Topic: Which of your needs have been created by capitalists? (Read 235 times)

A lot of the things we see as "needs" today have been shaped, if not fully created, by capitalist systems. Capitalism thrives on consumer demand, and it often manufactures these needs through advertising, social pressures, and innovations that make certain products or services seem essential. Here are some examples:

1. New technology: We're constantly pushed to buy the latest phones, laptops, and gadgets, even when our current ones still work perfectly fine.

  
2. Fashion and style trends: The fashion industry is built around making people feel like they need to keep up with the latest trends, convincing us that last season’s look is outdated.
  

3. Convenience products: Things like food delivery apps, smart devices, and subscriptions are sold to us as must-haves for a more convenient, modern life.


4.Social media: While connecting with others is a basic human need, social media platforms have made it feel like you need to stay constantly active online to stay relevant or validated.


5. Health and fitness fads: From gym memberships to supplements and gadgets, the wellness industry often makes you feel like you're not doing enough unless you're buying into the latest fitness trend.


Capitalism tends to blur the line between wants and needs, encouraging us to consume more to keep the system running. While some of these things improve our lives, many are driven by profit rather than genuine necessity.

Yes, it is true that in life the most needed asset is health in our bodies, that is what drives us to work more enthusiastically, and to work in seeking wealth to fulfill our needs, without health it is difficult to achieve what we dream of and the progress we get.

Actually there are three biggest assets that need to be grateful for in our respective lives and they are very important assets for all humans who are still alive. The first is physical health which is aimed at our own bodies and the second is wealth in the form of material regardless of the amount and the third is living without debt so that we will really feel the real pleasure if we are in a position like that. I really want something like that so I have to keep working so that I can maintain my health and have wealth in the form of material and be free from debt in any form.

Well humans needs and wants have been overemphasized such that anything can be substituted as wants and needs  so definitely every needs have been created but to align that needs to oneself it requires personal taste and hunger for it and also every humans needs can be met if  there's a room for availability. But where I want to really understand this context is in the aspect of saying which of your needs have been created by capitalist, there are possibility of allocated needs but the fact that it's existence and availability could be met have made it to be created whereas I'll say needs and wants are created and available but it depends on one's choice and demands that's how I see it, I know humans needs and wants can't be satisfied but it should be available at demand.

While this is true, the understanding of "need" grows with society as well. Meaning that while you do not need a smartphone for example, not having it in a society where everyone has it, becomes a need to get one. In a world where nobody has it, it is not a need, but if 99 out of 100 has it, that 100th needs to get one too and becomes a need. So what we have today, may not all be a need, but becomes a need when everyone around the world has it.

By logic, even a computer isn't a need, and a friend of mine who is married do not even have a computer, not even a laptop, they have a tablet, which isn't really a good one neither, and they don't even use it. They have a smart tv, and two phones, and they are fine. I had a computer since seven years old, I can't even imagine a world without a computer, to me it's a need, but obviously it is not a need for them at all.

I like to differentiate between the "needs" and the "desires". We often listen the word needs when someones is referring to desires instead. For example, I need food to live, but I desire cakes, burgers and sodas instead of healthier vegetables and fruits.

Are they creating needs on us, or simply making us desire pleasurable things instead? Perhaps we don't need our phones or TVs, but developed the desire to be (dis)informed and consume data all the time instead. As social beings we need to communicate, but how we do it is capable of being modulated, and that's where persuasion works.

Aside from probably health needs, every other need is a created fake one because "need" is not what it sounds like, it's something that you NEED, we do not "need" even our phones or tv, something you take for granted and something you consider as normal, is not really a need in most cases.

Put modern medicine in 2000 years ago and live a life like that and just have your health taken care of as modern as possible, and you still end up with something that is getting seriously more important. All the things that we do, all the business, all the companies, all the things we buy, none of them are a need. You need shelter to live in, you need food to eat, and you need your health, and of course clothes.

As long as you have these, everything else is a luxury. Doesn't mean that we do not need them, we could totally have that and there is nothing wrong with it, we are going to end up with a normal situation without much trouble, it is going to be something that will not be all that normal or crazy, we just need to consider this as normal as it gets. Because when you do not "need" something and you still get it, that's life that you want to live and you are free to do that if you want to.

Yes, bro, basically humans just want to survive, with a place where they can work, that's where they produce for their daily living needs, however we have to think about it for the benefit of a person in supporting their own lives, and when we know the situation The rest of us want to improve our lives for the better, because health is very important for our bodies, health is everything for us because it's useless if we are rich but our bodies are not healthy, it's useless if we can't enjoy the wealth we have, so take care of our health as best as possible.

OP is right that so many of our consumption behaviors are driven by marketing, including the shift to sugar-free products. Yet, this trend also plays to very legitimate consumer concerns about health. Large numbers of people now actively seek out low-sugar or sugar-free products, impelled by increasing awareness of the health risks associated with sugar consumption. This shift is less about marketing manipulation and more about real health priorities; sugar reduction has overtaken fat reduction in many respects.

