Why Does Waste Equal Wealth?

Andrew Sullivan wrote something the other day that lodged itself in the back of my mind:

It occurs to me that the global warming debate is not unlike the WMD-terrorist debate, except the sides are reversed. Accrding to Ron Suskind, Dick Cheney's "one percent doctrine" means that if there's a one percent chance that a terrorist could have access to a WMD, we must act as if it were a certainty - because the outcome, however unlikely, would be too disastrous to risk. On global warming, Gore expresses a not-too-dissimilar equation: if there's a small chance that human behavior could lead to environmental catastrophe, we should act as if it were a certainty - because waiting too long is too big a risk to take.

Like George Will and other "true" conservatives (gotta love the current cleavage of the GOP, no?), Andrew appears to advocate the position that there's no need for any unprudent response to global warming (the joke comes to mind of the man who drowns in a flood because he told all the rescuers that came along to help him that he'd put his faith in God, only to have God ask him up in heaven why he had turned away the rescuers He had sent). By "unprudent," of course, they mean any regulations or measures that might slow down the neckbreak gluttonous accumulation of wealth that rampant consummerism has spawned. The underlying assumption being that a healthy economy will resolve any potential catastrophe better than, well, common sense is how it seems to me, but...anything that might impact the gathering of wealth.

But Andrew's comparison of Gore's mission to Cheney's gnawed away at some deeply held, but not quite conscious, concept in my worldview. At first I thought it was the obvious moral problem with war (i.e., that what Cheney advocates leads directly to the brutal murdering and mutilation of innocents, whereas what Gore advocates may [only may, mind you] curb economic growth, but if implemented carefully won't equal, what it is, 30-50 horrendous deaths a day now?), but the more I thought about it I realized that it's more a position on the moral issues surrounding consumerism.

I grew up rather poor in a large family. I recall in the early 80's being truly appalled to hear that some people considered shopping a "hobby." Shopping in our family was hard work (coupons and buying in bulk, etc.). It wasn't the notion that folks had disposable income that offended me (I'm not anti-capitalism, and disposable income is how charites are funded and art is purchased); I could see rich people all around. Rather, it was the notion that some people would set out to spend that money just to spend it, capriciously. That concept is still obscene to me. It's wasteful.

But in many ways that concept fuels our current economy. In a nutshell, consumerist capitalism operates on the premise that waste equals wealth. This seems counterintuitive to me. Wealth is the accumulation of material possessions or resources. Spending money just to spend it should equal the opposite of wealth (how good a shopper would one have to be such that a majority of impulse purchases would appreciate?). It's like getting high. If your buzz is the economy, and your substance of choice is the consumption of materials for its own sake, it's moronic to think your buzz can grow and grow without you eventually crashing. It can't grow indefinitely without causing serious harm. You will hit a wall.

I've had debates about this with pro-unchecked-consumerists before. They hide behind a disingenuous taking of offense that I would suggest where to draw a line (despite my not actually having done that) and immediately jump to point out the obvious---that my business relies on disposable income (although I shudder to think it relies on impulse purchasing). They seem to imply that the truly important line will be obvious when we arrive at it and that until then unchecked consuming should be encouraged (the eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow your home might float off to the next county argument?).

To be fair, Andrew has suggested modest adjustments:

A prudent attempt to rein in carbon dioxide emissions seems a no-brainer to me. A dollar rise in the gas tax would be the most effective way to achieve this.

But then goes on to note that Americans are not likely to warm up to any idea that requires sacrifice. The obscene part of this being that many Americans feel curbing their unbridled buying of bigger and bigger and more and more actually equals sacrifice.

Now, clearly wealth is good. It provides security and a better standard of living. But buying unneeded throwable products just for the buzz it provides is an addiction that's out of control and culturally should be discouraged. A new model of wealth, with an emphasis on saving, is much more prudent and something one would assume "true" conservatives would advocate. With all the advantages we know would come from a lower dependence on foreign oil, for example, it is unconscionable that our leaders aren't preaching conservation.

Perhaps the powers that be and their defenders are misestimating due to the fog that their shopping buzz has created, more sure of their footing than they'd be were they sober. Perhaps they're deadly sober and actually grabbing up as much of what's left for themselves before the proverbial sh*t hits the fan and the rest of the nation wakes up from their own buzz. I don't know. I do know that conservation for its own sake is no sin and that exploiting our wildlife reserves (or other such responses to dwindling resources) with no joint emphasis on conservation first is the surest indication of an addiction out of control.