I love Consumerism. The idea of “I SHOP, therefore I AM” is a fantastic ego boost, so what’s not to like?

Wikipedia explains Consumerism as “a social and economic order that is based on the systematic creation and fostering of a desire to purchase goods and services in ever greater amounts”. Great, we all deserve a decent standard of living where we can afford the things that would make us happy. Yet, beyond a minimum threshold of poverty, money doesn’t buy happiness. Possessions may seem like a solution to your problems, but often they simply replace the ones they solve. As paychecks increase, lifestyle usually match those increases. This results in the same financial concerns, just with more stuff.

An obsession with owning things is a meager attempt to fill a vacuum. Buying that new computer or fancy car might momentarily shrink the hole. Yet, you quickly adapt to the new upgrades and the hole grows, enslaving you to earn higher and higher paychecks with no way out.

Let us get more technical. As Ray C. Anderson writes in his article “More Happiness, Less Stuff”, within the environmental community, there is widespread acceptance of the Ehrlich equation that establishes the relationship among four factors: population (P), affluence (A), technology (T), and environmental impact (I). The relationships are expressed in the famous Ehrlich impact equation: I=PxAxT (published in The Population Bomb by Paul and Anne Ehrlich). Many consider this equation immutable, and believe there is no way to break its iron grip on humanity. As any of the three independent variables grows, environmental impact increases.

How do we break the grip of this equation on the future of humankind? How do we rewrite the equation for a sustainable future?

One huge challenge to the global industrial system is to move the T (call it T1) from the numerator to the denominator (now call it T2). Renewable, recyclable materials fit the category, as does renewable energy. As technologies transition from T1 that belong in the numerator to T2 in the denominator, the equation changes to:

I = (P x A x T1)/T2 and impacts (I) are reduced.

As T2 displaces T1, the future looks very different.

But, what about the capital “A” for affluence? It suggests that affluence is an end in itself, satisfying unlimited “wants,” rather than “needs”. What if we converted “A” to “a”, signifying affluence to be a means to an end, and not the end in itself? Then the equation would read: I = . And what if societal changes and priorities allowed happiness to increase without more and more affluence? Then the equation, over time, could evolve to:

(P x a x T1)T2

More happiness with less stuff, all made sustainably. Now we have the impact equation for a sustainable future. People love the idea of more happiness, less stuff. So why do we find ourselves in the mess than we’re in, environmentally and socially speaking? How will we find our way out of it?

Industrialism—the industrial system of which we are each a part—developed in a different world from the one we live in today: fewer people, more plentiful natural resources, simpler lifestyles: less stuff. It made perfect sense to exploit nature to increase human productivity—300 years ago! These days, with people overly abundant and nature scarce and diminishing, industry moves, mines, extracts, shovels, burns, wastes, pumps and disposes of four million pounds of material to provide one average, middle-class American family their needs for a year. With the whole world aspiring to the American standard of living, that cannot go on and on and on in a finite Earth; and it is finite, you can see it from space; that’s all there is and there isn’t any more.

http://www.ourbreathingplanet.com/consumerism-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness/Credit: Excerpts from Ray C. Anderson’s article, and “How to Avoid Being Enslaved by Consumerism”

Assinale a alternativa CORRETA, de acordo com o texto: