Hacker News Reader

Comment by analog31 | Hacker News Reader

Sometimes I wonder if things like fashions, art, music, etc., could get us out of an economy that depends so much on carbon emission. I was once at a Mary Kay convention (as a hired musician), and a few of the people were trying to sell the band members on joining the business.

I asked them if you can get a pink Prius for selling enough stuff. The answer is yes.

I suggested that cosmetics were the ultimate "green" product, because you could sell something with virtually no material content for an arbitrary price, and that Mary Kay should position itself that way. Could we support an entire economy, selling luxury goods to one another, with minimal ecological cost?

View on HN

>Could we support an entire economy, selling luxury goods to one another, with minimal ecological cost?

Or even skip the "selling to one another step" and not make anything in the first place? Because there's no value made in a closed system where one is "selling luxury goods to one another" anyway.

So you're proposing that we move to a totally shallow economy which provides little in the way of useful service, other than what is essentially wealth signaling. Meanwhile our consumption remains the same and our carbon emissions are simply offloaded onto other nations.

What problem does this solve?

Additionally, how would you structure an entire economy around solely exchanging goods with no material value?

I think the idea is to replace more-wasteful wealth signaling with less-wasteful. I don't think this is meant to be a part of the economy which everyone partakes of - it's for people who would instead buy yachts and jets.

It seems possible to make private art more cool than private jets, at least in some circles. But I suspect that the overall effect on resource consumption would be smaller than OP thinks.

"So you're proposing that we move to a totally shallow economy which provides little in the way of useful service, other than what is essentially wealth signaling."

That is pretty much what we have now, basic needs can be met very cheaply in an industrialised society.

There is a significant portion of people spending half their income on rent.

There is a significant portion of people living beyond their means, I'm not sure that says much really.

OK, let me be clearer then. There is a significant portion of people for whom there is no housing available that does not constitute half of their income.

I've stated the same thing several times only as the following:

"Imagine a world where the only consumption was Pinterest."

I'm reminded of a Father John Misty song which goes:

Try not to think so much about The truly staggering amount of oil that it takes to make a record All the shipping, the vinyl, the cellophane lining, the high gloss The tape and the gear

Try not to become too consumed With what's a criminal volume of oil that it takes to paint a portrait The acrylic, the varnish, aluminum tubes filled with latex The solvents and dye

Lets just call this what it is The jealous side of mankind's death wish When it's my time to go Gonna leave behind things that won't decompose

Such a world would presumably last for about a week before everyone starved to death. Where does the electricity necessary to run the Internet come from here?

I often wonder the same. With current advances in technology both in mass-media and automation, many elements of consumerism beyond basic needs could be made virtual.

With near-full automation, human repetitive labor tends to be value-less; however, human attention becomes a scarce resource, given all the cultural offers competing for them.

The most valuable resources would be scarce raw materials and machinery (concentrated in the hands of wealthy owners), top notch creativity (a natural talent, unevenly distributed), and attention from the public (everyone gets the same amount of it; finding ways to attract and concentrate it has proven to be extremely valuable, as Google taught us). I envision that you could create an attention economy from those elements.

Your definition of cosmetics has something to do with culture. When people don't have to fight for survival, they start creating complex symbols and behaviours around the theme of society. They tell stories, play games. The issue here is that culture is more and more mediated by technologies that are firstly aimed at consumption.

Is the implication here that face-painting, hair styling, etc. are unknown in cultures where people have to "fight for survival"? Because I find that hard to accept.

The energy intensity of the developed economies is decreasing (J/$ GDP). So you're getting your wish!

Unless we all stop needing to eat, have lodging, or go anywhere, probably not. In fact one might argue luxury goods are the opposite of green since, by definition, they are not necessary.

If everybody has it, it's not wealth signaling.

a lot of beauty products are petroleum based

Which is probably a better use of oil than burning it.

Its made from the stuff that isn't useful for burning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com