Comments on: Let’s go not-shopping

By: Damon Garrett

Damon Garrett — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:52:58 +0000

After linking to the post this afternoon on Twitter, I had several enthusiastic replies and “Re-Tweets”. What I thought was worth sharing, however, was a comment from @pattyhuntington [http://twitter.com/pattyhuntington] who coined the phrase, “The Shopocalypse”.

By: Damon Garrett

Damon Garrett — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:27:13 +0000

Paul – Clearly an important concept that is served well by continued discussion and shared experience towards your idea of going open source. It’s obviously a very confronting idea for those who are in the business of “selling more stuff”, but it is clear that a groundswell in the no-shopping direction needs to start gaining attention inside manufacturer and retailer boardrooms for the mid-to-long term. I face my own daily battle just trying to advocate against the use of the word “consumer” in these kinds of environments, particularly for products which will be sold but will never be fully consumed, recycled or renewed.

Having also just read this post from PSFK about a study exploring the relationship of material goods and happiness [http://www.psfk.com/2009/07/happiness-objectified-do-our-things-make-us-happy.html] it’s important to consider the extent of help and support required to build momentum.

By: carlos

carlos — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:29:43 +0000

you’ve hit the mark with this one paul:

“which is why not-shopping is perhaps the greatest threat to capitalism since communism, except it’s likely to be far more effective because it has one of the key ingredients that communism lacked; the ability for people to take personal action and initiative that directly delivered greater happiness and more fulfilled lives.”

this is also why the great exponents of capitalism – i.e. those with the most to lose – are terrified of this prospect, and why every corporate/advertising media message tries to entrench the traditional position of “shopping = happiness”.

but the people are waking up. and finally, people have the ability to vote with their feet in a powerful way – true democracy, true anarchy, whatever you want to call it. exciting times.

keep up the good work paul, shine the light into the darkness.

By: Paul Gilding

Paul Gilding — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:18:07 +0000

Phil – yes I think it is very important not to blame in this area, it is after all us who are the consumers. However, I also think there’s a need to acknowledge how the system works and for corporates to take some responsibility for what they are encouraging. It sure ain’t no conspiracy though, they’re not that organised! Check out the Prosperity without Growth report in my last chronicles however to understand why stuff to services is not going to cut it ( I thought that was the answer, but basically its too late except as a contribution)

By: Simon Divecha

Simon Divecha — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:24:02 +0000

Thanks for the article Paul – very timely. A few pieces with some numbers and comments that may be useful:

The UK Sustainable Development Commission did a solid report ‘I Will if you Will’ http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=367 that that accepts the need to ‘consume less’ as well as ‘consume differently‘ .

I like the food discussion both for its significance as well as being an example of fast change.

In environmental terms, as well as dollar terms, food’s a big part of this. For Australians food is around 40% an individual environmental footprint and, according to the industry’s Australian Food and Grocery Council, we waste a staggering 3 million tonnes a year http://www.afgc.org.au/index.cfm?id=812 . I’m trying to think what a sixth of a tonne of food, my share per year, would look like in my back yard….

On the upside food is one of the best examples of fast change – Al Gore uses the US Victory Garden story, its impressive -http://greenmodesustainabilitydevelopments.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-are-about-to-plant-veggie-patch.html . And the White House lawn has just been dug up again!

In addition to facebook have you thought about twitter? I’m a recent convert – I decided it was a timesaver rather than waster…

By: Phil Preston

Phil Preston — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:14:59 +0000

I’m not sure everyone downing tools on consumption is going to produce a smooth transition to what is required. A more effective arguement may be to advocate shifting consumption from goods to services.

And the Story of Stuff, despite good intent, seems to imply grand conspiracy of companies and governments against ‘us’, which is ‘us’ avoiding responsibility in my book.

By: annmarie

annmarie — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:21:35 +0000

will a sense of “not” doing things and “giving things up” work as a motivator for change? The social theorist Anthony Giddens, who’s recently written on climate change politics, proposes that a sense of “deprivation” won’t work long term for the majority of us. Perhaps its a deeper investigation of the needs we think we are meeting with shopping, and whether we are denying ourselves a more creative use of our intelligence, time and pursuit happiness through discovering more creative resources and ways of being. If “not shopping” also means “time out” to do this, then great.

By: Paul Bull

Paul Bull — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:20:25 +0000

Paul, this is a very interesting idea and one that requires a deep and well thought through approach. Yes we now increasingly have the technologies for people to be able to shop more sustainably and sure the data exists to demonstrate to people that having more does not equal being more happy / content / fulfilled. In embarking on this change we need to realise that the second half of the 20th century is a narcisstic age where narcissitc personality disorder is prevalent in western culture and is reinforced across the whole system… the media, government & the very fabric of consumer capitalism – they all depend on a growing economy where people spend more. From a social perspective we have come to define our relationships in the context of possessions and owning. Evolving from the status quo will require change at a systems and societal level as the forces that underpin consumerism are simply too permeating. People will need to be informed and eductaed on the reality of their habits and our culture and the impacts on the world of this model. They also need to see the fallacy of the consumer promise that is a myth as well as be supported to transition off the shopping drug. Narcissim hides a painful, empty inner core that unfortunately is at the heart of why so many people can unconsciously and sbsent mindedly shop without understanding. As people evolve and change there will be a real need to create communities and relationships and support groups that provide people with connection, hope and pleasure – the very things that consumerism and rampant shopping promise but cant deliver.

By: Paull Guster

Paull Guster — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:46:57 +0000

Paul, I heard you on background briefing tonight. Appreciated your ideas. I feel we are way too greedy generally as a species. What’s wrong with having something that works for twenty years? What’s wrong with repairing things rather than buying the latest gadget (which often is an impulse purchase and lasts five minutes)?. I’m no better than other’s in this respect but I still repair in preference to rebuy. You say that it up to us to create the change (no one is in charge), and while I agree, I still think that we need the Govt. (yes I know we get the govt. we deserve) to demand and legislate major change – the little things I do (CFDs, repair things, walk more, etc) are really a panacea and have no affect on the problem. As I see it, you are (sadly) correct. All evidence points to the fact that we are very close to going down the gurgler but, like you point out, no one wants to know – much less do something about it.

I also feel that while there is a possibility of job losses (coal industry for one) – that no one in power will risk their own job for the sake of the planet. The industry lobby in this country is way too strong to allow such a rational action by the elected. So how do we get past this stumbling block? I feel that a revolution is what is really required to get things going – but that will probably be the first thing that happens after we all get a good dose of reaity!

I am excited by the prospect of making worldwide changes to our enegy generation processes. I look forward to the day when the words “Solar energy” and “Australia” are interchangeable. We have such talented researchers in the sciences that we should be well ahead of the field, but unfortunately science is not supported in this country. Sport is the default science. Enough said. Wish you well. Keep talking.

By: Sam Weinberg

Sam Weinberg — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:04:09 +0000

Thanks for that. I bit the shopping bullet last year – (and wrote about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/19/credit-card-crunch-budget), and although it was a bit testing at first, it became increasingly liberated. Now released from my pledge, the habit is sticking, by and large. And life without stuff is better, on the whole. So go for it: try. It’s fun.