See Nitin's comment on earlier blog here.
I agree that consumerism is a good thing. Car, flights etc are neccessary things which are offering value (such as reduced travel time) and has an associated cost. Ofcourse, people can travel by train rather than the plane and spend the money thus saved into philanthropic causes. People have done that and are doing that. But thats not I would expect from anybody or everybody.
Dogs, however, serve a different need, that in my opinion can be substituted in most of the cases. Perhaps, thats my perception and prior experiences with dogs and their owners. Most of them treat their dog as their (super)kid and flant them. They also believe their dog is superior to many poor kids living in the neighbourhood. This was in reference to these scenarios.
Dogs also serve other needs that can't be substituted such as aid to blind persons, sniffer dogs and other specialized roles. Its not about that.
Consumerism is good for society so long as it remains within reasonble realm. Its good as long as it does not strain resources. If resources are plentiful, consumerism is good. If resources are scarce, proper measure ought to be taken. Imaging water scarcity driving water prices to $20 per liter. Would you say that poor have no right to drink water since they can't afford it? Would you say in that scenario that water industry is creating lot of jobs and lots of money for shareholders so its good for ecnomony? You could say the same about opium trade. (in negative sense, though. They generated lots of jobs and lots of money. But do we want it?)
With money comes responsibility. Atleast for those, who understand that money isn't everything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Rupak,
Some points:
1. "They also believe their dog is superior to many poor kids living in the neighbourhood."
Maybe. You just cannot generalize on the basis of a few observations. BTW, I do not own or plan to own a dog.
2. "Its good as long as it does not strain resources. If resources are plentiful, consumerism is good. If resources are scarce, proper measure ought to be taken."
Disagree. When consumerism strains resources, you have innovation. Would anyone be looking at alternative energy if fuel reserves were unlimited and abundant? And what can those measures you suggest be like? SHould the government interfere? Who will be the regulator and decide good or bad?
I am not trying to say free markets are the solution to each problem. At the same time, a dog is equal to so many kids' education is also not the right perspective in which we should be viewing things.
3. "You could say the same about opium trade. (in negative sense, though. They generated lots of jobs and lots of money. But do we want it?)"
The case of dogs is nowhere equivalent to opium trade.
4. "Imaging water scarcity driving water prices to $20 per liter. Would you say that poor have no right to drink water since they can't afford it?"
Scarcity of water driving up the prices is an entirely different scenario from people not able to afford their kids education as other people have pet dogs.
Maybe you would like reading something I wrote about Outsoucing at:
http://nitnblogs.blogspot.com/2005/12/future-of-indian-bpo-kpo-and-it.html
Well, scenario is not "people not able to afford their kids education as other people have pet dogs".
The scenario is "people have pet dogs while we still have 80 million child labourers". The affordability is not an argument here. Its not education, its right to live.
In general, an average Indian tend to do much less to philanthropic causes than an average American. Perhaps, we should start thinking about these kids.
I'm not against those who happen to like the company of a indiscriminate barking synthetic creature as long as they leave me in peace. (Somehow dogs and mosquitos have a liking to my flesh).
I generalized the equation to highlight the problem and was in no way suggesting a solution.
Solution, probably, is free and comsulsory education with enough incentives built into so that even poor will be willing to send their kids. But thats government...
BTW, I like free markets. I wish whole world become one free market. But, I would also like a regulator just to make sure that basic rights (to me which include education) are not compromised.
On the energy point, cost of alternate energy is high. If oil keeps climbing, alternate energy may someday will become cheaper than oil and we will finally have more of it. Had their been no Kyoto protocol and no carbon credits, people wouldn't have stopped burning coal and oil. They haven't still, but they pay for it now. Economics has much bigger role here than innovation. I believe you will agree with me here.
Post a Comment