The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The PoMa paradox > Comments

The PoMa paradox : Comments

By Don Arthur, published 19/6/2009

Defining a PoMa: PoMas are appalled by consumerism and overconsumption. Their lifestyle isn’t materialistic but it is expensive.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
They're trying.

Sure, they're failing, but I'll take someone who at least attempts to do the right thing, over someone who belittles those who take an interest in such matters and justifies their laziness by pretending that nothing they do has any impact at all.

I ain't a PoMa. I won't be in a position to buy a Prius anytime soon. But I don't like seeing pieces like this used as an excuse to justify apathy.

Ok, so a fair amount of this is satire - but at its core, I'd like to see more of a discussion about the standard of living we accept as sustainable - on a more serious level, the piece appears to be lambasting people who aspire to the upper-middle class, which is portrayed as inevitably being environmentally unfriendly, and still a vicious cycle of consumption.

So... what's a genuinely fulfilling, non-hypocritical and most importantly, an *acceptable* standard of living which takes into account environmental concerns and sustainability?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 20 June 2009 3:23:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with TRTL.. having read the article through twice, I can't see this hypocrisy other posters are banging on about.. please explain?

Yes it is satire but the author seems to be pointing out that an attempt to live more ethically may be more expensive than not caring. So? TRTL, who says they are failing? So they spend more $$ on stuff that others wouldn't bother with, to achieve a more sustainable (presumably) lifestyle. How does that equate with 'failure'?

Spending a higher proportion on services than goods does not equate with failure or hypocrisy as far as I can see. Some of these folk are undoubtedly w&nkers but I don't see it as a 100% correlation.
Posted by stickman, Saturday, 20 June 2009 9:28:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is the point of this article? Sure it was a bit of fun and the bait appears to have worked. But was the intent to validate those who don't give a damn about anything much at all except their own comfort or to excuse apathy. The whole article makes some huge broad sweeping generalisations.

Have you ever met one person that fits tightly into the group you have described?

Lately there have been a number of articles about a return to old fashioned vegetable gardens in the backyard. Was this false reporting? I have seen it in my own city where more and more people are growing their own and/or buying locally grown products.

You can be a discerning consumer in whatever way rocks your boat (fair trade, organic, GM free, Australian made,vegan, locavore) without blowing your trumpet to all and sundry.

What is is to anyone else if someone wants to ride a bike in the inner city to work or live largely self-subsistently on a few acres.

Thoughtful consumerism is not something to be scorned. It is afterall one of the few powers we have as ordinary people to make a difference - but it only works in numbers and apathy is its greatest enemy.

So far apathy is winning, probably due more to exhaustion over the number of hours we now work trying to live lifestyles that we can't enjoy because we are too busy working.

Bottom line is the way we live our lives is a personal choice and we do have the power to change it if we really want to.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 20 June 2009 10:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with pelican and TRTL. It is good to seek to make a difference. Apathy is an enemy, but so also are nihilism and cynicism, and also moral and ethical relativism. All sap personal spiritual and community wellbeing.

The attitude that nothing matters, or that good and bad are merely 'in the eye of the beholder', is a cop-out from responsibility and from the sort of judgmentalism that is absolutely necessary to be able to discern between what is constructive and what is destructive. Not caring which is which is very destructive of civilization.
Posted by Glorfindel, Saturday, 20 June 2009 2:35:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article is shallow, playing on stereotyped people the author has probably never met. Not a whiff of data or fact. Sure, there are lots of pretenders in every strata of society, but lots of people are also making at least some effort to become more informed about what is responsible, urban, pleasant living.

And where does he get this guff about 'they almost always have someone with a food allergy?' What is HE taking?
Posted by Karin G, Saturday, 20 June 2009 5:55:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What? Not another @#%&* label? Please......
Oh, I am not one of those, but if it is 'Post Materialist Consumer' (in case that term actually makes sense), shouldn't it be PoMaCon? Quite frankly, it IS all a Con. The lot. I live in a remote area. And possess none of the following:
4WD, McMansion, expensive BBQ, large mortgage, clothes dryer, dishwasher. I don't cycle to work, and never go overseas, for holidays or whatever. None of these. I eat fruit, vegies, meat, eggs, dairy. Do not know anything about Yoga, no food intolerances. Experiences? They don't involve cafes, theatres or book stores.
Oh, for Goodness sake! First it was Yuppies and Dinks. Now this acronym with the first 2 letters thing. Someone sensationalising reality to sell a book! Someone pointing the finger at a group, in order to take the spotlight off the Mega-consumers, and somehow justify their behaviour. May God spare me! The world is truly falling apart. Noone really knows how to solve the climate crisis. And it is a crisis. Global financial 'Crisis'? Wrong word, in that case. A financial crisis is where we can't afford food or a roof over our heads. For Pete's sake, get real.
'Post Materialist'? What is all this 'Post-' in front of everything since Post Renaissance? Materialists have been around for as long as Non-Materialists, or has everyone forgotten 406BC - Epicurus, for example? He moved to the country, away from the salons of Alexandria, and no longer wore fashionable clothes. I have done that. Guess that makes me a 'down-shifter'. Mustn't let that get me 'down', though. Get back to reality, the lot of you.
Posted by LadyAussieAlone, Saturday, 20 June 2009 7:11:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy