Via utnereader:
“What we know is so vastly outstripped by what we don’t know.”- David Eagleman, PopTech 2010
Neuroscientist and best-selling author David Eagleman introduces the concept of Possibilianism, a new philosophy that simultaneously embraces a scientific toolbox while exploring new, unconsidered uncertainties about the world around us.
We’re always looking for emerging ideas, and this is the most emergent of the day.
Via unconsumption:
Unconsumption — this site, this project — does not think you are ridiculous.
That simple point is worth articulating, because so many efforts to advance positive ideas about positive consumer behavior seems to take the opposite view. The ad above (via Adfreak) is an example of everything this project is NOT about.
It’s unclear to me why it is that when ad-makers do work on behalf of an idea such as “don’t waste energy,” they choose to shift into a lecturing, tedious mode, accusing anyone who fails to play along of being stupid, or in this case “ridiculous.”
Advertising that sells the idea of buying a brand of sneaker, e-tablet, or deodorant, NEVER takes this tone. Advertising that is geared toward consumption invariably suggests that by purchasing a certain product you will be better, smarter, sexier, a superior human being, you will be more efficient, you will enjoy life, you will be happier, you will get laid more often, you will be funnier, you will smile with joy, you will sleep with contentment, you will live your dreams, you will touch the transcendent, you will be a part of progress itself.
Such advertising tries to persuade, to seduce. It is, in a word … advertising.
For some reason that escapes me, advertising on behalf of genuinely positive behavior does not seem like “normal” advertising at all. It is not persuasion or seduction. It is, like this ad, a belittling, condescending, insulting lecture. It literally attacks the viewer. And as an obvious result, it practically begs to be ignored, or rejected, with a hearty middle finger.
Why?
Why can’t advertising agencies, clearly well versed in making the most mundane and idiotic and even harmful products seem incredibly sexy and desirable and redemptive, perform the same function on behalf of things that are actually good?
This – Rob’s rant – helps explain why I find the Unconsumption project – the idea, the Tumblr site – so appealing.
Via unconsumption [a group project I – Molly – am happy to say I’m involved with]:
So, I was part of a panel discussion tonight, and Unconsumption came up, and people seemed interested and it occurs to me that I should put a quick note here.
I’ve written up the backdrop of this project many times, but the short version is that I made up the word “unconsumption” in a column I wrote about Freecycle, which mused on the idea that perhaps sometimes getting rid of stuff could feel as good as acquiring it — emotionally, as it were.
This fed into some other things I was thinking about at the time, and led me to ponder the idea of “Unconsumption” as a sort of brand, an “invisible badge,” an idea attached not to products or services but to mindful consumer behavior: recycling, reuse, etc.
I managed to convince several wonderful volunteers to join with me in the first step, which is basically this Tumblr — the idea here is nothing more than to offer fun, pleasing, inspiring, upbeat examples of the ideas noted above. Wherever this project goes — and believe me, we have ideas about that — I wanted the first step to be something engaging and enjoyable.
Not a lecture. Not an admonition to eat your vegetables or stop being such a bad person.
My thinking is that if Unconsumption is ever to get anywhere as an idea, it needs to feel, from the start, like a positive idea.
That’s what this Tumblr is about.
So if you heard me chat about this tonight, please poke around here, read the notes in the sidebar about this could mean, follow along, send us your thoughts, be part of the ride.
As mentioned tonight, it’s a small volunteer effort, and it’s not against anything. Who knows what might happen? Not me.
— Rob Walker
Via murketing:
unconsumption: Why simply “feeling like part of the solution” matters
Probably, if you care about climate change and ecologically responsible consumer behavior, you’ve encountered articles that explain why this or that purchase or action is really not all that helpful. Possibly, you’ve encountered that very sentiment in writing by, um, me [Rob Walker]. Which might make you wonder what the point of Unconsumption really is — it would be easy to characterize this project as a “feel good” effort.
Well, I was listening today to an episode of a radio show with a focus on psychology and sociology, titled “Climate change and behavioral change: What Will It Take?” And while it included a number of rather discouraging moments explaining the problems of reconciling human nature with the sort of changes that need to happen, it also included a passage I want to share with you that will I hope explain the underpinnings of Unconsumption.
The host brings up the subject of carbon emissions, and one of her guests, Joseph Reser, who teaches psychology at Griffith University, muses on the tendency of research to discount the worth of any consumer behavior that doesn’t definitively impact carbon emissions:
To me as a psychologist that just seems a bit crazy. I think we should be talking about psychologically significant responses, psychologically significant behaviours. And the reality is they work together, if a person engages in a particular behaviour they not only feel good about it but it has other benefits. For example people think that the really meaningful behaviour is recycling but actually recycling doesn’t have that much of a consequence in terms of CO2 emissions. And so a person who thinks about environmentally significant behaviour would say, “Well look that’s just kind of self therapy, it doesn’t really help very much.” I’m of the view that any behaviours that are pro-environmental behaviours but that are psychologically meaningful are really important and all of those actions have real benefits.
One of the ways in which people cope with what they could well believe is an apocalyptic threat, and maybe that will be the reality, is that they want to do something about it, they need to do something about it. And I think it’s terribly important that they take some kind of action. And that action might not have a direct spin-off in terms of reducing carbon emissions, but it’s psychologically very important. It’s motivating, validating and they can feel they are part of the solution as well as part of the problem, so it’s a very important way of coping with climate change.
You can check out the entire show, or transcript, here. (Via Mindhacks.) But that basic spirit is part of what this project is, to me at least, all about.
It’s crucial to be aware of the ways that human nature — rational or no — gets in the way of solving the problem.
It’s also crucial to be aware of the ways that human nature — rational or no — can help us be part of the solution.