We don't need stuff.

That might seem counter-intuitive but if you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, there is never mention of stuff, just the list of services that stuff may provide us.

So a car provides mobility and, for some of us, a perception of wealth and/or sophistication, for others a hobby. But the car itself isn't necessarily needed to deliver those wants and needs.

What we need to do is:

1. look at ways of fulfilling needs with little/no stuff - ie shifting from a product to the associated service: eBooks, MP3s, video conferencing etc.

2. address the social perception that ownership is required to fulfil those needs (or enhances the experience of fulfilling needs).

If we could do this then we can decouple economic activity and the flow of stuff.

Gareth Kane
http://www.greenbusinessbible.co.uk

You folks that promote 'green' business are to be commended, but the fragmentation in your chosen field (which you apparently do little to smoothen) and your refusal to consider work from others who seemingly aren't a part of your 'clique' is truly disturbing.

Thirty years ago Walter Stahel of the Product-Life Insitute began showing the world how buying less can result in an increase in product life, a decrease in raw material use, a substantial increase in profits and employment, and a resulting increase in the quality of life.

Practices such as remanufacturing (seen in Caterpillar) and recycling (Interface Inc.) as well as servicizing (seen in many industries) provide ready examples of how buying less does more.

Stop trying to re-invent the wheel and disregarding the work of many highly-qualified giants in the process.

Mike

Now that I know about the book "I Want That," I want it. Now what?! (Anyone have a copy I could borrow?)

Shana McCracken

For Shana McCracken, here's a potential source--your nearest library. Just go to this link, plug in your zip code and WorldCat will tell you the nearest library that has this book:
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/51094629

Cheerio!
Jonathan Betz-Zall
http://ecolibrarian.org

i am willing to pay more for a product i know will last longer and is reusable or recyclable than a less expensive version.

Whether or not this idea has already been thought of, I am very thankful that this discussion is taking place.

It could be that I haven't been around long enough to see patterns and cycles, but it truly feels like there is a major shift taking place and that out of sheer necessity, businesses & consumers will be/are finally changing in order to be more sustainable, socially & environmentally responsible.

Business models set up to exploit human and natural resources cannot be sustainable and should not be acceptable.

Thank you so much Joel for writing this article! And thanks to Jonathan above for providing the library link. Cool resource!

Teresa
(http://amomentofchoice.blogspot.com/)

I find Norman Myers statement about becoming "wealthy enough to begin consuming like Americans" - both insulting and naive. Once people in any country get their basic needs met, they will continue to have disposable income, which will be spent on "luxury goods". It is ridiculous to think that people will consume less as their incomes rise -regardless of their home country.

Instead of fighting this desire to better oneself by providing luxuries for one's family, companies should do a better job in creating products that are biodegradable, contain less wasteful packaging and are made of post-consumer recycled material.

Whether there is an onslaught of advertising messages or an item spreads virtually, people will always search for the new gizmo or gadget that can make them feel better, younger, more virile, etc. If not made in America, the products will most certainly come from Europe or Asia.

Perhaps by creating a stigma for products that are not environmentally-friendly, one can change consumers' tastes over the long run, which is much more realistic option than burying one's head in the sand and wishing consumption away.

------------------------------
Robert Piller is President of EcoMarketingSolutions.com, which helps companies promote their brand and image at trade shows and in direct mail with environmentally-friendly imprinted promotional products that won't end up in landfills. His blog is at greenspotblog.com.

While I am as happy as the next person to whack at the marketing folks (confession: I used to be one) another culprit not discussed here is the increasing inclusion of sophisticated technology into our products. To the good, this technology lets us do all kinds of cool new stuff (look at phone apps), save energy (the computer in your car; the chips in your refrigerator, and improve our health (check the machines at your local health club). But, on the downside, the product life is often dictated by the lifecycle of the technology inside.

A telephone used to be a once in a lifetime purchase; now we "upgrade" our cell phones every two years or less. A television was a 20-year purchase; now you can expect on to last five years or so. Why do I have to toss my entire laptop every 3 - 4 years when the keyboard, casing, and cords are just fine?

We need to think differently about technology and develop the hardware and software that will let the durable parts of products be durable and those components that should/must be upgraded more frequently be easily serviced.

On another front, we need to shed our fixation with low cost. One way to cut physical consumption without collapsing the economy would be to pay a bit more for fewer things. We might even be able to manufacture at decent wages in the developed world if we would embrace having "fewer better" instead of "more cheaper." This was the European standard for a long time (at least in clothing) in part because of limited storage space in older apartments. It can be done and, with careful selection, you can even look stylish doing it.

In an economy based on consumption, which I agree is completely unsustainable, who pays for the jobs when we become sensible and reduce our consumption to the carrying capacity of the Earth? In our current recession, people have stopped buying and in response businesses have been laying off workers. The unemployed can't afford to buy - so more workers are laid off.

We need a completely different economic model based on creating value for each other and our communities. As long as our economy is based on creating things that people buy, there will be enormous hardship when people attempt to reduce their consumption.

The fundamental problem is that today's economic models, based on outdated market-capitalist models, were not intended to account for environmental damages or environmental impacts. Hence, once our economies are re-tooled to incorporate the real cost of shipping kiwis from New Zealand to Canada (ie: sulphur dioxide emissions from bunker fuel and other impacts)will we move in the right direction. At the moment, we are nowhere near this as today's Finance Ministers' indicator for social well-being continues to be measured by wealth in dollar terms (as opposed to wealth of friends, repsect in society, etc.).

Grace Barrasso