Could we ban the consumption – of almost everything? My utopian ideas… *trigger warning*

Let’s just presume that the system at hand is messed up. That the politicians and the organisations works hand in hand to serve the interest of capitalism and economic growth.

• What is the minimum amount of things we need? – My utopian idea

Disclaimer: So, this will mainly just be a stream of consciousness and many people have better and much more thought-through ideas on this topic. I would love to find out more!

1. Need: We need housing. Transportation. Food, clean water, electricity, heat, waste systems, sewage. Clothes. Technology*. Medicine.
   • Housing – Current best solutions: tiny living or community living. (Tiny house, Eco-villages or urban eco-housing)
   • Transportation – Bicycle, walking, bus*, tram*, car-pool.
   • Food – Permaculture, community grown vegan food.
   • Clean water – Boiling water? Spring water?
   • Electricity – to start to follow the natural rhythms of the sun (quite difficult here up north) and using 100% renewable energy (solar, wind, wave)
   • Heating/cooling systems – I know too little – but maybe tank + solar collector?
   • Waste systems – Living zero-waste would only demand composting… realistic?
   • Sewage – First off – have a system where only ones “business” goes into the toilet, and where we would use water instead of toilet paper (like in some parts of Asia)
   • Clothes.. would be fixed when broke. And limited to natural materials, such as non-dyed cotton, hemp and linnen. Locally-made accessories in wood, metals, stones, or glass could be something to add. Could potentially support ecological wool for colder seasons, although I’m a vegan.. but not as the industry looks like right now.. or I’m not entirely convinced…  Right now, however, is the best choice to reuse by buying second hand, no matter the label or material.
   • Technology – if we digitalised all books, music, notes, and had internet + a tablet (obs – not the most environmentally friendly way – but sustainable?)
   • Medicine – the system is inevitable – we need medication still – taking care of our bodies, stressing less, eating well (vegan <3), and exercise would bring down the need to some extent

If this theory would hold, to simplify, we would still need a government to provide:

• Security, law, & enforcement
• Hospitals
• Professional education for the areas mentioned
• Sewage systems
• Roads
• Public transport

Corporations would still have to provide:

• Cloth of linnen, cotton, & hemp
• Tablets, software (IT)
• Broadband (communication)
• Medicine
• Natural raw materials: glass, metal
• Some limited commodities (bicycles, solar panels, machines, equipment and materials for production of mentioned organisational and governmental systems)

Clearly, a decreased population would also help, by people making the choice of having no, one or two children, and adopting. Death-help to elderly that have lived long and happy lives and that now wishes to sleep in for good would also increase quality of life and decrease population size since medication advancement can keep people alive much longer than what their bodies and minds are made for and feel good in (if you get my point).

Luxury is dead – and then what?

I’m an upcoming intern at Vogue… I also happen to work on a website called fashionomics(check it out). I’m a fashionista at heart. I study marketing and one of my biggest interests has been luxury brands. And there is a lot to say on the topic and the future that lays ahead.

As a society we are traditionally hardwired to identify people with luxury items, so called “signifiers“, with power, status, and success. This comes from a social order where power and success often is connected to financial assets and belonging of an “it” group with a certain qualified taste. Luxury also equals scarcity, where once everyone can access a certain item it loses its value of prestige and taste, while may still have certain hedonic values (like chocolate for example).

For example, a diamond ring. Is it still status or is it tacky to wear? When Louis Vuitton collaborated with Supreme – is that the essence of luxury and, in that case, why is it luxury? The price? The quality? Because a small group of people told us so? Because influencers and people we look up to (reference groups) buy it?

However, what I like to ask is what has value when everything can reach everyone? When every style and creative expression through fabric is already done? What is exclusiveness when the top quality can be reached by the many? What becomes the new luxury when many can access information about what the ”it” people and the ”rich” people wear and can therefore buy things that are considered tasteful. When social class and cultural capital is more accessible to anyone than ever before? What can style blogs and fashion magazines put out there that is an example of luxury and something for the general public to aim for in terms of consumption and style?

