I would like to clarify my view on the criticizing of “expensive toys”. I do not think that we should confine ourselves to spartan conditions and reject all of the modern conveniences and amusements. Still, I strongly believe that reducing the number of unnecessary purchases can definitely make the world better.
I think that while a lot of factors are responsible for this belief in its current form, it can definitely be traced to the views held in my family and in part to my upbringing. For as long as I can remember, my father was constantly challenging me with questions regarding the toys I was begging to buy. Not that he was reluctant to spend money – he was just trying to teach me to resist the hype and the childish craze to get every shining token without considering its real value. “Why do you want it?”, “What’s so good about it?” and “How are you going to make use of it?” were the most common questions. Again, I don’t want to make a false impression that he was greedy or anything – instead, we calmly discussed the good things about the purchase and decided if it was worth it. It was only later in life when I started to realize the impact of his questions on my worldview.
As soon as I could make my own decisions about my expenses, I immediately noticed that people around me all treat shopping differently. Most commonly (or so it seems to me), they make decisions driven by the urge, the marketing pitch, or the fleeting impression (like hearing one of their friends saying something good about the product). At some point, it looked unnecessarily luxurious for me, but I soon discovered that I was actually the one who was different. My first reaction was “I am probably wrong” (I am not terribly self-confident, I must admit), so I decided to overcome my “close-mindedness.” However, I soon noticed that while the “shopping spree” was sometimes entertaining, the things I bought rarely gave me satisfaction beyond the first days of ownership. They often turned out to occupy space in my room. In other words, they were a needless expense.
Somewhere at that point in my life, I first heard about enough – an approach that suggested buying only what you need instead of what you can allow (Haq par. 2). Aside from being easily aligned with my perception, it suggests environmental benefits. It turns out that the seeming accessibility beyond many goods and services, including food and clothing, is hard-bought by tremendous efforts somewhere in the world. Essentially, buying more cheap goods leads to greater demand and prompts big companies to seek ways to further decrease production costs, leading to tougher conditions for workers and more desperate ways of extracting resources.
Again, I don’t want to sound too opinionated. I understand that a lot of environmental claims are over-exaggerated and complicated by political matters (Black par. 3). Nevertheless, the idea of doing something that minimizes my expenses at no consequences to others is extremely appealing to me. If this also means at least some benefits – like in the case of eliminating unnecessary purchases – it becomes both pleasant and objectively valuable. I understand how small my contribution is, and do not want to create an impression that I justify my “modest consumerism” with fancy terms – I still think I could do more to make a difference. Nevertheless, if just a bit of rational consideration stands behind every purchase – I believe the effort is well paid by the tiniest improvement it makes to the world around.
Works Cited
Black, Brian. Who Politicized the Environment and Climate Change? 2016. Web.
Haq, Gary. Enoughism – The Route to Happiness? 2009. Web.