Talk:Overconsumption (economics)/Archive 1

Coal
Coal, in particular, is the main cause of global warming. This sounds unlikely. One possibilty is that coal burning in the past has caused most of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but it seems more likely that 'coal' is here used to mean carbon-based fuels (as I also noticed in another article). DirkvdM 06:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I reworded the statement in question to be less general. I made it based more on the over-consumption of energy from combustable natural resources instead of specifically "coal causes global climate change". --Howrealisreal 15:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
this article reads like a neocon pamphlet, all but stating that "the term is used by freaky lefties to who hate the free world". Since the term does have a valid, well-defined meaning, you should discuss that first, and possible polemic use of the term further down. dab (&#5839;) 12:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tagged NPOV and Wikify. The semantics in the article are incorrect (for example: a word is coined, a "concept" isn't). References to neologisms like "affluenza" as if they were statements of fact are clearly NPOV. "Overconsumption" itself is generally spelled without a hyphen. I think a well-written article on overconsumption would be great, but this article presents no balance of viewpoints, for example, that "overconsumption" is responsible for a high standard of living that, given a choice, most people prefer. Joseph N Hall 04:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Economic Growth Section
In the article, I changed the summary from the Worldwatch Institute report. It said that China and India are "planetary powers that are shaping the global biosphere". It also included the US in the "three planetary powers". I hope the result (of the changes) is OK. Chimin 07 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV II
I didn't look at what this article used to be like. But it is incredibly bad right now. Maybe there were some big battles here in the past or something because this is some really nasty backwater of wikipedia now. Seriously this needs to be improved. The references are awful. I might try reverting it because the only other alternative is to basically start from scratch :-( 31.185.234.130 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Big Questions
This article was last updated in 2010; have there been any studies that have shown more detrimental effects of overconsumption in the last seven years? Are there any more negative effects overconsumption has on the environment that scientists did not know about in 2010? (LOL190 (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC))

In the economic growth section, it is mentioned that there is no way to fulfill the ambitions of developing countries in a sustainable way. However, this article is not clear about what those ambitions are. Readers are left to wonder, do people in third world countries aspire to have the things people in developed countries take for granted? For example, do many people in Africa want the cars and electronics that require excessive resource use in developed nations? It would help to be more clear when talking about how a country's aspirations can effect our environment. (LOL190 (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC))

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Overconsumption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120815095626/http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq to http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Effect Section
Missing a citation after "The scale of modern life's overconsumption has enabled an overclass to exist, displaying affluenza and obesity" Not sure this subject is relevant to the topic and would suggest taking it out unless article could provide better evidence and supporting arguments. Jhurst13 (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC) In order to fix what is listed above in the Effect section I am going to use --Clarrabee20 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Overall Improvements
This article could benefit from a couple of improvements. This first is a more diverse set of sources. The first article cited is an opinion article from the New York Times that offered no further references or data. Granted that the author is an academic and well published author, it still seems out of place to cite an opinion piece in an encyclopedia. The statement, "Currently, China is roughly 11 times lower in per capita footprint ... It is estimated that if China developed to the level of the United States that world consumption rates would roughly double" is cited by the opinion article. How was that estimated? More information about how that was calculated could be included to support this claim. In addition, Effects of Over-Consumption and Increasing Populations, the second citation includes a link to report that is unable to be reached through the link provided. It is also cited again Both the article and the report cited are over fifteen years old; more recent and relevant information and studies on this topic are likely available for use and could be used to improve the overall quality of this article.

The Economic Growth section could also be expanded on. I was also unable to find the study that is cited at the end of the section. It is also improperly referenced as "State of the World 2006" when the reference below lists the study as State of the World 2005. If there is not a reachable source for the information in this section, why include it? This should have more extensive work done to improve this section. Mjschrader (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC) To create a more diverse knowledge of the topic through the use of sources I chose to include an article from John Vidal on the The Guardian, called Overconsumption .--Clarrabee20 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Undated hidden comment about China & the US moved here
The comment is:

For the sake of WP:Assuming Good Faith and Editor retention, I moved it here instead of deleting it. Thanks! —Geekdiva (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Find a source for these claims?
"This factor of the production revolves around designing products with the intent to be discarded after a short period of time. Perceived obsolescence is prevalent within the fashion and technology industries. Through this technique, products are made obsolete and replaced on a semi-regular basis. Frequent new launches of technology or fashion lines can be seen as a form of marketing-induced perceived obsolescence. Products designed to break after a certain period of time or use would be considered to be planned obsolescence" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjstarr30 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Things to consider
Is "Overconsumption":

Simply a term related to economic sustainability, succinctly capturing the fact that we're consuming resources faster than renewed at current consumption levels using current production technology (see also: planetary boundaries), or

Is it also a belief system built on top of this observation, which suggests a strategy of reduced consumption, ignoring possible changes in production technology to sustain current aggregate consumption levels?

In either case, what this article is missing is a discussion of production technology. This is important to the discussion, because people should be arguing about whether current consumption exceeds what is sustainably possible, or whether it is possible to sustain consumption levels by switching technology. I will illustrate my thoughts with an example. In the 19th century, lighting, soap, and margarine were made predominantly with whale oil. Overconsumption of these products led to overharvesting of whales. Today, several whale species are extinct; some have probably recovered, and others are still in doubt a century later. Mankind's consumption habits damaged the world permanently, because of what could be considered frivolous "overcomsumption" by a small subset of the world population. Without violating NPOV, we want readers of the article to feel like overconsumption causes real problems, and that steps should be taken to avoid a repeat of the whaling century. However, today, vegetable oil is used to produce margarine and soap, and (while far from universally practiced) solar energy could be indireclty stored for nighttime illumination. So "overconsumption" wasn't strictly to blame for the damage done to whales... we can probably meet that level of consumption of margarine, soap, and illumination with sustainable products.

If "overconsumption" is just a fact, then production technology should be mentioned as a way to solve the "overconsumption" problem. Such as producing electricity by renewable means, fish by farming, plastic polymers from corn/soy etc. If "overconsumption" is also a belief system that leads to the conclusion that the only way to solve the problem is for rich people to consume less, then "overconsumption" is not just a set of facts, but, in conjunction with factual observations about inequality, utility, waste, etc., it also becomes an "alternative economic theory" that focuses on forcing those who consume the most to consume less to solve the problem, rather than technological evolution. If that's the definition, we can present it that way. But, in that case, it deserves criticism from those who suggest production technology changes, and such a section could be added to that effect. can we find facts about improving production technology? As it stands now one could say the carrying capacity is 0. We use exhaustible resources, such as lead, lithium, coal, etc. Cjstarr30 (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC) smaller edits to consider:

When we get to the "counteractions" section, I think there are clearly some options missing, according to traditional economics. Again, I understand, that if "overconsumption" believers only want to see reduced consumption, fine. But in traditional economic terms, the best ideas would be: 1. Taxes on nonrenewable resources (such as fossil fuels, lead, or other rare earths), to push the market off early from supply disruptions 2. Taxes on externalities (Such as CO2 emissions, or other pollution) 3. Harvest limits on vulnerable species (will drive the price up, signaling the market)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hwakefield, ACheRey. Peer reviewers: Hrode55555.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannahrmck.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alex Prieditis. Peer reviewers: Tamara Omar, Kuzey Gunesli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 24 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paula Sillers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjstarr30.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit/ Additional Information Proposal
Proposal to add a section on the overconsumption of meat/animal products leading to increased greenhouse gasses, overgrazing of land, and destruction of habitat, along with add information on how advertising effects the ways and the pace at which we consume products around the world.--User0219 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)