Ken
Marquart
Our Desire for Stuff
“What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?”
— Henry David Thoreau
​
My daughter is more interested in things than her brother. She generates lists of toys and electronics wanted for an upcoming birthday or holiday. As parents, we are cognizant of the implications of the accumulation of stuff. As such, we emphasize that family and experiences, and subsequent memories that we formulate together, are more important than material possessions. However, that message is often overlooked by those who spoil our children. I struggle with such times, as I think about the environmental impact of producing such goods, the amount of waste generated by the packaging and the goods themselves, the obsolescence of electronics and the throw away culture that has developed in North America. All of the issues that I struggle with when contemplating the birthday wishes of a 6-year-old are a microcosm of the global struggles of economic development and consumerism that is sustainable.
One of the byproducts of mass consumerism is the generation of waste. Stromberg’s article, “When will we Hit Peak Garbage?”, states that the generation of waste will continue to rise until 2100. The article illustrates that the many detriments include a higher concentration of plastic in our waterways, improper handling and dumping of potentially harmful waste and waste incineration, which contributes to air pollution. The increasing generation of waste is a direct result of the increasing acquisition of goods.
​
​
Additionally, due to the low cost of many products, it is less expensive to dispose of broken phones, appliances, etc. than to have them repaired. In his article, “Our obsolescent economy: modern capitalism and ‘throwaway culture’“, Gorelick states that “e-waste – the most toxic component of household detritus – is growing almost seven times faster than other forms of waste. Despite recycling efforts, an estimated 140 million cell phones – containing $60 million worth of precious metals and a host of toxic materials – are dumped in US landfills annually”. This staggering statistic’s specificity reveals a greater issue. There is much more electronic waste inundating landfills globally. With the instant obsolescence and relative low cost of laptops, printers and a host of other products, coupled with recycling depots that may seem inconvenient, the growing amount of e-waste is a major concern.
​
Although we are consuming more, it is ironic that the idea that money can’t buy one happiness exists. It was often thought that a correlation exists between materialistic inclinations and negative well-being, but a causal relationship is difficult to determine. Demonstrating this relationship was the purpose of four experiments designed by Northwestern University graduate students, as outlined in “Cuing Consumerism: Situational Materialism Undermines Personal and Social Well-Being“. Their experiments, largely conducted on university students, “consistently document the adverse, causal effects of materialistic thinking on personal and social well-being” (Bauer et al.).
​
Graham Hill’s Ted Talk entitled “Less Stuff, More Happiness” reiterates this idea, but he expands on this and states that we have three times the amount of space in terms of the square footage of our homes compared to 50 years ago, yet the storage unit industry is a 22 billion dollar industry. Thus, we have larger residences, which house more products, yet many people require additional storage.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Interestingly, the Globe and Mail published the chart below ranking average home size by nation. The alarming statistic, which is not included in the graph below, is the fact that the average number of people per household is decreasing, while home sizes are increasing. According to a Statistics Canada report, “The average number of children per family decreased from 2.7 in 1961 to 1.9 in 2011. During the same period, the average number of people per family declined from 3.9 in 1961 to 2.9 in 2011.” As a result of cross-referencing the report, the chart below and the Stromberg article, it’s alarming that the average number of household inhabitants is declining, yet we are living in larger homes and subsequently purchasing more goods, thereby consuming more resources, producing more waste and possibly living a less joyful life.
In addition to personal changes, societal change must occur. This, as Mulligan notes when referencing Hawken, must begin at the grass roots level as “political action…starts with the decision to join local and connected movements for sustainable living” (26). However, at a global level, there has to be a paradigm shift away from measuring economic growth by examining countries’ GDPs due to the fact that this “does not generate the data we need to assess progress on making national economies more sustainable” (Mulligan 26).