The Lust to Consume
Questioner: Sir, you say that the only solution to climate change is to arrest man’s tendency to consume. Tomorrow, if science comes up with a way to let current levels of consumption sustain, along with also reducing carbon emission, what is wrong with that?
Acharya Prashant: What the questioner is saying is, that you speak against consumption because it leads to climate change. Now if we can have superior technology, more efficient technology, which offers us sustenance of our current levels of consumption, along with carbon footprints reduction, would that be acceptable? That's being asked.
You see, first of all, yes we do need such technology. So, I wish the question materializes beyond its hypothesis. We do need technology that offers at least the same level of production with lower carbon footprints. So that is one part.
Next thing, when I say that you must look very carefully at your levels of consumption, it is for two reasons. Your question addresses just one of them.
Why must man consume with careful consideration? Firstly, it destroys your inner world. Inwardly, it pushes you deeper into the belief that by means of more and more, increased and increased consumption, you will be able to get rid of your inner disquiet. So, it is not good for you inwardly, that’s the first reason.
The second reason is, all consumption comes from this ecosystem, this planet and in the lust of our blind consumption, we destroy life for everybody. That is very loveless, there is no compassion in that, that is inhuman and that is also not sensible for our own continuation. When we have destroyed the whole thing so badly, then you know the implications it has posed on us. Man himself is not probably going to continue on this planet beyond at most fifty or hundred years if the current crisis continues to amplify.
In your question, you have only addressed the second reason, not the first one. Even if there is a technology that allows you consumption without carbon, still the first reason is important enough for me, to ask you to lower your consumption levels. Optimize them for your own welfare.
You could hypothetically argue that, "Sir, you talked of depletion of natural resources, what if mankind discovers another planet with ample resources or resources far greater in quantities than those found on Earth, then would consumption be justified?" No, still not.
Even if there is great technology or even if man succeeds in colonizing some other planet, still one thing would remain very vicious about consumption, which is that you consume for a very horrible and false reason.
There is a consumption that is needed for basic physical sustenance and comfort, all right. And then there is consumption that happens for entirely different psychological reasons. It is the second type of consumption that I am always worried about. And that worry would continue to have relevance, more and more relevance, as technology progresses.
As technology progresses, you will probably be able to consume more with impunity. And that would give you the license to totally forget the real cause of your troubles.
You would attribute your problems to lower levels of consumption, which are low only in your own personal and misplaced estimate. And then you will say, "Because I do not consume as much as my neighbor or as much as my cousins, that's why I don’t feel well." And this kind of false diagnosis and false treatment would keep you sick within, even if everything else outside is somehow managed through science and technology.
The exteriors would probably be then alright, it would be green and the carbon levels would be manageable, and all those things would appear externally alright. But your internal world would continue to be in shambles. A shattered mass of glass. Would you want that?
So, those who can have concerns beyond their well-being, to them, I say, please look carefully at your consumption levels for the sake of everybody.
And to those who would rather firstly think of their own self-interest, to them I find it more profitable to say, well your own inner wellness does not lie in consuming more. It rather lies in consuming just the right thing and giving up on, renouncing all the rest. If something is indeed useful in your personal internal welfare, who can sensibly say that you must not take it in? Fine, go ahead and achieve it, get for yourself more and more of it.
But that's not the case. The stuff that we take in, honestly ask yourself, how much of it is really doing you any inner good? They are not even neutral in that sense. If you will closely investigate, you will find that they are doing you inner harm. Therefore, for this purely personal reason too, one must consume in an optimal way.
Questioner: Without consumption, how will the economies and the systems run? What will people do if industries are not there? How will they get work?
Acharya Prashant: We are not talking of that extreme case. We are not saying that consumption has to be reduced to zero or that consumption has to be necessarily reduced to even half. No, that’s not what we are saying. It is obvious that as long as man exists, man will consume. That’s a lot of mankind. Even before we consume anything man-made, we continue to consume, for example, air, every minute. You take it in and then you consume some part of it, and you then let the rest of it come out, right? You consume water, you consume sunlight.
So, it’s not as if consumption can be brought to zero, or that it is something evil that needs to be totally eliminated. No, that's not anybody’s position. We are talking of the right kind of consumption because ultimately, you see, you would agree that all consumption is for your own welfare. And if consumption is for your welfare, it is not the consumption that's the end, it is the welfare that's the end.
What should we then really measure? Our levels of consumption or our levels of welfare? Even if you say that we must measure consumption, you measure consumption assuming that it will lead to welfare, right? And if even consumption holds value, because it possibly contributes to welfare, then why not directly measure welfare itself?
And that's what we often forget to do. We start counting the items we have consumed, the quantities we have consumed, rather than what those items and quantities have really given us. We start feeling as if consumption itself is the final thing. As if you have consumed something, that itself means that you have gained in value from that thing. That’s not really necessary.
There is food that you take in, that contributes to your physical wellbeing, and there is food that you take in that totally breaks you down, destroys you. Whereas the consumed quantities might be the same. You take in 50 grams of food items and food items of a kind that build you up. And you take an equal quantity, 50 grams of food item that will destroy you and poison you.
The consumption, purely in terms of quantity, has remained the same. But the final effect on your welfare has been drastically different, so that's ought to be measured. And if you are talking of right consumption, obviously there will be things to produce, so obviously, there would be industries and employment, and then people would have a higher purpose to be employed for. No?
If you have an industry that is, very carefully, with love and wisdom, manufacturing stuff or providing services that are really useful to everybody, then won’t people be eager to work there?
And obviously, it’s not that such an industry will not make profits. If it is providing you something that you really need, why won’t it make profits? It would make profits first thing, and secondly, people who are working there would have something real to work for. Otherwise, you know how the normal employee feels in the average firm.
So that's the thing we are asking for. We are not saying that the economy is evil and it needs to be destroyed. We are saying we need economics from a different 'center'. Because all economics is ultimately for the welfare of human beings. Therefore, we need to measure our inner welfare as a very important, the most important thing in economics. We are talking of that kind of economics; we are talking of sensible economics.
You see, there are several countries that are, for example, military countries, they operate from a center of national security, their overarching narrative is that it's a national security paradigm. They are great consumers, often, of military hardware. What's the point? And you also have countries that benefit a lot from defense exports, what's the point?
If all that you have to measure is consumption, then why do we ban cigarettes or tax them so heavily, why? If consumption is all that counts, then why don’t you allow certain things to be manufactured, or certain services to be provided? Let everything happen freely and you can count everything as consumption.
I am again asking you, why are cigarettes taxed so heavily? Why are they not, for example, allowed to be sold to minors? There has to be a reason, right? And the reason is again two-fold: One, yes when a pack of cigarettes is purchased there is economic activity, money changes hands, a transaction takes place, and it contributes to the GDP.
On the other hand, this same person, if he continues to consume this stuff, would become totally incapable of any economic activity. A large number of them would just become liabilities upon the economic system because they are now sapped of their power to work, meaningfully think, their very physical infrastructure is lost for them now.
So, that's the economic reason and then secondly, there is the inner reason; why consume something that does not contribute to your inner wellness? And that is the reason why these things, all the intoxicants are so very discouraged and banned, or taxed. Because even though they will have great sales and all that will contribute to the GDP, but, in the medium term itself, they are contributing to both economic decline and personal internal decline.
And because welfare is what we need, therefore we do not need that kind of consumption. We need a different kind of consumption. Don’t you see several goods, several services are subsidized by the government. Why? Because that's good consumption, that needs to be promoted.
For example solar panels, I suppose if you are an entrepreneurship firm into solar energy, you will get rebates and subsidies from the government. And even the IT industry was benefiting from tax rebates for a long time. Right? If there is wellness seen in a particular economic activity, it is to be promoted.
Spirituality is not anti economics. Spirituality is pro-good economics.
Spirituality says if there is something that deserves to be consumed more, you promote its consumption. You promote its consumption in whatever way possible. Subsidize it, or advertise it, but promote its consumption. So in that sense spirituality is actually pro consumption; consumption of the right thing.
