# To what extent should we limit what we make based on what people NEED? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075 "2010-05-02T22:51:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/61 "2010-05-05T17:40:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Greater reliance on recycling, more durable products. Regulations or some sort of tax break or other incentives to encourage the latter; capitalism perversely encourages flimsy products because replacing them profits the sellers. As for why; we live in a limited world and are using up resources faster that we are replenishing/recycling them. And the rest of the world is hardly going to willingly let us hog so great a percentage of the world’s resources. See, now I don’t think that’s a very compelling reason at all to “put the brakes on our idiotic, short-sighted consumption habits”. Seriously, what’s the rest of the world going to do about our overconsumption of resources? Conquer and enslave America? Hardly. Now, I could see a reasonable argument being made that we’re spending so much cash on crap that we’re unable to afford it, draining savings, accumulating debt, imperilling retirement, and hastening the complete economic collapse of society, with accompanying dogs and cats living in sin. _That_ would strike me as a somewhat supportable and potentially compelling argument in favor of trying to rein in idiotic gratuitous spending. That we’re out of raw materials, not so much - we can first loot other countries, and when they run dry (or arm up and refuse) then the recycling and alternative resources will become more attractive and fill in for the shortage of virgin first-choice raw materials, no problem. Of course, by whatever route we arrive at the conclusion that it would be nice if idiots wouldn’t buy so much crap, that still leaves us with the problem of how to get them to stop doing it. I maintain that no viable solution has been presented. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/62 "2010-05-05T23:07:19Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > See, now I don’t think that’s a very compelling reason at all to “put the brakes on our idiotic, short-sighted consumption habits”. Seriously, what’s the rest of the world going to do about our overconsumption of resources? Conquer and enslave America? Hardly.\ You don’t do it because anyone forces you to do it, you do it because it’s the right thing. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/63 "2010-05-05T23:12:08Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > You don’t do it because anyone forces you to do it, you do it because it’s the right thing. Who are you talking to? Each consumer individually? Or gigantic megacompany producers who are contractually committed to kill babies for profit? Or the government who doesn’t have anything to do with the issue at all unless they force people to do things? If you’re talking to the consumer, good for you. You’ll convince some people. You won’t convince me. You won’t convince enough people to save the planet. You’ll fail and we’ll all die. Or in my opinion you’ll fail and we won’t all die, but whichever. If you’re appealing to the corporation’s desire to do the right thing, then, well… If you’re appealing to the government, what do you expect them to _do_? ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/64 "2010-05-06T01:32:09Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > To you automobiles are nothing more than a method to move around the planet. To others they are a work of art, or a hobby, or just something that they enjoy. > > Here is a big hint, your values are not everyones values. What, exactly, is wrong with someone using their car to express their personality? Please tell me why that is wrong. (I don’t buy the prowess and power bit, so I’ll ignore it) And why are \*your \*values better than the values of a person who drives a SUV? > > Slee Well, OK, here’s another big hint. We all get to have different values and, if we like, debate them. That’s why we are in a forum called “Great Debates”. What’s wrong with using a car to express one’s personality is that a billion or so people live in crushing poverty, and we are wearing out our planet, and an SUV spends a great deal of energy. It’s like eating a feast in sight of starving people. Actually, now that gasohol is getting bigger and bigger, it’s actually _burning_ a feast in sight of starving people. I think anybody debating a point about values more or less has to be starting from a position of believing their values are better. Who promotes views they disapprove of, anonymously, for fun? But I’m not so sure I’m really doing so much better. I wish I was. Nevertheless, if somebody wants opinions regarding to what extent we should limit what we make based on what people need, it certainly makes sense to offer one. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/65 "2010-05-06T02:45:40Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > You don’t do it because anyone forces you to do it, you do it because it’s the right thing. People, in the aggregate, never do the right thing unless it’s also the thing most economically advantageous to them. That’s just human nature. