Consumerism and Obesity - A Basis for a New Industrial Revolution

563-2.png

The industrial revolution at its core created the ability to leverage economies of scale through new production technologies. Central to this paradigm was separating producers from their source of production, thus increasing the efficiency of production and simultaneously creating consumers of goods. The industrial revolution "systematized" processes to create "things" more efficiently. As the industrial revolution spreads across the world, however, we are realizing the consequences of its global application.

 "Consumerism" grew rapidly as the people of an increasingly industrialized world were marketed to in order to spur on increasing consumption of goods. Increases sales are necessary to perpetuate the system. Over the past century this trend is increasingly evident as world consumption has expanded at an unprecedented pace, with private and public consumption expenditures ..”reaching $24 trillion in 1998, twice the level of 1975 and six times that of 1950. In 1900 real consumption expenditure was barely $1.5 trillion” (Doyle). The idea was that humanity would benefit from improved lifestyles and life quality from the industrialized system's efficient concentration of production and consumption. However, the reality is beginning to hit home that never ending increases in production and consumption are unsustainable as the world becomes more developed. The notion that more is better is coming unglued. Now it is more important that we figure out how to use what we have. The industrial revolution is becoming a less relevant solution; thus the dawn of new solutions.

Examples of over consumption and unsustainable systems that evolved from the industrial and consumer society are every where. The global obesity epidemic is an excellent example.  The number of overweight people rivals the number of underweight people for the first time in history.While the world’s underfed population has declined slightly since 1980 to 1.1 billion, the number of overweight people has surged to 1.1 billion.The  population of overweight people has expanded rapidly in recent decades, more than offsetting the health gains from the modest decline in hunger. In the United States, 55 percent of adults are overweight by international standards. A whopping 23 percent of American adults are considered obese. And the trend is spreading to children as well, with one in five American kids now classified as overweight.… Obesity cost the United States 12 percent of the national health care budget in the late 1990s, $118 billion, more than double the $47 billion attributable to smoking and its has only become worse.

At its current growth rate, the amount of grain and paper that China would need in 25 years’  time equals 70% of all grain production in the world and 200% of paper production. More oil will  be consumed at that time than all of the global oil production of today put together. The UN and the World Bank recently issued an extensive report on the state of the world.  It did not make for an amusing read.

Out of the 25 natural resources sustaining life on Earth, nearly 20 are endangered. If every single person in the world consumed like Europeans do, it would take more than two Earths to sustain it. Americans consume even more, at a rate according to the same calculation would require four Earths.

The consumption rate of the world cannot continue and it is necessary that the foundations of the industrial revolution be undone. We cannot proceed on the basis of more is better. We are moving towards a new revolution, this time directed by the limits of our planet and the many associated risks of our consumerism practices.The era of the new revolution will ultimately eliminate at its core what the industrial era advanced - segregating producers from their means to produce thereby driving consumers to consume more than they need in order to maintain an inefficient production system that cannot be sustained.

The Media Revolution - TV is Dying Before Your Eyes and That's a Good Thing

Television%20is%20bad.gifSee my prior post on the death of the media and the prosumer. The death of traditional media is approaching as consumers of television are increasingly watching video online. In the past year researchers tracked a seismic shift in the amount of video Americans watched on the World Wide Web,  up 66 percent, according to comScore. Americans watched 10 billion videos in the month of February alone, said the rating service. "The numbers will climb even higher to huge levels in just a few years," said Adriana Waterston of the market research firm Horowitz According to comScore, 72.8 percent of the entire U.S. Internet audience viewed online video in February of 2008 during the same month, 80.4 million viewers watched 3.42 billion videos on YouTube, according to comScore. That's 42.6 videos per viewer.

The television industry, defenders of the old distribution scheme, assert that seventy percent of Internet users who watch TV online say it's because they missed the episode on regular TV, according to Horowitz Associates.Perhaps this gives them some comfort - why then all the rush to get to market with their own channels on the World Wide Web? The truth is that as more people learn of the benefits of relying on the internet to obtain their content, there will be a strong shift away from viewing content because you missed something on television. Yet another battle between the media conglomerates of the old and the evolving revolution.

TV meant limited choice and an inability to control when, where, what and how you consumed content. The realization of this shift from tradiational television to free online video changes consumer viewing habits because it offers better alternatives to TV. Even now, a 9-year-old boy in Georgia will turn to YouTube for new episodes of Japan's action anime "Naruto," which are unavailable on U.S. TV. In Indiana, a viewer who canceled her cable TV because she's fed up with multiple commercials can go online at CBS.com to watch "CSI" -- with fewer ads. On CNN.com, viewers can watch virtually every prepared report that now airs on CNN's TV networks.

What is more profound about this shift is that it represents a change in how consumers of content are changing the way they consume. The shift is to shorter more tailored content, the effect of which will being to become more evident as time goes by.

Betting "Against" the Internet

ERic%20Schmidt.jpgMany are familiar with Google's CEO Eric Schmidt and his quote of November 2006, where he opined:

"What's surprising is that so many companies are still betting against the net, trying to solve today's problems with yesterday's solutions. The past few years have taught us that business models based on controlling consumers or content don't work. Betting against the net is foolish because you're betting against human ingenuity…"

 

On his web site, Erik Heels, an MIT Engineer, patent and trademark lawyer expertly outlines examples of those who are fighting the basic advantages of the World Wide Web as opposed to those who are adopting the advantages. He raises good points, those which Lessig and others demonstrate. For example, "\When publishers provide partial feeds for their content - or no feeds at all - third parties step in to fix the problem. Gravity. You're fighting gravity. For example, I enjoy reading (and legally reprinting) the Dilbert comic strip and Scott Adams's blog (by Dilbert's creator). But Dilbert's publisher, United Media, does not provide a Dilbert feed. Enter Tapestry Comics, which provides feeds for comics, both official and "unauthorized." The Tapestry Comics Dilbert feed is a full feed. I read it in Google Reader, I share it in Google Reader.The phrase "illegal feeds" makes a good headline, but it is legally accurate? Is "unauthorized feeds" accurate? Do you need the permission of the copyright owner to read their copyrighted works, or is this fair use? What about sharing an "unauthorized" feed item?"

Fundamental to the revolution and adoption of new paradigms in thinking of "ownership" and how the distribution of the Internet functions, is the notion of controlling content. In the new world, controlling content is futile and represents another example of the old vs. the reality of the new. As Heels points out:

"Railroads, electricity, the industrial revolution, television, the Internet. Each revolution has had its opponents. But every technological advance that increases efficiently is a good thing. When efficiency increases, qualify of life improves for everyone. Efficiency is good, inefficiency is bad."