For most of the last two hundred years or so of the Industrial Revolution - the focus has been on getting more. Through mass production making things cheaper, you don't have to be ridiculously wealthy to get 'the basics' that used to be out of reach. Travel by car, bus, train or plane allows us to meet more people. The Internet connects us.
There has been a lot of talk about increasing income disparity despite things becoming substantially cheaper. There is a difference between how much you get (income), how much you have (wealth), and you much you consume. I suspect there comes a point where consumption flattens largely because you can only consume so much.
Hollywood stars and Footballers may live in houses with multiple rooms, but physics dictates you can only be in one at a time. You may own lots of cars, but you can only drive one at a time. As stuff gets cheaper... there must come a point where you can't actually get more pleasure by more stuff.
With perhaps a gap of a year or two, a student can afford the same phone as Carlos Slim. The Internet flattens access to information where like Good Will Hunting you can learn anything, but unlike Good Will Hunting you no longer have to pay late fees at the library.
When income matters less and we reach consumption saturation, then I think Dan Ariely's point below becomes very relevant. This is 'First World Problem' and there are many in the world who are a long long way from consumption saturation.
It will be interesting to see how the world adapts to having all the stuff we need and perhaps no longer needing unskilled labour (due to computers), and even some skilled labour (due to artificial intelligence).
How do we or will we adapt from a world of survival to a world of meaning?
No comments:
Post a Comment