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/66 "2010-05-06T03:01:21Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > That’s especially true if you start from a mindset of, “No one can tell ME what to do!” It’s not the people telling me what to do that I most worry about. It’s the people who demand that I listen to them and act accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/67 "2010-05-06T03:10:13Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > See, now I don’t think that’s a very compelling reason at all to “put the brakes on our idiotic, short-sighted consumption habits”. Seriously, what’s the rest of the world going to do about our overconsumption of resources? Conquer and enslave America? Hardly. No, just imitate us. We can’t hog all the resources if everyone else is acting equally hoggish; we can’t live the American lifestyle in it’s presently wasteful incarnation if every one else is also trying to do so. There just aren’t enough resources. > [@begbert2](#): > > That we’re out of raw materials, not so much - we can first loot other countries, and when they run dry (or arm up and refuse) then the recycling and alternative resources will become more attractive and fill in for the shortage of virgin first-choice raw materials, no problem. There aren’t enough resources in the world for that; alternative or otherwise. Not when more and more other nations are acting the same way. Not when we’ve burned through so much of our resource capital, and are likely to burn through most of what’s left before we try to change. We’ve already been looting other countries for decades. > [@begbert2](#): > > Of course, by whatever route we arrive at the conclusion that it would be nice if idiots wouldn’t buy so much crap, that still leaves us with the problem of how to get them to stop doing it. I maintain that no viable solution has been presented. What do you think? Force of law. Taxes and regulations. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/68 "2010-05-06T18:46:23Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > People, in the aggregate, never do the right thing unless it’s also the thing most economically advantageous to them. That’s just human nature. I know. It doesn’t mean that we _shouldn’t_ do the right thing, just that we rarely do. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/69 "2010-05-06T23:16:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, just imitate us. We can’t hog all the resources if everyone else is acting equally hoggish; we can’t live the American lifestyle in it’s presently wasteful incarnation if every one else is also trying to do so. There just aren’t enough resources. > > There aren’t enough resources in the world for that; alternative or otherwise. Not when more and more other nations are acting the same way. Not when we’ve burned through so much of our resource capital, and are likely to burn through most of what’s left before we try to change. We’ve already been looting other countries for decades. I think there are plenty of resources. Guess the discussion’s over and we don’t need to do anything? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Force of law. Taxes and regulations. What laws, forcing who? Who, and what, is taxed? What is regulated? Seriously, you can’t handwave this, because I think there _isn’t_ a way to tax or regulate this to a solution. I mean, what are you proposing here? Tax the populace so hard that they can only afford the bread and water necessities? Tax or regulate the corporations so hard that any that produce anything but bread and water necessities shut down? Pardon me if I think that we’re well into the realm of science fiction when we posit either a government that can muster the political will to shut down the sale of unnecessary items, _or_ a populace so docile that they’ll accept such constrictive behavior from their government. ---
**Author:** ![carm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@carm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carm)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/70 "2010-05-06T23:39:40Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I think there are plenty of resources. Guess the discussion’s over and we don’t need to do anything? Not if we _actually_ care about things like reducing third world poverty. The western lifestyle is only possible because [we use up the vast majority of the world’s resources.](http://www.globalissues.org/issue/235/consumption-and-consumerism) Whether this is immoral or not is subjective, but its as plain as day that if the rest of the world is going to ever get a quality of life similar to our own, we need to be vastly more efficient in the way we consume resources, or lower our levels of consumption. > [@](#): > > Today’s consumption is undermining the environmental resource base. It is exacerbating inequalities. And the dynamics of the consumption-poverty-inequality-environment nexus are accelerating. If the trends continue without change — not redistributing from high-income to low-income consumers, not shifting from polluting to cleaner goods and production technologies, not promoting goods that empower poor producers, not shifting priority from consumption for conspicuous display to meeting basic needs — today’s problems of consumption and human development will worsen. > > ``` > … The real issue is not consumption itself but its patterns and effects. > > … Inequalities in consumption are stark. Globally, the 20% of the world’s people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures — the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%. More specifically, the richest fifth: > > * Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5% > * Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4% > * Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5% > * Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1% > * Own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1% > > Runaway growth in consumption in the past 50 years is putting strains on the environment never before seen. > > ``` > [@begbert2](#): > > What laws, forcing who? Who, and what, is taxed? What is regulated? > > Seriously, you can’t handwave this, because I think there _isn’t_ a way to tax or regulate this to a solution. I mean, what are you proposing here? Tax the populace so hard that they can only afford the bread and water necessities? Tax or regulate the corporations so hard that any that produce anything but bread and water necessities shut down? Pardon me if I think that we’re well into the realm of science fiction when we posit either a government that can muster the political will to shut down the sale of unnecessary items, _or_ a populace so docile that they’ll accept such constrictive behavior from their government. Tax the destructive and unsustainable industries. Give tax breaks to industries that are sustainable. I completely agree that the political will isn’t there at the moment, but that’s not to say it _never_ will be. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/71 "2010-05-07T00:13:06Z")
> [@carm](#): > > Not if we _actually_ care about things like reducing third world poverty. The western lifestyle is only possible because [we use up the vast majority of the world’s resources.](http://www.globalissues.org/issue/235/consumption-and-consumerism) Whether this is immoral or not is subjective, but its as plain as day that if the rest of the world is going to ever get a quality of life similar to our own, we need to be vastly more efficient in the way we consume resources, or lower our levels of consumption. Our moral obligation to end third world poverty extends no further than getting them the needs, not the wants. And if we cared, from a resource perspective we could do that and _still_ hoard the vast majority of resources for ourselves - food’s not _that_ expensive. The problem is distribution, not supply. As for them getting a quality of life similar to our own dvd-player and SUV-laden one, that’s _their_ problem. But let’s suppose they gave it a decent shot - we have this nifty resource-allocation method called “capitalism”. It will pretty much _automatically_ redistribute our toys to the formerly third-world countries when they join us on the playing field. (Which is a fact which scares some people.) This fact means that I don’t need to be concerned in the slightest about taking additional steps to make this happen. When the resources become scarce, the prices will rise, and the average american will stop affording them. And there you have it - people will only have what they need. And then, better and better, industries will naturally seek ways to keep selling crap with the resources available. Efficiency will _automatically_ become a market priority, just because they can make more money if you can make more crap to sell to more people. So there you go - it’s self-correcting. > [@carm](#): > > Tax the destructive and unsustainable industries. Give tax breaks to industries that are sustainable. > > I completely agree that the political will isn’t there at the moment, but that’s not to say it _never_ will be. There won’t be the will until it’s too late to matter, you know that. And when that happens, the unsustainable industries will die on their own, being unsustainable and all. ---
**Author:** ![carm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@carm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carm)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/72 "2010-05-07T00:46:50Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Our moral obligation to end third world poverty extends no further than getting them the needs, not the wants. And if we cared, from a resource perspective we could do that and _still_ hoard the vast majority of resources for ourselves - food’s not _that_ expensive. The problem is distribution, not supply. > > As for them getting a quality of life similar to our own dvd-player and SUV-laden one, that’s _their_ problem. But let’s suppose they gave it a decent shot -\*\* we have this nifty resource-allocation method called “capitalism”. It will pretty much _automatically_ redistribute our toys to the formerly third-world countries when they join us on the playing field.\*\* (my bold) They are already on the playing field. They are hamstrung by a lack of manufacturing industries, and until they develop these, capitalism will hurt them more than help them. Its hard to get out of poverty if all you can do is grow bananas and coffee beans for export. > [@](#): > > There won’t be the will until it’s too late to matter, you know that. You might well be right, although I hope not. > [@](#): > > And when that happens, the unsustainable industries will die on their own, being unsustainable and all. The idea is to stop them _before_ it gets to this point. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/73 "2010-05-07T01:23:51Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > \ > And when that happens, the unsustainable industries will die on their own, being unsustainable and all. Part of the problem is what the unsustainable industries take with them when they go - how much of the world’s irreplaceable resources have been used up at that point? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/74 "2010-05-07T01:27:59Z")
[QUOTE=Cat Whisperer] Part of the problem is what the unsustainable industries take with them when they go - how much of the world’s irreplaceable resources have been used up at that point? [/QUOTE] A small fraction? Leaving that aside, and for the sake of argument assuming you are correct, what’s your solution to this? What do you propose as a more optimal system and which will provide people with all their needs? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/75 "2010-05-07T16:52:18Z")
