The article is dated, but made a good read. Miller's thesis seems to be that the consumer and the gamer are en route to extinction, while the puritan and the luddite shall endure.
A key trend that supports his claim is the drastically lower birth rates in more developed countries - it appears that as consumerism and perhaps, indulgence, rise, children become more and more scarce. The data however, is incomplete. We have no endpoint data, and so we are merely speculating about the future.
My own freshly formed opinion is that the consumer will not go extinct, but be assimilated. As Islam, India, and China rise, the western consumer will mix in among them and become their descendants. They will move toward our consumerism, we will move toward their work ethic, their pragmatism.
In an interaction between 500 million and >3 Billion people, Newton's laws of motion apply as though we were free floating masses. At a higher resolution, 500 million is 300 million with several smaller groups floating around it, and each of the 3 billion is split many ways as well - the interaction will be complex and the outcome incalculable. I think it would be neat for someone to make a simulation of that sort.
Anyway, again, good link! I haven't read edge.org before.
A key trend that supports his claim is the drastically lower birth rates in more developed countries - it appears that as consumerism and perhaps, indulgence, rise, children become more and more scarce.
Per-capita GDP and birth rate don't linearly correlate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg Above a certain standard of living, people just seem to stop having as many kids. I don't think it's fair to call practically every nation with per-capita GDP over $15k "consumerist," so I think your argument is pretty weak.
As Islam, India, and China rise, the western consumer will mix in among them and become their descendants. They will move toward our consumerism, we will move toward their work ethic, their pragmatism.
Islam pragmatic? Is this a joke? Many Islamic countries discourage women from working. Think about how crazy that is from an economic standpoint. It's cutting your nation's workforce in half. And work ethic? Not only do people in developed countries work more ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yearly_working_time_2004.j... ), they are more productive thanks to automation, better infrastructure, and better education.
In an interaction between 500 million and >3 Billion people, Newton's laws of motion apply as though we were free floating masses.
I think you're saying that if you have 500 million people with one culture and 3 billion with another, you'll end up with a culture much closer to the 3 billion. I don't think this is true. People copy ideas, but they don't copy them randomly. They usually only copy ideas they deem "good." So the more useful ideas like money, human rights, and social support systems get copied more often. If anything, developing countries (lots of people) have copied the 1st world (smaller number of people).
> ...it appears that as consumerism and perhaps, indulgence, rise, children become more and more scarce...
Correlation doesn't imply causation. The typical explanations for the lower birth rates are (A) we have pensions, so we don't need more kids as a form of insurance and (B) we have less time to raise kids because all parents are working professionals. Neither of those factors have anything to do with complacency or consumerism.
A and B may not be sufficient reasons either. Here is a counter example from my home state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_model#Human_Development_... Economically Kerala is a third world economy, but in Human Development Index and birth rates it is more closer to developed economies. The birth rate is at replacement level and still falling even though most people do not have sufficient pensions, most parents are not professionals and unemployment is endemic. So you will have to look beyond GDP and consumerism for falling birth rates.
Comments
The article is dated, but made a good read. Miller's thesis seems to be that the consumer and the gamer are en route to extinction, while the puritan and the luddite shall endure.
A key trend that supports his claim is the drastically lower birth rates in more developed countries - it appears that as consumerism and perhaps, indulgence, rise, children become more and more scarce. The data however, is incomplete. We have no endpoint data, and so we are merely speculating about the future.
My own freshly formed opinion is that the consumer will not go extinct, but be assimilated. As Islam, India, and China rise, the western consumer will mix in among them and become their descendants. They will move toward our consumerism, we will move toward their work ethic, their pragmatism.
In an interaction between 500 million and >3 Billion people, Newton's laws of motion apply as though we were free floating masses. At a higher resolution, 500 million is 300 million with several smaller groups floating around it, and each of the 3 billion is split many ways as well - the interaction will be complex and the outcome incalculable. I think it would be neat for someone to make a simulation of that sort.
Anyway, again, good link! I haven't read edge.org before.
A key trend that supports his claim is the drastically lower birth rates in more developed countries - it appears that as consumerism and perhaps, indulgence, rise, children become more and more scarce.
Per-capita GDP and birth rate don't linearly correlate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg Above a certain standard of living, people just seem to stop having as many kids. I don't think it's fair to call practically every nation with per-capita GDP over $15k "consumerist," so I think your argument is pretty weak.
As Islam, India, and China rise, the western consumer will mix in among them and become their descendants. They will move toward our consumerism, we will move toward their work ethic, their pragmatism.
Islam pragmatic? Is this a joke? Many Islamic countries discourage women from working. Think about how crazy that is from an economic standpoint. It's cutting your nation's workforce in half. And work ethic? Not only do people in developed countries work more ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yearly_working_time_2004.j... ), they are more productive thanks to automation, better infrastructure, and better education.
In an interaction between 500 million and >3 Billion people, Newton's laws of motion apply as though we were free floating masses.
I think you're saying that if you have 500 million people with one culture and 3 billion with another, you'll end up with a culture much closer to the 3 billion. I don't think this is true. People copy ideas, but they don't copy them randomly. They usually only copy ideas they deem "good." So the more useful ideas like money, human rights, and social support systems get copied more often. If anything, developing countries (lots of people) have copied the 1st world (smaller number of people).
> ...it appears that as consumerism and perhaps, indulgence, rise, children become more and more scarce...
Correlation doesn't imply causation. The typical explanations for the lower birth rates are (A) we have pensions, so we don't need more kids as a form of insurance and (B) we have less time to raise kids because all parents are working professionals. Neither of those factors have anything to do with complacency or consumerism.
A and B may not be sufficient reasons either. Here is a counter example from my home state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_model#Human_Development_... Economically Kerala is a third world economy, but in Human Development Index and birth rates it is more closer to developed economies. The birth rate is at replacement level and still falling even though most people do not have sufficient pensions, most parents are not professionals and unemployment is endemic. So you will have to look beyond GDP and consumerism for falling birth rates.