Advertising is itself unethical. It is intentionally dishonest and manipulative. It utilizes psychology and the most despicable types of social pressure to take resources away from positive and productive uses. So, I have no qualms about having as near a zero-tolerance policy as modern society allows--which is not very near at all. Just by getting dressed every morning we are walking billboards.

I have never knowingly clicked on an ad, annoying or not. I block them as aggressively as possible. I use a DVR to skip every commercial break (but still am subjected to product placement, in-show ads on the bottom of the screen, and probably another dozen things that are not publicized)--but I have an ad for the machine itself at the top of the remote. I pay for satellite radio and change the station when ads play.

If that starves the media machine of resources, good. Pay people $200k/year to work in television instead of $2M (you can live on that, even in L.A.). Pay athletes a decent rather than obscene wage. If we never had the Snuggie, we would be a more noble species. Nobody needs a $50k car, sorry. Reality television indulges the worst in human nature and makes us all poorer in spirit while making creeps of the Jon & Kate, Rachel Ray or Octomom ilk into rich 'celebrities.'

All of this is time, energy and money that could have cured cancer, built a base on Mars, and fed every human on the planet, but is instead subsidizing infinity pools in Benedict Canyon, and, lest we forget, making the Bernie Madoffs and AIGs of the world possible in the first place. If we didn't feel subconsciously compelled, from the first spoonful of Gerber® to the last spoonful of Metamucil®, to buy ever more and fancier things, we wouldn't need to chase the last dollar these greed miners dangle.

If there is something self-contradictory about all this, then I resort to Walt Whitman. If you have no idea what that means, you are probably spending too much time on advertising-supported media.

And yet here you are, on advertising-supported media, freeloading. Your argument would be a lot more compelling if it weren't coming from a hypocrite. Then again, nobody would be reading your hypocritical blather if it weren't here, being supported by ads.

That's the most ridiculous blather I've read on a message board in a long time. If people stopped advertising, we'd have cured cancer and built a base on Mars? Right, because people who write ad copy also happen to be eminent scientists, but make more money trying to sell Slankets.

But since advertising is unethical by definition, according to you, I'll be sure to go to the art museum and rip down the banner touting their new exhibit. And then punch George Clooney for trying to raise "awareness" about Darfur. And pop the badging off my car, since I don't want people to think that my driving a Honda is somehow an endorsement of the vehicle.

But in the meanwhile, since apparently even the Baltic states are too commercialist for you, I'd invite you to move to North Korea where you can be blissfully free of all that evil advertising and see how much those people are enjoying the freedom of a command economy.

Yes, freeloading indeed, and without a hint of remorse. I see no ads. If they get credit for my page views, or however it works, good for them. Clearly the Whitman reference is lost on you.

It isn't lost on me, messageboardterrorist. But then, I read books.

Mmmm and Colage, you're missing the point that (I think) mbt was making. Advertising is immoral not because it's advertising, but because it's dishonest. From what I can see, mbt is objecting to the fact that ad men use every dirty trick in the book to get you to do something you weren't interested in doing. That is indeed unethical, especially give that so many ads - such as pharmaceutical ads, which should go back to being illegal, in my opinion - are flat out misleading and dishonest.

Advertising wouldn't be nearly so hated if more of it were honest. That's why Google ads work so well with users - we like those - and the crazy flashy childish cartoon bullshit doesn't.

Am I right, mbt? Would you be more willing to deal with advertising if it weren't underhanded and manipulative?

Well, if this is the most ridiculous thing you've read, then you don't read very many message boards. I made it through several paragraphs without blaming Obama, Bush, Rush, the Jews, the Illuminati, immigrants or globalization. Well, maybe globalization, a little bit.

The point is not that people who write ad copy would become scientists. The point is that if we spent fewer resources consuming things we don't need but buy because we think we are supposed to do so, then we could devote those resources elsewhere. There is a vicious circle created by advertising, and those were just a few examples. If it means it pays less to be in advertising supported businesses, that is not even a price to pay--that is an additional benefit. Absent advertising revenue, there is no reason someone gets paid $18M/year to play baseball. I don't begrudge them getting their fair share of the pie, but the pie is big because advertising warps priorities.

I'll concede that I was not specific, and there is nothing wrong with signage. I have no idea what the red herring about command economies is supposed to mean. There was capitalism before there was consumerism. Consumerism is a direct result of advancements in marketing and advertising sciences, much of which goes to create the illusion of need where there is none, or to create insecurities and then exploit them.

Yes, and I think that is a much better explanation than I was giving as you posted this. There is nothing wrong with using media to create awareness that a product exists, or to extol its benefits. The dishonesty is a large part of it, and the underhandedness veers very close to plain evil.

When it crosses into using psychology to create false demand, advertising becomes something else. When it uses deception, that is patently wrong.

My point was that your connection between adversiting and consumerism was faulty. There was advertisement before consumerism, too. And if advertisement is bad in and of itself, even in its least intrusive forms (clothing design, to draw an example from your top post), then I can't imagine how to differentiate between what's a worthy purchase and what's not.

Even with the expanded definition, your dream scenario doesn't stand up. You can't simply say that x% of GDP is spent on advertising (or A-Rod, or whatever), and if that was funneled into, say, education, then all these great things would happen. In fact, absent consumerism and the money multiplier that it generates, the decrease in the tax base and general wealth would probably push a cure for cancer or a Mars base farther away.

