¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

FROM time immemorial, human beings have been living by consuming for survival. This writing, however, is not about our normal behaviours of consumption for living. In modern culture, consumerism refers to the tendency of people who live a lifestyle of excessive materialism that revolves around reflexive, wasteful, or conspicuous consumption triggered by a thirst for more stuff. Over the course of the 20th century, capitalism has preserved its momentum by moulding the ordinary person into an avid consumer. People, of course, have always consumed all necessities of life — like food, shelter, and clothing — and have had to work for them. Before the advent of the 20thÌýcentury, there was little economic motive for consumption beyond needs.

It was in the 18th century when a few British historians started writing about the pursuit of opulence and display that spread among the ordinary citizens of the richer classes. While it was mainly accessing varieties of foods that attracted the normal people to go for consumption beyond subsistence, the real impetus for higher consumption, however, came from durable items. Over time, proliferating shops and department stores served as a delight to primarily the urban middle class in Europe, effectively impacting their consumption patterns and tastes.

Around the turn of the 20th century, a new element called mail order shopping surged, and at the time, many countries saw massive multi-storey department stores covering millions of acres of selling space. Historian Leach, in his 1993 book, ‘Land of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American Culture’, wrote, ‘The cardinal features of this culture were acquisition and consumption as the means of achieving happiness; the cult of the new; the democratisation of desire; and money value as the predominant measure of all value in society.’ The expansion of consumerism went unabated for the next hundred years, with the direct participation of banks extending loans for mass productions and media providing alluring publicity to attract consumers to buy more and more. Retail analyst Victor Lebow said, ‘We need things consumed, burnt up, replaced, and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate’. Rising incomes of all income classes provided the impetus to the new culture of overconsumption.

How do we address the addiction to consumerism? Can we solve the rising tide of waste we create globally with such a phenomenon? Up until now, mere managing the waste created in vast lands of garbage landfills has become a major global headache. On the other hand, there are valid arguments, mostly on economic grounds, that mass consumption has brought numerous benefits: jobs and financial wealth, physical safety and security, higher investible funds, technological breakthroughs, etc. Added to these are new ways of connecting, talking, and thinking; easy travel to nearly anywhere in the world; lights that keep the dark nights at bay; and constant enjoyment of music and art. But we must admit all these have also been at staggering costs to society. Economic inequality and scores of major wars over non-renewable resources have killed millions of people across the planet. Add to these, the steep increase in products in recent decades has accelerated pollutant emissions in enormous proportions, along with deforestation and climate breakdown. It certainly has depleted water supplies and vastly contributed to the rapid extinction of animals. As a common man, we know now that even if we accept the positives of mass consumption to date, we must acknowledge that the situation is unsustainable beyond any measure. And sadly yet, we cannot seem to stop ourselves.

As individuals, what could we do? Simple enough, we could start by adopting a ‘no (or slow) buy year’. There are a wide range of possible motivations for this kind of strategic living: an aesthetic sense of having more space with fewer things, a personal caring for sustainability of the environment, thrift, that is to save, and mindfulness, that is wanting to be more intentional in one’s life. My personal experience based on aesthetics and mindfulness seems to be bearing fruit, slowly but surely. While our current experiment is not necessarily minimalism-focused, it is surely a step towards need-based purchase rather than pleasure-based consumption. One aspect of consumer behaviour that is helpful to sustainability is to avoid buying plastic goods. Then there are others who practice avoidance of single-use gadgets, which is seen as a good approach to sustainability.

A new approach to anti-consumption through the use of apps is known as ‘Buy nothing’. Founded in 2013 and dedicated to the gift economy of sharing and loaning items among neighbours through this app, it has gained traction in North America. The Netflix movie entitled ‘The Minimalist: Less is Now’ helps comprehend the problem of overconsumption and ways to tackle the consequences in a gradual manner.

There are those, however, who argue that attacking consumption itself to solve the many problems of overconsumption is unlikely to succeed. They argue that consumerism has become a symbol of liberty and economic success in today’s world. Hence, the symbolic glow of consumption cannot be simply turned off. Then there are also those who think shopping for others is seen to embody or express care and love.

I should point out that there are serious arguments suggesting that the primary responsibility for solving environmental crises belongs to businesses and governments. Those who produce materials and those responsible for overseeing it can act at the scale necessary for real change. Individual actions simply cannot move the meter. Anna Cummins of the 5-Gyers Institute has rightly said, ‘Every little bit helps, but public policy and corporations have to change.’

Logically, it is understood that it is unrealistic to expect that most people in the societies in which we live will become adherents of voluntary simplicity. If we accept that overconsumption is problematic, then we must consider whether government regulations are needed to curb consumption affecting ecology, social cohesion, and personal well-being. It is a truth that existing government regulations in all societies already influence consumer decisions — for instance, high taxes on products like tobacco. It discourages consumption. Similarly, subsidies are often used to increase demand for products. Example: the US federal tax credit to buy electric vehicles, which reduces the environmental externalities of transportation and encourages a shift away from fossil fuels.

Hence, rather than dictating consumer behaviours, thoughtful regulations can encourage people to make choices that better align with social and personal wellbeing. In Bangladesh, with 170 million people and an economy that still needs to open to its full potential, it is time to seriously consider adoption of appropriate public policies to protect the environment and help shape healthy consumption behaviours of our people by regulating market dynamics, where appropriate, like advertising regulations. A good example is the banning of commercials during TV shows for students and children in Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Belgium. At least eight countries, including India, Mexico, France, and Japan, have instituted policies to limit children’s exposure to junk food advertisements. Similarly, unhealthy foods and drinks could be subject to higher taxation. Such policies would reduce obesity rates and healthcare costs.

Bangladesh has started anew its journey for a free democratic society. Its focus is the well-being of its people. Our new education and information policies could address these simple yet far-reaching measures without difficulty. We urge our government to accord necessary priority to address overconsumption and help shift our behaviours in the right direction.

Ìý

Humayun Kabir ([email protected]) is a former senior official of the United Nations in New York.