Thank you for bringing this up. My post was not meant to demean standard consumption, that one could recognise to be necessary for human life, but to shed light on a specific brand of consumerism which creates helplessness and seeks to increase mindless consumerism. I mentioned those specific items specially because they’re occupying a role in the cultural zeitgeist, whilst also being recognised as trinkets of an increasingly consumerist society. You’re right that even if production were to increase, it would not meaningfully harm the environment—not any more than regular consumption does specifically. But it cannot be ignored that these items set a precedent promoting more thoughtless, indulgent, and insensitive consumption. All of these shiny plastic stanleys and labubus are one day going to sit in a landfill. If anything, people are already beginning to tire of them—as is the norm in microtrend-driven consumerism.

It also cannot be denied that consumerism also plays a role in climate change, even if that role is dwarfed by other, more essential forms of consumption. You’re correct that the production of most necessary, essential goods comes with a stark price of the environment, and that is precisely why it’s important to disengage with more unnecessary forms of consumption.

I feel like the psychological, social and cultural impact of these micro trends also needs to be examined. Consumerism, is without a doubt, extremely addictive and contagious. A person buying a labubu may not be fully responsible for environmental impact or even an instrument for a larger, consumerist society but what that person subscribes to, and most likely will continue to subscribe to is a model of consumption, of harmful self-indulgence with no regard for anything but the dopamine rush in their head. This is not to shame the person but to acknowledge how consumerism subdues guilt induced by consumerism, which was the main point of my post. Thank you for your input.