Someone fix this wikipedia article

I agree. Including a Prius as a means of conspicuous conservation isn't accurate.

Now a Tesla maybe. Or even a Lexus RX400h.

 

In many parts of the country, there are still so few people who know what a Prius is, that it is not conspicuous at all.

What I find interesting here, is the attempt to turn a good thing into a bad thing: conspicuous conservationists are being told they are doing something good for the wrong reason. What does the world care if they are doing it for the wrong reason? If you are doing the right thing, you are having a positive impact. Your intentions are of minor if any concern.

I had a discussion with a friend about this. The topic was not conservation, but was, What do you think of people, generally, who do the right thing for a wrong reason? (Example: a person who gives money to charity so that others will admire him.) My friend's answer was, A person who does the right thing for the wrong reason long enough will be changed for the better by his right actions, and will end up doing the right thing for the right reason.

Would you rather someone conserve energy in order to be thought of as a good guy, or continue to waste energy?

 

As soon as a rigorous definition of "genuine concern for the environment" is proffered, the underlying logic can be analyzed further.

Moreover though, rarely are human decisions black and white. An interest or concern for the environment may not be enough for citizen X to buy a Prius, but when positive societal feedback is included, it is. One does not negate the other; and despite what the author seems to think, humans *are* social animals.

Heck, show me a new car purchase that does NOT have elements of 'conspicuous consumption' as the author uses it, and I'll show you a car that is not driven.

If a product has no intrinsic conservation value, but is bought and displayed for it's green aura however underserved, then IMO we have an example of what the author is writing about. Prius is light-years away from that category, as is a windmill.

 

Seems like a perfectly good example to me. I've seen plenty of people here say they chose the Prius over a Civic Hybrid (or whatever) because it's visibly identifiable as a hybrid.

Not to mention all those with huge "HYBRID" stickers all over the back, and what have you.

Why so touchy?

The only problem with that article is that it contradicts itself in the middle saying "generally are motivated by display of wealth". Er, surely that's "conspicuous consumption", not its antithesis. Buying a Prius could certainly be a bit of both, as any sort of new car is conspicuous consumption, but this definition need sorting.

Hmm. As I suspected, the article has been warped by a later editor. It made sense before 86.133.21.82 changed it on 17 May and added that text. Previous version read:

Rather more coherent, and without the POV "rather than through genuine concern for the environment".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ Sep 11 2006, 06:55 PM) [snapback]318100[/snapback]</div>

The idea of Wikipedia is to approach true knowledge through contribution of many thinkers. So why not contribute your own fix?

 

Still nonsensical, KMO.
How about: smart enough to realize that the cost of a commodity is not completely reflected in direct out-of-pocket costs, and is willing to foot the cost directly, rather than dumping it on society or the future ?

Conspicuous is conspicuous, but conservation and consumption are NOT mirror images of each other, and so the comparison is flawed.

I consume happily, so long as it is sustainable. The so called conspicuous consumer consumes without regard to sustainability, but typically without specific intent to deplete in order to leave less (clean air, energy, etc) for others.

 

I agree the problem with this definition of "conspicuous conservation" is the idea of "wealth display" over "genuine concern for the environment." For me, conspicuous conservation is not necessarily a bad thing. Quite the contrary, "green" is increasingly becoming fashionable in that it represents a form of status to some degree. That is, the Prius stands out from the Civic or Accord hybrids, therefore more "conspicuous" for what it represents -- super clean, fuel efficiency. Many celebrities have flocked around the Prius, giving it some allure as a fashion statement.

For too long, green products have had a bad reputation as being poor performing. Given the status of emergng green products like the Prius, conspicuous conservation has the ability to change public awareness and attitudes.

I'd say at least once a month, someone will ask me what kind of mileage I get on my Prius and how it handles, and I'm happy to "brag" about my smart purchase. One of my non-green friends has a Prius, we have an ongoing competition about who can beat each other on mileage. I recently got 59.1 MPG on a stretch between Primm and Las Vegas, beating her 55.6 MPG record. This has been a source of fun for almost a year now.

I have a solar powered backpack that frequently sparks conversation from people unfamiliar with the technology, and this gives me an opportunity to tell them how convenient it is to recharge my cell phone when I'm away from power. In short, I believe the conspicuousness of some of my green gadgets allows me to educate other "non-green" folks about the practical benefits of greener products. Some friends of ours saw us at the market one day and noticed the organic milk carton in our basket. They asked if organic was better than regular milk, and my young daughters immediately responded that they thought it tasted better. Any time I can let others know about the practical benefits of green, I always take the opportunity.

The bottom line is that people buy products as an extension of themselves -- a famous marketing professor at the Univeristy of Utah calls this "the extended self"; that is, we are what we consume, wear, buy, and display. Many green products are conspicuous, and whether we realize that or not, they communicate to others about the importance of protecting the environment. True, some green products are more expensive, so they may communicate some level of "conspicuous consumption." However, I think the conspicuousness of many green products have the opportunity to dispell some of the negative images of green products, and if green products become cool, so much the better!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Sep 12 2006, 09:08 AM) [snapback]318264[/snapback]</div>

Good point, otherwise cars wouldn't be all bright and shiny. It would make more sense to build cars out of traction plate and paint them with Rustoleum; then who would care if you got a little ding. We don't though, instead making our cars look like pieces of artwork. Why? Because it looks good. A lot of life is like this.

Tom

 

It's good that Prius Chat is not representative of America as a whole. Maybe if you are talking America as a whole, this article is a bit out of line. If you are talking about the regular participants on here, then the article may not state it clearly enough.

This place is a cesspool of liberal "I'm hugging the trees better than anyone else" so full of yourselves Al Gore lovin conspicuous conservatives.

There have been some income polls on here and I think overall, it does show a higher than normal overall level of income in this group, so that part of the article is fairly accurate for the PC society.

So many of you work so hard to be so proud of how goodie goodie you are to the environment and how bad so many others are for the environment based greatly on the back of driving a Prius or not. That article is your statement of faith, don't be embarrassed.

For me... It's all about $$ at the gas pump. If I could drive a dual wheeled diesel Ford and spend about the same on fuel as I do with the prius, I'd be there in a minute.