Modernism is the meme of rationality, science and objectivity. It is the meme of industrialization. It loves progress. Its downfalls are ecological destruction, alienation and drastic inequality.

Consumerism is modernism gone awry. Modernists always want more. More science, more information, more progress, more stuff. If something goes wrong, the modernist machine of science and technology will fix it. It gave us abundant food, antibiotics, mass education, cheap and abundant travel, the list of wonders is endless.... The problem is that there is no way to tell when we have enough.

The problems we face are the problems of people who ignore internal subjective states so that they can manipulate external objective reality.

The other issue is trauma. Trauma creates psychological states where people's sensory and emotional systems respond incorrectly to present environment stimuli. Trauma responses exist at the level of the body and emotions, both of which are systems that act faster and more discreetly than the cognitive system (elephant/ rider). If someone says they want something but then takes actions to the opposite effect, they are almost always responding to trauma. Worse, trauma will often lead to behaviors that recreate the circumstances that trigger the trauma.

This is why people don't like it when you factually solve their problems for them.

Consumerism isn't like kind of dumb, it's totally insane. The majority of modern problems are caused by having too much stuff and putting too many resources into acquiring and (barely) maintaining that stuff. What is the accepted solution to this? Invest more resources into acquiring more stuff.

This is the perfect recipe for consumerism. You've taken people and culturally programmed them to desire more. There is abundant social proof of the idea that more is better and technology fixes all. At the same time, we emotionally program people to seek objective material rewards. Discomforting emotions are muted through shame, food and drugs. Tons of resources are poured into manipulating people emotionally and socially to do what we've already programmed them to do... seek pleasure through purchase.

Trying to get people to be anti-consumerist, you are battling their cultural, social and emotional training, while also battling their trauma and shadow responses, all of which tell them to trust the modernist machine of progress, technology and more above all else.