AMERICAN PERISCOPE. Quick gratification

Here and now. This seems to be the driving force of consumption today, greatly facilitated by technology. We need everything just as soon as we need it.

Not too long ago, we were satisfied with quenching our thirst when water was available. So we waited till we got to a water source. Now, we need to carry plastic bottles with water so that the minute we feel thirsty, we can quench it. (And we can assuage our guilt about the plastic bottle by seeking out a ‘recycle’ container in which to dispose it.)

Haven’t you bumped into people who did not see where they were going since they were texting? Quick replies to email and instant messaging (Ah! did you notice the word ‘instant’?) is the order of the day. WhatsApp and Twitter tell everybody about everything immediately. Most people who are glued to their smartphone with a desire to respond instantly don’t seem to be cardiologists or bail bondsmen

Consumer demand has shrunk time and space. My local supermarket stocks the same fruits and vegetables year round! Seasonality has lost its meaning and they are shipped in from across the world so our consumption desires (not needs) are satisfied. Environmentalists charge that meeting the demand for agricultural products everywhere, the year round, and being able to pay for it is an example of market failure. The price of the kiwis for me includes the shipping cost but certainly does not include the impact on the environment when flying it from New Zealand to Boston.

Gandhiji wanted production and consumption to be local. His dream village was self-governing and self-sufficient for its vital needs (food and clothing). When production and consumption is local, you also eliminate the distributor, the one who is shrinking the time and space.

Teresa Brennan, in her book Globalization and Its Terrors (2003), makes her position on globalisation clear right in the title! She argues that shrinking space and time facilitated by globalisation also hurts the west, not just the poorer countries since it does allow the environment time to ‘regenerate.’ Speeding up production and the need for scale has resulted in searching further and further for resources allowing less time to replenish both natural resources as well as labour power. It increases stress, and stretches the working day seen from the constant attention to email.

Clearly, the US model of standard of living is difficult to reproduce around the world without causing serious damage to the environment. The US levels of waste and consumption also make it less desirable. Brennan would like to shift the responsibility for the environment to the producers by keeping it local (or at least regional). This would mean small scale, while yet applying technology to improve productivity.

The idea is not entirely far-fetched. Scale is not a must for efficiency. The concept of mass customisation that the Japanese made real not just with technology but with their management practices is an example that is now mainstream. Modi’s push for villages to be power-independent through solar energy is another example.

A focus on regional production and consumption is not with a view to negating trade. The objective is to shift the focus to local — that will then bring attention to the environment, and the need to phase out consumption to allow regeneration.

The writer is a professor at Suffolk University, Boston, and the Jindal Global Business School, Delhi NCR

COMMENT NOW