Green Monster and Materialism
Sandeep Krishnamurthy
When it was time for me to ride a bicycle, my Dad bought me a green monster -- a
giant bicycle. This bike seemed 5 feet tall, dark green and heavy to me. When my friends were exulting
in their light and trendy BSAs, my Dad chose to get me a large and clunky bike.
He wanted me to have a bike that I would never
outgrow. I also suspect that he felt that the BSAs
were not built from a heavy enough gauge of steel -- as bikes ought to be. That
is the only bike I owned in my childhood and teen
years.
The bike was taller than me and I could barely get it to rest on its stand. I started out learning to a ride with the scissors (or kancha,
as they called it in
As I
grew taller, I graduated to what is called the danda (or bar) technique.
I could still not reach both pedals when I was perched
on my seat. But, I could reach them if I decided to
remain suspended in mid-air over the bar. When I
wanted to rest, I sat on the seat -- of course, this meant that my legs did not
reach the pedals!
It was only after several
years of the kancha and the danda that I
graduated to the intended functionality of the bicycle. I
was able to ride when comfortably sitting on the bicycle seat. However, my Dad's objective had been met. I
used that bike for years and years. Barring a punctured tire here and there,
the bike held up admirably over time.
I think of this experience today when
I see the impact of technology on our lives. It would be unthinkable for my son's generation to use a bike that would last for ten
years. The typical path these days is to get a bike with training wheels (we
did not have access to this when I was learning to ride, by the way) and then
graduate to a bigger bike soon after. Riders can go with mountain or road
bikes. There are good features, accessories and brands everybody respects. It
is not unthinkable for a consumer to spend in excess
of $500 on a bike these days.
The point made by today's
marketplace is that extreme targeting of products to one's need-of-the-moment
is the path to happiness and satisfaction. Why go through the pain of the kancha
and danda when you can get something that will be absolutely
comfortable for today and the next six months? Of course, you can throw
it away after six months and buy the next product that suits who you are at
that point.
This is the tension then --
frugality (owning a bike for ten years) vs. materialism (replacing a bike every
year).
Frugality as a chosen way
of life is essentially non-existent today. The poor have clearly not chosen to
be so and would prefer to not continue to be so.
Thrift to many is saving 15% on the next trip to their
favorite store. Interestingly, a new movement, 'voluntary simplicity', promotes
a return to simpler times when consumers focused on necessity rather than
fashion.
Proponents for materialism
have argued that consumers are better off today due to greater choice, better
quality products and new product features. Consumers have greater creature
comforts and can do many things much more conveniently as a
result of technological advancements. Others have argued that
materialism is a sign of societal advancement because it is a sign of increased
wealth.
The search for pragmatism
as a middle ground between frugality and materialism will be an important
struggle for all of us in the coming years. Each of us will resolve this
differently and arrive at our own solution. Some of us will indulge on one
product, rather on many. Others will donate to charity to offset the spending
on consumer products. Some of us will have a year of indulgence, offset by a
return to old ways. Some of us may even hold on to a bike for a few years!
One thing is for sure --
there will be fewer green monsters around!