Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed
Plenty of people live just fine without computers or the Internet. Especially in places like Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Just like plenty of them live in small houses.
I find it interesting that you can rationalize things you like as something you "need", but proclaim things others like as "not needed". My point is that most of what you and I have and use is not strictly "needed" - but that's never, ever an argument not to use it. Anything else is pure hypocrisy. You don't see me telling people not to have something they don't need, because I fully accept that most of western society has plenty that we don't need. I embrace that, in fact - who wants to live a subsistence level existence?
|
First of all, you've basically proved my point. As we continually move toward an information society, the one thing that is going to further leave some of the citizens behind is a lack of access to information. Whether or not we need that [information,] can again be debated. However, since we in the western world do have access to it, logically, the only way for them to stay competitive is to also have access to it. So in that sense it is "needed."
Secondly, you are comparing apples to well, nothing. I stated, that we could live with less of a house whereas you are saying they don't need a computer or books at all, not that they don't need a living space at all.
However, and regardless, it has to do with marginal utility, and that there is first off all, not such thing as infinite amount of utility from a "thing" (hence, why ever increasing consumption also doesn't actually make sense) and secondly, because not only that, but after a certain quantity of a "thing" marginal utility will in fact go down. The Rule of Diminishing Marginal Utility.
I'm not trying to be facetious here, but this comes from economics, not something I made up, and you've probably come across it before. If, in fact, you can find any product, service or experience, that speaks against this, then I'd be very surprised. As would, I'm sure, a lot of economists including Herman Heinrich Gossen. Obviously, each utility function will look different however.
As an example, one computer provides you a computer's worth of benefit. Two computers, for most people already doesn't provide two computer's worth of benefit because most people don't get that much additional benefit out of it, 3 even less so, and so on. Until you actually have so many computers that they all cost to maintain, have to have programs etc, and you start losing benefit.
Now apply this to a house that is overly large. After a certain amount of space, your benefit is flattening out. At best, it's perceived benefit, stemming from vanity, or self-flattering or show-boating or whatever you want to call it, confirmed by the fact that much of the world does not live, or need to live in such a way. Yet, that ever so small of marginal benefit that you may receive from extra space, has a subsequent marginal indirect cost that is externalized. So society as a whole pays for the low marginal or even decreasing marginal benefit of a few.
A computer costs a person 1 computer. They benefit from that one computer by 1 computer. There are very few external costs, comparitively. If they were to buy 6 for example, just so they could say they have six, then we might be looking at a similar story. However, the external costs still wouldn't touch what we are looking at with shotty land use.
Now as I said earlier, and by your last sentence it would seem so, if you don't care, then no one can argue that. However, I wouldn't weigh subjectively defending it either, based on something you want that costs others.
I'm not explicitly telling you what you "need" and don't "need," I'm saying that what you "need" is being paid for by others, and its the one thing that could most easily be changed to make the absolute largest impact. As to Sir Appelby's point, technological advances (ie green cars) alone won't do the trick. We don't "need" anything; that's true, but then you better rewind civilization by about 10,000 years. I'm game.
That is how I rationalize it, and I will continue to wade through my pool of self-righteousness if need be.
Prev
Linear Mode
