BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOGS

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Our Technology Addiction: Who, or What, Creates It?


The Vital Edge


Technology Addiction


There is a sense that we humans are in control of the technologies that we create, and in a way, that is of course true. We code the software. We design the shape and the function of the tool.
And yet, there is a deeper sense in which we are very much not in control.
 

The Icy Grip of Our Tools

TV's Addictive Grip


To make this argument, I must first fully admit that I myself am wrapped in its seductive grip. There is a pull that our technology exerts over us, a kind of compulsion that is hard to deny. We see it in how difficult it is to draw our young ones away from the gaming console, from our obsessive checking of Facebook and email – first at our desktops, and now everywhere we go thanks to the super handy convenience of our mobile devices. Even our less compelling earlier media device, the television, with its lack of interactivity or connection to others, is still responsible for engaging four and a half hours of the average person’s day in the United States.

So, there is a design to technology and it is one that, for various reasons, is quite good at harnessing our compulsive behaviors in order to attract us into using it. What is behind this design, this “planned stickiness”? The answer, at one level, is quite simple. We humans design our technologies to be this sticky ultimately as a way to make more money for our businesses.

Drive up engagement, drive up usage, drive up share of mind. The more hours computers steal from television, the better. The more minutes mobile takes from desktop, the better. And don’t forget the escalation of attention-grabbing antics amongst direct competitors within a product category, as Apple works to beat Microsoft, and now Google at how many of us buy, embrace and eventually recommend their machines.

Even the content flowing to us through these devices competes with other content, each hoping we’ll just love what the experience. Joanie Loves Chachi and I Love Lucy, and now my attention is so Mashable I’m simply Wired to want more.



Perfecting Our Technology Addiction

Oh yes, at one level, our compulsive attachment, our addiction, to our tools is very easy to understand. It’s simply an outgrowth of our competitive enterprise system – the marketplace, perfectly tuned to breed the most compelling user experience possible, a kind of extension of nature’s evolutionary forces.

But here is the interesting question for each of us to pause and reflect upon. One day, these systems will learn to design themselves. They will have the “business intelligence” to analyze our “big data” and configure themselves in ways that are so responsive, so compelling, so addictive, they’ll make what we have today seem as quaint as listening to The Lone Ranger on an old-fashioned 1930′s radio broadcast.

Delighted

Our user experience will be fantastic. We will be so customer delighted, we won’t know what to do with ourselves. And all of it will come through the magic of automation and the wondrous weaving of algorithms without a huge degree of human agency or oversight. We will be programmed by the program, so attracted to the flame that we will not notice a little singe to our wings here and there.
And it all leads to the interesting question of who – or what – will be doing all the programming.

And the I Love Lucy copyright goes to CBS.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Consumerism and Its Discontents

Truthout

Consumerism and Its Discontents

Monday, 27 May 2013 10:56  

By Charles Derber, Truthout | Op-Ed 

Consumerism.(Photo: Rachel / Flickr)A quiet revolutionary struggle is brewing in the minds of the US "millennial" generation, those 80 million Americans between ages 16 and 34. They are wrestling with the fundamental edict of capitalism: Buy and you shall be happy. The millennials have not rejected consumerism, but they have also not embraced it fully. They experience its very real downsides - that also afflict millions of older Americans and go to the heart of capitalist sustainability and morality.

Recent polls by marketing firms and the respected Pew Research Center show strong environmental concerns among millennials, but hint at a broader issue: whether consumerism itself makes for a good life and society. Americans, especially the young, love their computers and sleep with their iPhones next to their pillows, but still worry about the negative sides of consumerism.

Technology itself may be contributing to what commentators have called the "death of ownership" culture, since the issue is not owning a book or television set, but having access through the web. Technology is changing the very idea of ownership. But broader factors - including the very availability of so much "stuff" - are contributing to making consumerism less new, exciting and "cool."