There are tons of books on this subject; I suggest you start at your local library. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/76 "2010-05-07T18:13:27Z")
> [@carm](#): > > They are already on the playing field. They are hamstrung by a lack of manufacturing industries, and until they develop these, capitalism will hurt them more than help them. Its hard to get out of poverty if all you can do is grow bananas and coffee beans for export. What you describe is pretty much the definition of _not_ being on the playing field, in the context laid out in the post you were quoting. They aren’t playing with the big boys in any real sense because they _can’t_, which is why capitalism is leaving them high and dry rather than shifting all the wealth and prosperity from our pockets to theirs. And I think I made it pretty clear that as far as I’m concerned, getting out of poverty is _their_ problem. To the limited extent I feel any moral obligation to support them I’m only concerned about whether they’re starving, freezing, or ill. And I suspect that banana money _is_ sufficient to avoid these things to a basic degree, if it’s distributed properly. (Which it probably isn’t.) > [@carm](#): > > The idea is to stop them _before_ it gets to this point. Why? Is the argument that they’ll use up every scrap of usable material on the planet in the next few years and then we’ll all die in the cold, with nary a blanket left to wrap around us? Because I seriously don’t think this will happen. I think that as a material gets rare it becomes more expensive, deterring use and incentivising the use of more-available alternatives, resulting in an automatic shift away from sparse materials as necessary. Is the concern that the market shift will happen “too late” - such that rather than a gradual transition from SUVs to solar-powered bicycles, we’ll overnight go from all having full gas tanks to running completely dry, finding ourselves up a creek without a solar-powered paddle? In my opinion this is a more valid concern, but only somewhat - it’s only a problem for transitions that require significant infrastructure changes and where the shortage of resources catches us by surprise. And I think this is _not_ the case with peak oil - I think we’ll have plenty of time to start easing in alternate technologies as oil prices climb. Some people might find themselves priced out of the market for a while, but in my opinion most will be able to carry on one way or the other. Is the concern that no alternatives will be found? That when the last elephant is poached, there will be no more ivory, and that that’ll be the end of piano manufacture for lack of something to make the keys out of? Personally I don’t find this plausible. A lack of resources isn’t going to end society; we’ll power our cars with steam made by burning human feces if we have to, but powered they’ll be, or replaced by something else that also works, nonetheless. > [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > There are tons of books on this subject; I suggest you start at your local library. When I see something like this my brain translates this as “I have no argument to present; I concede.” If you _don’t_ mean to concede, you might try to find a different approach that I won’t interpret as a concession. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/77 "2010-05-07T20:31:52Z")
I took a bath and thought about this a bit more, and I have come up with two ideas - the first one is on the individual level - to continue on with and increase reduce, re-use, and recycle. Less consumption and less waste is a good thing at this point in human history. My second idea is that world resources and world pollution can’t be left in the hands of each country’s governments to oversee, in large part because their most over-riding concern is getting elected then getting re-elected. I’m not sure how to work this one without creating a world government that is just more of the same on a grander scale. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/78 "2010-05-07T20:44:23Z")
If you want to see changes in the individual behavior of any significant percentage of the population you’re going to have to incentivize it, at _least_ by creating manufactured demand for the behavior through advertising. And you wanna (forcibly) take the world resources and world pollution out of governments’ hands, without having land in some other governments’ hands? I hope you’re a theist, because you are literally calling for the intervention of an uncorruptible overarching power. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/79 "2010-05-07T21:33:00Z")
To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. Recipe for disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075/80 "2010-05-08T01:20:52Z")
Gandhi meets Ayn Rand. Recipe for disaster. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-we-limit-what-we-make-based-on-what-people-need/538075.md?page=5)