What comes after luxury?

We have broken down, redefined, and made luxury more democratic since the 1800’s. Luxury used to be something for the aristocracy and the kings and queens, where, after the worker’s movement, women’s right to vote, the rise of the middle-class and the impact of fast fashion, we’re left with a concept that is in decay. The whole idea of fashion is about social hierarchy = fashion is political. Has been. What happens after liberation? Where we are free to wear whatever we like, where Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs, two of the most influential people of our time, wear the same thing everyday, clothes anyone can get in any store.

So.. luxury is dead?

Of course the whole race is not done, for the working class, understandably the concept of luxury is still remaining, as everything is still not completely accessible, but for the middle class and the upper middle class? What is luxury for them? What will be luxury for them tomorrow?

I don’t know, all I know is that these questions are more relevant than ever. Especially for a magazine like Vogue that are competing in a saturated market with over-fed consumers looking for meaning and direction.

The only thing I know is that more is not the answer.

My luxury is to afford to have an high-quality capsule wardrobe with items that will remain stylish and socially acceptable through the years. But my idea of luxury does also not necessary have to constitute of things. Luxury for me can be not hurting the planet, not using plastic, have time to take care of my body and soul, have time to spend some time in nature or with people I love. Have time to do nothing for a while and just be.

That more, bigger, better, or to up-grade is not the answer to luxury values of tomorrow, I hope and think. When certain taste and prestige is gone, and when we allow sensory values of being present and feeling good to be more precious in our lives than stuff.

Take a moment to think: What is luxury for you? 

Cost per use – a handy concept when being frugal, a minimalist or living sustainably

I can admit that I have a slight addiction to minimise my collection of things. And you’re welcome to question and criticise me because I am far from perfect (if there is such as thing).

Clothes I buy are mainly second hand, partly because I want to afford brands that keep as high quality and ethics as possible, and that, of course, are vegan. Second hand is also great because it does not demand an extra product to be produced, with all the environmental damage clothes production comes with. Of course there are many sustainable brands that we should support – but the issue is far from being a one-sided thing. Find what works for you.

My nr 1 favorit brand is Filippa K (by the way – I am far from being sponsored), a Swedish brand that is timeless, use repurposed and recycled materials and mainly have their production in Lithuania, using fair trade – and you even get the name of who have made you your garment. They focus on a capsule wardrobe and have both comfortable and stylish clothes with a minimalistic aesthetics. Another favorit (but far too expensive) for high-quality faux leather is Stella McCartney (for shoes, bags and other “typical leather products”). I am still looking into cheaper alternatives that keeps high ethics standards and are affordable – any recommendations?

I try to invest in things that are as affordable to my budget as possible, mainly looking at the cost per use, rather than the total price, which works as a quality check/indicator.

This is how I calculate cost per use: 

For example, if I have 7 sweaters and use each once per week, during a 4 months period per year (December – March), for 4 years, and paid $143 per shirt (edit: I just found a second hand version for $35 so this new price is not necessary relevant): that gives me a cost per use of $2.28 per time I use the sweater (or if bought second hand $0.6 cpu).

I even believe that the shirts would last me a lot longer than 4 years, to be honest. But this formula may give you an idea of the power of cost per use, rather than only thinking of buying cost.

And yes – I do keep spreadsheets on this. If you don’t have Microsoft Excel or the Apple version “numbers”, Google have a free version called Google Sheets. Me and my fiancé both keep account of our collection of things and how long we expect things to last – partly to get a better view of what is considered a good investment and partly so we keep account that the products we are using live up to our expectations as consumers. Would you like to have the formulas I am using directly into a spreadsheet on your own? Just give me a comment and I’ll make sure to send you one! 

Lastly – buy second hand, it is awesome. 

Image credit: greenstrategy.se