That being said, manufacturers have taken full advantage of this demand, unveiling new sugar substitutes and zero-calorie products in recent times, which market a full range of products. Whereas this phenomenon is health-conscious consumers, it cannot be also denied that businesses are using intelligent marketing to push these products and reach the broader audience. While there is a little marketing here, it is a response to what has been an evolving consumer trend toward healthier choices.

Human basic needs is to survive but that change from time to time. We see that right now people consume many things and different than a few decade. We can take around that they eat so many different food that will effect to their health and give many disease which is trigger from over consumption of sugar. We must control this if we want to stay health and not too care with the current products because we want to take care of ourselves better. If you want to stay health, you must take care what you consume and always prevent to eat something that can make your health effects bad.

Article sweeteners in soda, could have been also created by capitalist themselves and we are all dependent of it. But not all though, let's assume rice, in Asia it's one of the staple food and so it is being consumed by this people to that point that some countries become big exporters, so they benefit it as well. I guess it's on how this capitalist bring it to the people's life and then they become to manipulated the price in their favor in any shape or from.

So again, it could have been very bad in the last 50 years like sugar in your example. And others say that this really brought the number of diabetics in the world although genetics might play a big part, although sugar could be a contributor.

There is no problem with that as long as we can adjust it ourselves when we want to consume sugar because too much sugar will not be good for our health so sugar is only needed in moderation without having to consume it excessively. I don't really like sweets, but that doesn't mean I hate sugar because I only make adjustments when I want to consume certain products in my life and if the product does not provide much benefit to the body, of course we don't need to approach it so that such a thing is not a complicated problem for everyone to overcome in their respective lives. But in this case I also want to know what caused you to say this so that it seems like such a serious problem with sugar?

While  I may not completely disagree with you on the effects of capitalism on us, I will also disagree with your opinion that we cannot survive without capitalists or the act of capitalism. Socialism is better than capitalism in my own opinion because while capitalism talks about individuals gaining power over the economy, socialism talks about social welfare and the act of involving the entire community and the state.

Capitalism mostly focuses on individuals building schools, healthcare facilities and industries like the automobiles, while Socialism focuses more on the people ownership. In socialism, we believe our majority of our schools and Healthcare facilities should be own and controlled by the community.

I am guessing that the worst one for me is fast food. I can't say "capitalists" made it, the start wasn't really based on capitalism, but the way it grew and became something that we all use was based on capitalists. If it was just the founders, we would have places with like maximum of 5-10 places but right now we have places with 5000+ stores and that's because of the capitalists because they wanted more and more money.

Right now, I am not in a healthy weight at the moment and that is mainly because when I was a kid, cheapest thing to buy was a burger from one of those famous places that I will not name, and that meant if my mom gave me any money, allowance basically, and I spent as little as possible on a burger and drink, that meant everything else left to me, since it was too cheap, much of the money was left to me. Mom, of course gave me that so I would eat healthy, but I didn't and used the rest on toys and other stuff to buy, I am much older now, and still eat fast food unfortunately. A habit that I never really had luck breaking till today.

Agree with your opinion, maybe we don't really need capitalists, but many people in need out there need capitalists, that way they can work in that place and then earn a salary that they can use for their daily living needs, sometimes there are things there are positive and negative things, it all depends on how we position it, we also have to pay attention to people who are less fortunate so that they can survive by being able to work there and they have to meet their daily needs from the results of their work there.

Have you gave thought to the job opportunities provided by private owners who create these products. Yes, sugar has negative reaction on the body, especially when it's not burnt through exercise, but contributes to the wellbeing of human brains. While a lot of food products sold in the free market contains sugar, it also signifies the increase of employees in sugar production. However, Capitalists help in running the society, and with their funds a lot of needs are met including salaries.

Even in a communist state where the resource is controlled by the state oligarchy, people are still allowed to take whatever substance they need for themselves. The consumption of sugar intake is not as a result of what the capitalist created or need, so for the fact that people crave for something and they go for it shouldn't be placed as a blame on the capitalist system. The capitalist system is a system that drives on individualism and needs to grow your own personal business based on the policies created by the state. So if you want to leave healthy, you should watch the substance you take, instead of blaming the entire system when you can choose a part for yourself.

Why don't you also wonder why humans now Stick to taking pharmaceutical drugs for health sales instead of herbs as had formally been an option of health remedies?

Perhaps, the drugs being provided today's are still part of the natural herbs but only has been refined to suit convenience consumption for human and also as results of civilization which has lead to diminishing of forestries where those plants are grown on its natural nature.

So the modelities of todays modern produces for consumptions is as results to meet the body requirements for health and satisfaction to refreshments.
All above in other to keep lives going fairly and then the technologies to exhibit beyond human capacity is being discovered as becoming a tool tool operation of medic aids.

