In a September 2008 article in the Journal of Business Research, William Kilbourne makes the case that materialism negatively impacts the environment. He opens his argument by stating that "In market economies, self-interest governs behavior, and the pay off for behavior is higher if individual acts in his/her own self-interest regardless of what others do." He goes on to say that market economies brainwash consumers by offering materialism as a one-dimensional model of the "good life." This, according to him, establishes enhancement values (where one only cares about themselves) instead of transcendent values (where one cares about other people/things rather than themselves). Since our values determine our beliefs, and our beliefs determine our actions, the result is consumers making consumption without regard to the environment (products which aren't "green"). He then states, "Still today, economic growth underpins the American way of life, and that requires materialism as a dominant value. Furthermore, materialism is expanding on a global scale to the point where it is becoming a global phenomenon, which puts the entire planet at imminent risk." His conclusion calls for an expanded approach to consumer policy that would "involve changes in both consumer and production policy relating to both the quantity and quality of goods produced and consumed. Promotion of voluntary simplicity would become part of consumer policy." In other words, he sees the reversal of economic growth as a primary strategy in establishing environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) among consumers (consume products which are "green"). In what way(s) would an economist criticize this theory, and what solution would that economist offer instead promote more ERB among consumers?
In a September 2008 article in the Journal of Business Research, William Kilbourne makes the case that materialism negatively impacts the environment. He opens his argument by stating that "In market economies, self-interest governs behavior, and the pay off for behavior is higher if individual acts in his/her own self-interest regardless of what others do." He goes on to say that market economies brainwash consumers by offering materialism as a one-dimensional model of the "good life." This, according to him, establishes enhancement values (where one only cares about themselves) instead of transcendent values (where one cares about other people/things rather than themselves). Since our values determine our beliefs, and our beliefs determine our actions, the result is consumers making consumption without regard to the environment (products which aren't "green"). He then states, "Still today, economic growth underpins the American way of life, and that requires materialism as a dominant value. Furthermore, materialism is expanding on a global scale to the point where it is becoming a global phenomenon, which puts the entire planet at imminent risk." His conclusion calls for an expanded approach to consumer policy that would "involve changes in both consumer and production policy relating to both the quantity and quality of goods produced and consumed. Promotion of voluntary simplicity would become part of consumer policy." In other words, he sees the reversal of economic growth as a primary strategy in establishing environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) among consumers (consume products which are "green"). In what way(s) would an economist criticize this theory, and what solution would that economist offer instead promote more ERB among consumers?
