apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Actually, vilifying consumption isn't the worst thing one could do...if it means taking a closer look a the marketing/capitalist machine that keeps promoting consumption as "green" or as "patriotic" or as "needed economic stimulus."

The issue of consumption is not about being "green" and "sustainable." It's about who is making money off of increasing the desire to buy 50-pairs of organic cotton jeans or redecorating the house every 3-years (as opposed to 25-years) with green-items from JCP/Danny Seo.

Were that the American capitalist/entrepreneurial impulse visionary enough to create value/profit by meeting real social/human needs instead of the material consumer culture that we have today... And its pretty bloody unlikely that any legislative action is going to address changing the focus of American style capitalism. Read some Benjamin Barber.

Yeah, call me glass half-empty.

I think the article was meant to be a little bit of a shocker for readers of the Wall St. Journal, which I think is a good thing. I wish it offered more solutions and less indictments, personally.

I too love consuming. If I must give it up, I need some creative thoughts on how that can work for me. I'm not going to turn into an aesthete living on a mountain in a shack, nor am I going to replace the satisfaction that buying great things brings with a religious renewal. So what then? We need to re-envision our lives, our values, and personally, I could use some help with that.

I also think that it's highly unlikely the US government is going to pass any laws that encourage the curtailing of consumerism. That's just not their scene. It's up to us.

There's a big difference in doing something b/c it's trendy vs doing something b/c it makes environmental sense. The article is just mocking the former. For example, CSAs are getting more popular. I'd love to join a CSA, but the closest one to me is almost an hour away by car. It'd be "trendy" to join, but I don't b/c it really doesn't make environmental sense for me.

I'm much more of the lazy environmentalist (I like my comfortable middle class lifestyle), but I believe that the little things that I do (e.g. bringing totes to the grocery store) are still better than not doing them. I actually bring my water bottle to fast food type restaurants so that I don't use a disposable cup. Certainly not trendy -- I get weird looks from time to time -- but I do it b/c I'm motivated to consume less.

I didn't find the article so hopelessly depressing that it drove me to drink. I agree with the first commenter, "villifying consumption" isn't the worst thing going on here. We do need a serious conversation about consumption.

But just as the WaPo article relies on exagerrated examples of green shopaholics, your own statement that "we don't have enough space to all become subsistence farmers" is hyperbolic in the extreme. Let's abandon the poles and meet somewhere in the middle. We do all have to consume some things; we do need alternative products to fill the void left by those which contribute to environmental degradation. We also need to look seriously at why our culture seeks satisfaction at the bottom of a (plastic) shopping bag.

Maybe the reason why you find this article so depressing is that this is a site that is mostly product promotion? (And, I presume, dependent on advertising?)

Instead of that organic beer, maybe the Re-Nest writers could find some inspiration and a challenge in the earlier commenter's call for help. SFGail said: "We need to re-envision our lives, our values, and personally, I could use some help with that."

Maybe it's time for a Re-Nest sponsored "Green Cure"? It could address not only what cool "green" products we can buy, but also why we are buying things to begin with. It could look at the wide range of approaches aimed at our collective shopping frenzy: from buying organic & fairtrade, to bartering, the Compacters, the simple living movement, the slow movement, the "buy handmade" pledge, etc. These all encourage mindful consumption, but we don't need a "movement", a pledge, or a label to create a community based on improving our world. It's about values.

In terms of "what this site is about" (re-nest and apartmenttherapy in general), I feel that the sites are becoming very "product" oriented and less "solution" oriented.

Sure, sometimes solutions means you have to buy something (I just bought curtain rods the other day - nothing green about that). But its to fix a real need/issue - too much morning light in my bedroom in my case.

For a "green" site and for AT in general my favorite posts focus on doing more with less. Green hacks. Design hacks.

Yes, I agree JenPDX. I really love AT when it illustrates ingenuity. Ingenuity of making do with less--less space, less things, less energy, but also demonstrates how you can still live in a beautiful place without more. I can do without the over expensive fluff.

My favorite things are the house tours. Which unfortunately have been very scarce on Re-nest.

I agree w/brownpenny & JenPDX - a green cure is a great way to start. Solutions and ideas to inspire various ways to be green - not just buying new "stuff", but working with what you have, and identifying ways to change what you shouldn't. I think the "Cure" could easily be modified for re-Nest, and give it the boost that it seemingly needs. I think that is what readers are looking for when they visit the sites, not just more products to add to their home.

Just posted about this; been thinking about Hesse's article since last week's publication. I disagree that Hesse's aim is to demonize consumption and suggest subsistence farming. Brownpenny said it well: that reaction is extreme. Rather, her piece smacks of satire -- well-met satire, to say the least -- as it has generated scads of buzz. People tend to get twitchy when they are asked, or told, to reduce their consumption. It's guilt-inducing. It makes us confront our ethics.

Your thoughts?