So, let us take them all to be approach helping lives for good wills.

Isn't this because more research has been done and more awareness has been created? Nobody cared about sugar because they didn't know the implications of it and if we go even further back there were fewer sugary foods, so there was no need for any implication because people didn't take that much sugar, but years later, more surgery foods where made and therefore people had to be made aware of the implication of sugar.

People pay more attention to health these days because more awareness has been made. You can argue that the people of old didn't bother about such things and they were fine. Well, people of old didn't have to deal with the things we're dealing with today. They didn't eat the kinds of unhealthy food we're eating today and were not exposed to the kinds of gases and chemicals we're exposed to today.   

The world doesn't need capitalism to thrive, maybe the West does need it to thrive but definitely not the entire world. There are other parts of the world where capitalism isn't bringing development as it's doing in other parts where it probably originated and this is simple to understand why, because it's alien to their socio-cultural environment. Maybe by the time we come to a truth away from interest to accept that what does works for Mr X might not work for Me Y, and so therefore should let Mr Y go on the pedestal that is accustomed to their environment rather than somewhat impositions.

One clear example to answer this thread is the content of another thread we were discussing days ago regards the yearly launchment of new Iphone models by Apple.

People don't need to buy a new Iphone each new year, but they still do it, anyway, because they are heavily influenced by a wild capitalist mindset. Some people even create huge debt and waste a lot of money in order to do that, what prejudices their financial development.

However, another needs we have such as sugar free food and goods or tools which bring comfort and accessibility to our lives, make total sense to be acquired if you think from your health's point of view, depending the individual.

I don't believe that these substitutes are better than natural sugar. Most of these so-called healthy forms of sugars are chemically produced and might even bring bigger health problems. The reason why these firms might be pushing consumers to buy these perceived healthy products is to cut production costs. Maybe buying natural ingredients or materials costs more than artificial ones. However, these companies have developed different catchy advertisements to entice people to accept these new products. They even go as far as financing researchers in colleges and institutions that will come up with findings which will favour or promote the business.

Almost everything we use is created by capitalists. You would have to go back to the Stone Age to avoid using these products. But I try as much as I can to reduce my consumption of artificially produced food.

Human consumption needs are actually created by marketing and trends. Sugar is a clear example, where a natural desire is transformed into something more complex due to the variety of new products and choices offered. We need to be more objective in understanding what we really need.

This thread went off on a tangent from what I expected it to be, reading the subject title. To answer the question, most of our needs are & always have been created by capitalists. You drive to work, cars built by capitalists. You drink water, it’s naturally sourced but by government funded capitalist water companies. You heat your home, capitalist corporations provide the gas heating. The clothes we wear, made in factories, probably in China by kids indirectly controlled by capitalist clothing brands. We need capitalism, the world wouldn’t thrive without it.

Indeed, marketing had effectively altered what we consider to matter - such as sugar-turned it into a vital concern of health. As a result, the number of choices in relation to such concerns has burgeoned. It demonstrates how social influence alters personal choices. The intake of sugars is merely part of that larger trend that has made our natural strategies more than commercial impacts and health adoption. This brings to the fore important questions regarding whether consumption has been brought about merely by the individual's decisions or to what extent it is a product of social prescripts.


Raised some interesting points on the dynamics of the sugar industry. and public perceptions of past policies on public consumption It is true that awareness on the health risk of sugar has increased, and consumers are increasingly making conscious choices; most consumers opt for low or no sugar products. Introducing sugar substitutes makes it all the more complicated. more complex Because sugar substitutes can have their own health issues. That is something many people may not understand.

One of the steps in maintaining healthy is focusing on what one eats, avoiding very processed foods, and thus being mindful of what one is taking while seeking to have a balanced nutritious diet. Can we not teach people more about these possible dangers of sugar substitutes? Especially now that they market it as a healthy option, how can they be allowed?

Because the capitalists bribed the researchers to claim sugar is healthy, that's make people don't care to consume a lot sugar.

However, people are now aware if sugar is unhealthy, so people mostly choose less sugar or no sugar. But, the capitalists are still trying a way to add sugar even the product claim to be sugar free/no sugar, instead they add sugar substitutes which is more dangerous if you consume it regularly.

Always eat organic foods, don't eat shitty high processed foods, juice, etc.

Human nature is essentially a collection of needs. All needs eventually manifest in human behavior, becoming evident through repeated consumption choices.But in this society, many of our consumption behaviors are artificially created. Take sugar, for example. It has gone through multiple iterations. In the past, no one paid much attention to it or sought high sweetness. Now, under various forms of marketing, people have developed anxieties about their body shape and health. As a result, we have sugar-free, sugar substitutes, zero-calorie sugar, and arabinose, all appearing in the ingredient lists of various products.