DOING NOTHING MIGHT BE THE BEST THING WE CAN DO.
The other day I walked past a shop window in Utrecht that read, “Buy here and make the world better.” I won’t repeat what I felt like throwing through that window, but let’s just say a passing glance wouldn’t have done my frustration justice. And that frustration wasn’t just about the tone-deaf message, as if consumption ever makes the world better, but because that same frustration has been showing up more and more often lately. After reading Reint Jan Renes’ opinion piece in de Volkskrant from June 26 (dutch only) “We need a mental Ozempic for our urge to buy,” it became painfully clear. This isn’t simple. It’s not a matter of an injection, a pill, or a clever sentence on a shop window. Reality is more messy. The urge to consume runs deep, and the system that creates it runs even deeper. What we call “good” in this context is often just a less harmful version of the same problem, packaged as moral progress. As if buying “consciously” suddenly exempts you from the damage. But even second-hand platforms like Vinted operate on the same logic as fast fashion: rotation. Quick purchase, quick resale, dopamine rush, environmental impact ignored.
I work with many fashion brands, and every time the conversation turns to how a product or brand is “better,” more responsible, more sustainable, even circular, I always say, the only thing it is, is less harmful. But harmful it still is. That may sound like nuance, but it is actually a fundamental difference. As long as we keep talking in terms of “better buying,” we preserve the idea that buying itself is fine, that the only question is how, not if.
The tricky part is, I am part of the system too. I love beautiful things. I wear pieces made with thought and care, things that last. But even then, who gets to decide if that is really “good”? During a conversation with a friend, I caught myself saying, “If people just bought one well-made item every now and then, they’d save money in the long run compared to endless Primark runs.” But that is a privileged perspective.
So how do we talk honestly about consuming less, without judging people or sounding superior? How do we show that even platforms pretending to offer sustainable alternatives, like Vinted, still push people toward more buying, more desire, more noise, more dopamine?
As Reint Jan Renes argues, this is not a failure of individual willpower, but a systemic problem. And the real ethical question is this: when do we call something “good” behavior? When it fits within the system that is making us sick, or when it dares to challenge that system?
Alec Leach’s The World is on Fire but We’re Still Buying Shoes exposes that uncomfortable truth. The issue is not that we don’t know what’s happening. It’s that even while the world is literally on fire, we still seek comfort in something new, something pretty, something for ourselves. Because that is how capitalism works. Because it soothes our craving for dopamine. Because it numbs us, just a little. And honestly, who can blame us, in a world where everything around us screams that buying equals existing?
To challenge this, we need a different language. A language that doesn’t speak in terms of green growth or responsible shopping, but in words like enough, slowness, reuse, sharing, revaluing. Maybe those are the first steps. Taxing returns. Don’t open shops for 7 days a week. Banning algorithms that push us into yet another purchase. But above all, we need an honest conversation about the fact that what we often call “good” is really just what feels comfortable, not what is right.
Maybe it’s time for an ethic where not doing has more value than doing. Where not buying something becomes an act of care, for yourself, for others, and for whatever might still be left.
And really, keep this in mind - as Soulwax recently put it, flashing the words during live shows and across billboards in Paris and London: ALL SYSTEMS ARE LYING.
Back ︎︎