In a recent informal study of Boston-area college students, I asked them how they felt about American consumerism. Almost all said they would prefer to be in a society that was less consumer-oriented, because consumer culture gives them these headaches:

* It creates fierce competitive pressure to have more and newer "stuff."
* It complicates their lives, always worrying about how to maintain, pay for and use all the things they buy.
* It distracts from a quality life with their family and friends.
* It creates a "dirty" lifestyle that makes them and the planet sick.
* It leads to more inequality, with people seeking more at the expense of others.
* It distracts from political engagement - President Bush told them to go shopping as he was gearing up for war with Iraq after 9/11.
* It imprisons them in a life full of products and empty of meaning.

These negative feelings are reflected in changing purchasing patterns, with recent polls indicating that a growing percentage do not want to buy a house or car. About 25 percent of Millennials do not want a car, compared with 10 percent of their parents at their age. In 1978, sixty-seven percent of 17-year-old Americans had drivers’ licenses, compared with just 45 percent in 2010. Of course, these differences may reflect reduced income, credit or safety issues as well as changes in consumer attitudes.

These attitudes may seem like the self-indulgent whims of affluent, high-consuming young Americans. Or they may seem a reaction to the Great Recession, as they can no longer afford to buy so much. They could also reflect a phase of life since young idealists too often turn to traditional consumerism as they assume the responsibilities of adult life. They certainly do not suggest that young Americans are decisively rejecting consumerism.

But a quick history of American consumerism suggests something very important: that the growing awareness of its real and serious downsides can largely be explained by problems of sustainability and freedom at the core of US capitalism.

Up until the 1920s, most Americans made their own clothes, grew their own food and bought very little. They were producers and not consumers. This changed in the 1920s, when the growth of capitalism had created large corporations that could no longer prosper simply from World War I production. They needed Americans to become consumers.

The corporations hired public relations experts and launched the modern advertising industry. Retailers such as the giant Sears Roebuck sent out millions of catalogs with alluring pictures of clothes, furniture and other commodities. This was the beginning of "coerced consumption." In the 1950s and 1960s, the new advertising culture mushroomed and became massive and irresistible, with corporations redefining American freedom as the freedom to buy.

Since profits require ever-expanding consumer markets, capitalism has always coerced consumption, typically by seductive advertising but also by harsher means. In the 1920s, Los Angeles had a huge electric trolley system that allowed people to move around the city without cars. General Motors responded by buying the trolley system and tearing up the tracks. By the 1950s, the automakers succeeded in getting the US government to underwrite highways and cars. People began to buy cars because other transportation choices had been ripped away from them, a perfect example of coerced consumption and a form of "un-freedom."

What is the solution for Americans unhappy with consumerism? Many are beginning to make changes in their personal lives. Students are starting to grow food in gardens at their universities. Many Americans are living closer to work, so they can walk or bike to the job. Some are looking for companies offering the choice of shorter work hours, which liberates them from the work-and-spend treadmill. Some are joining the "share economy," where they share things - Zip cars and bikes - with others. Many are "downshifting" to a simpler life.

But constraining consumerism requires far larger changes in US capitalism: severely limiting corporate power and rewriting corporate charters and international trade agreements to emphasize worker rights and environmental health. Quality must replace quantity as the measure of economic and cultural success. Government tax and regulatory policy must end extreme inequality and reduce production and consumption of dirty energy, unhealthy food and luxury goods. Large investment in public transit, community-owned enterprises, national parks and other public goods must substantially reduce private consumption.

Such system-wide changes are politically difficult - and they may not limit consumerism fast enough to avert climate catastrophe or reverse dangerous inequality. But in the most optimistic scenario, they could put society on a new path toward a more sustainable, cooperative way of life.

These changes will be on the agenda of people around the world in the 21st century. Europe is already a far less consumerist society than the United States. China, India and Brazil are struggling with environmental justice and inequality that inevitably highlight the issue of global consumerism. It will take a new social economy that rejects American-style consumerism to solve these problems and help save the world.

A Chinese translation of this article was originally published in the People’s Daily News, Beijing, China, on April 25, 2013.

Copyright, Truthout.