Today, I bought 2 shirts and a pair of pants out of necessity (I can’t go to work in nude, somehow).  Not quite sure since when, I’ve become very practical - I only buy what I need, not more, not less.

In the old days, gear was all that I care.  I used to buy the latest and greatest, even though it would only be used for a week (then another new toy popped up to the mind).  Needless to say, I was one of those nerds who help push the GDP up a few %, at the expense of one’s own pension.

It became a problem when things expired, then you had to think about the treatment of disposal.  In HK, there was (and still is) not much control, and basically you could dump a nuclear reactor to the nearby garbage station for free (except the transportation).  We have just started sewage charges (HATS - Harbor Area Treatment Scheme) a few years ago, and a pretty low and nominal charge, and started to talk about waste disposal charges (Waste Disposal Ordinance), which is not yet in effect.

However, I focus not on the environmental protection topic, but from a different perspective - how much do we need to live a life?

Nuclear waste is not a problem, if we dump one unit every hundred years.  It’s only a problem if we have to treat the waste a few times a year.  Lithium battery is not a problem, if we dump one every 10 years.  It’s only a problem if we have to dump a few ones every year, not because of expiry, but model change.

In the even older days, manufacturers prided themselves by producing durable products.  Nowadays, this is considered a fatal strategy because you practically eliminate demand right after the first year of production.  So, everything lasts for a short period only.  If not, the marketing people will make you think that vogue is more important than functions so you have to dump your newly bought merchandise in no time.  Ah ha, GDP up a few % again - everybody’s happy.

But, really?

Are we buying things happily or just an escape from the daily pressure that we face because we have to generate so much unnecessary demand in our work in order to justify our existence?  On one hand, we consume because we are hypnotized, and on the other hand, we hypnotize others to consume our products.  A perfect example of circular reference, or vicious cycle in English.

We are consuming more resources on Earth in the past 100 years than the sum total of perhaps the past 1.5 million years.  While this may not be fatal, we are facing a highly possible oil drainage in the next 30 to 50 years⁽¹⁾; too much chemicals disposed to the wild, a key suspect for the cause of global warming, which is now likely at a point of no return; too much silicon waste produced globally, and we are poisoning the soil of the developing countries as a scapegoat.  For the people in HK, should we be "proud" of being one of the facilitators in the process?

Again, this is not an environmental topic.  Actually, I am skeptical to recycling.  If recycling is effective, then people would do it without government control.  If something doesn’t make sense financially, then very likely, it doesn’t solve the problem.  For example, how much energy is needed to recycle used plastic?  Are we burning more in order to save less for re-use?  Or are we making more waste in other forms in order to recycle waste in one form?  Is it just consumerism in disguise that encourages us to spend more in order to save less?  Buy a new MP3 player and it ends up spending 2 more MP3 players equivalent in order to get the first one recycled - viva, sell 3 in total!

Recycling in terms of 2nd hand market is more sensible, and that’s why people do it spontaneously rather than following some regulations.

However, the most effective way perhaps is to stop consuming the unnecessary from the first place.  Do you need a new PC every 2 years?  Actually, I have one functioning for the past 4 years (650MHz Pentium III) and still running strong on Windows XP.  Why the rush?  Save some for pension instead.  Do you need a new toy as a kick to ease your tension in work?  Buy less and you don’t need such a high tension job (presumably high pay) from the first place.

You don’t need that much in order to live a meaningful life - you need time for reflections instead.  Besides, other than buying toys, you probably need to visit the psychologist frequently - it surely will lengthen your pension saving schedule.

We are the victims of consumerism, not beneficiaries.  Forget about marketing, forget about GDP.  Consume less, think more for yourself, think more for the next generation, and live happier.

Notes

(1)

Focus: Oil, from The Independent.
Long-Term World Oil Supply Scenarios, from US Energy Information Administration.