I think that the most insidious aspect of consumerism is the willingness of people to offer up their own identity for the sake of it.
They become Nikon users , Leica users or early adopters.
This new identity becomes so fixed that often all critical judgement is suspended.
All very true -- as is Keith's point about programming -- but equally insidious is the attitude of some people who, unwilling or unable to think very hard about what we (they) do, and why, simply attack those who suggest that things could be otherwise. It's a sort of reverse intellectual snobbery.
There is clearly an enormous difference between an economy where scarce needs compete and an economy where a superabundance of wants must be sold via advertising. As J.K. Galbraith pointed out, if a man is hungry, you do not need to persuade him to buy bread; but the choice between a new razor and a new toaster, each being a discretionary purchase, is a matter of persuasion. And of course, when everyone has one television, and cannot yet be persuaded that it is obsolete, the obvious thing is to try to sell them a second television (and a third).
Hunger (as distinct from starvation) existed for many below the middle class, even in rich countries, until well into the 20th century: Robert Roberts's
The Classic Slum is a brilliantly written account of poverty in Salford in the first quarter of the 20th century. It is hardly realistic, therefore, to pretend that advertising and consumerism have not changed fundamentally in rich countries in 100 years.
And, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, consumerism on the present scale is simply unsustainable. This is why I raised the point of antiques in an earlier post. As population increases, yes, more goods must be manufactured. Some will fall from favour: this is why we can (if we wish) buy once-expensive film cameras cheaply. Things wear out: moth and rust doth corrupt. But replacing or accumulating
stuff, constantly, because "Duh, it's new and we want it and we can afford it" smacks of "Why should we care about posterity? What has posterity ever done for us?"
To return very strictly to the question of new cameras, a couple of days ago, I got an M for review. It does several things my M9 doesn't. IF I were in the market for a digital M, and IF money were less of a concern, I don't know whether I'd go for an M or an ME. But (on limited acquaintance) I don't think I'd
replace my M9 with an M, simply to have something newer and to gain a few more megapixels and live view (I can easily live without video).
Likewise, there was about a 20-year gap between my M4-P and my MP, simply because the M6, M6ttl and M7 did not offer me enough advantage to spend the money: a new Leica was not a need, but a want. At least one camera, on the other hand, was a need, given what I do for a living, and I might as well use the tools I'm happiest with, hence Leicas. A
digital Leica, on the other hand, was a need by the time the M8 came out: anyone who writes on photography was increasingly handicapped by the lack of a digital camera he liked using, and that fitted into his existing systems.
Cheers,
R.