So, yes, consumerism played a large part in Madoff, subprime, et al, but without consumerism there'd be no Great Society, lower standards of living, and less technological innovation. Demonizing it because of the problems it causes is like criticizing the polio vaccine because it hurts to get it administered.

Serai:

Advertising is immoral not because it's advertising, but because it's dishonest. From what I can see, mbt is objecting to the fact that ad men use every dirty trick in the book to get you to do something you weren't interested in doing. That is indeed unethical, especially give that so many ads - such as pharmaceutical ads, which should go back to being illegal, in my opinion - are flat out misleading and dishonest.

That's cherrypicking though. He specifically pointed out the Snuggie. What's dishonest about that? It's a blanket with sleeves. I can't possibly see how they're trying to pull a fast one on me.

Even pharma ads are pretty straightforward. After all, they do disclose every thing that could possibly go wrong while taking it. And, again, I just don't see what they could so dishonest about when they're trying to sell me a pill that helps me sustain an erection.

If the issue is that they're trying to sell you something you don't really need, like a Snuggie, then I'll concede that point. But, for reasons that I detailed above, I don't necessicarily accept that as an unmitigated downside.

Agreed, there are system dynamics at work far more complicated than could be done justice here. However, I don't think consumerism, per se, has any multiplier effect outside of itself, nor does it add much to technological advancement. The standard of living argument presumes that a higher standard of living is always a good thing, which presumption is itself the bedrock of consumerism, isn't it? There are diminishing returns, and at a certain point we aren't improving our lives by improving our standard of living, we are merely allocating more resources to goods and services which are not necessary or beneficial. To say they are necessary and beneficial because someone else profits from them seems a circuitous argument. In fact, I think we passed that break-even point some time ago. The quality of goods and services is diminishing because a shorter life-cycle is more profitable. This means I now need to replace a dishwasher or TV or clothing more often, which means I need to earn more to maintain that same standard of living. When wage inflation does not keep up, I run up debt. The amount of waste (literal and otherwise) is staggering. The relentless march to increase our standard of living is not only no longer affordable, it is in several ways no longer sustainable. I'm not sure I'm complaining the polio shot is hurting my arm. I think the polio shot is giving us cancer.

Okay, so I was picking on the Snuggie because it's tacky. My apologies to it, the ShamWow, and the entire Ron Popeil empire. Pharma ads are anything but straightforward. They disclose everything the FDA requires, which means everything the industry agrees to (or is sued or shamed into being forced to) let the FDA require. It's a largely self-regulated industry. But the end result of the ads is, people think they need these drugs. They want to know why their doctor has them on X when they saw an ad for Y. Apart from the nature of the advertisements, creating a need for drugs rather than creating drugs for medical needs is a screwy way to do things. The boner pills are a great example. Do you really, truly believe everyone who takes them needs them?

Right, just as Snuggie ads make people think that they need a blanket with sleeves, or George Clooney makes people think that they need to help Darfur, or my charismatic self makes people think they should drive a Honda. The difference with pharma ads is that - for, at least, prescription drugs, they need their doctor to sign off on it. As for the notion that they put in only what the FDA requires - well, I don't know what else needs to be in the ads to make them more "honest."

I'd further submit that pharma ads are usually shown when there's competition in that segment of the market, or there's not awareness that something can be fixed. Erectile dysfunction, for example, is a legitimate medical condition, which is why Viagra ads were shown in the beginning, and then Cialis and Levitra started with trying to capture some of that market.

And, yes, "boner pills" are a great example of pharma ads that convince people that they need something they may not actually need, but they're also the only prominent example. How many people are lining up for asthma or birth control medication if they don't have a need for them?

It utilizes psychology and the most despicable types of social pressure to take resources away from positive and productive uses.

jesus christ you are more evangelical than jerry fallwell. everything must be done for the total good, right comrade?

and you wonder where totalitarean collectivists come from. from these two control freaks. surrender to collective. only pre approved everything for you!! these two know you are stupid and can't tell reality from advertising so everyone must run everything by them for approval.

i'd kick both your sorry communistic asses right now if you were here.

Every once in a while someone suggests that one of the pillars of the American hyper consumerism that is laying waste to the earth is morally questionable. The response is usually vitriolic. Here is no exception.

Nevertheless, it is the job of people with sense to say the obvious over and over again: We can't have a world where everyone lives life of riches without restraint. There's not enough stuff in the world to buy and sell to make it happen. Eventually, even Americans, the greediest people on earth, will start to see that, and indeed accept less than multi-million dollar salaries, less than $50,000 cars, etc., etc., and the storm of advertising lies that accosts us every day will begin to abate.

Why do I know this will happen? Because the limits of the productivity of the earth will support, materially, the new ethic that has been growing up here spiritually since the 1970s. It takes a long time for a new ethic to prevail. It tool over 300 years for the status of slaves to go from slave to nominally free to now (in some cases) actually free.

And the world will be a quieter, more humane, and above all more rational place.

PS: What you ad-lovers want to happen to the Internet is what happened to radio between its inception in the early 920s and now. Originally it was wide-ranging in what was broadcast. Then gradually the profit motive and ever-more intrusive and manipulative ads took it over. How many of you intelligent Slate readers can bear to listen to it now?