This was really thought provoking. The subscription model is used everywhere now, and though it feels like it’s a convenience to us it is of course purely a recurring revenue play to lock customers in and reduce repeat marketing spend.
I think your connection to a loss of serendipity is particularly interesting. Once you’ve paid for a subscription you want to get the most you can from it, reducing scope for exploration. For example, an Amazon Prime subscription destroys the need for many kinds of shopping that would previously have been a source of discovery and even joy: now a button click. Convenience and isolation are replacing wonder and community at a societal level.
Like an all you can eat buffet, once we’re paid in we want to squeeze as much as possible out. Just as over production occurs on the supply side, we’re trying to squeeze all the value we can out of our subscriptions, often without much residual value to our lives.
Do you think “conscious consumption” has a place in the digital, all you can eat world?
What are your views on physical subscriptions?
I’ve tended to view these as generally positive, minimalist, anti-materialist. For example Zip-car, Lime bikes etc. However your point about digital curation and predictability struck a chord here too. In return for not owning stuff, are we letting corporations own a bit of us instead?
Lastly, AI is coming imminently to the supply side of digital subscription feeds. What do you think it means for humanity to have machines produce content designed to elicit emotion from us for profit? Does it cease to be art and become pure manipulation?
Hey Sam! Thanks for your comment and for engaging with these ideas so deeply - love the ‘all you can eat’ reference. Ultimately, I think your observations highlight the paradox of the subscription economy - it’s marketed as freedom but binds us in ways we’re only just beginning to understand. In response to your thoughts:
Does conscious consumption have a place in the digital all you can eat world?
For sure - but requires a fundamental shift in how we engage with the services at our disposal. It's about reclaiming the time and mental space that subscriptions quietly chip away at. They’re inherently designed to erode conscious choice.
To consume consciously in this environment, we need to interrogate our relationship with convenience. Convenience isn’t inherently bad, but when it’s packaged with endless options it dulls our capacity to evaluate what we truly value. How much do I actually need to consume before I feel like I’ve “gotten my money’s worth”? What’s enough, rather than what more.
There are certain services that inherently sit outside this, like libraries, art memberships, or community-supported programmes that challenge the consumption-for-consumption’s-sake mentality. Prioritising intentionality, over volume or speed.
Finally, we can’t ignore that this model thrives on distracting us from its environmental consequences. It may feel lightweight compared to the physical, but their digital infrastructure—data centers, bandwidth, electricity—has a massive carbon footprint. True conscious consumption includes these hidden costs in our decision-making, focusing on the finite resources behind infinite content.
Are physical subscriptions more positive?
They have the potential to align with sustainable values, but the hidden trade-offs you mentioned are key. Centralising access to essential services, means corporations running them can control availability, pricing, and the user experience e.g surge pricing, lack of coverage in lower-income neighborhoods, or predatory data collection practices which simply reinforce inequities. As with all models prioritising scale, sustainability is compromised e.g many bike or scooter programmes have faced backlash for high rates of product turnover—vehicles that are poorly maintained, frequently replaced, or abandoned. I think we have to ask whether the entities providing these services are aligned with our values—or whether they’re simply rebranding ownership to charge us endlessly for what used to be ours.
What happens when AI dominates subscription content?
Loved this question. Personally, I think AI-generated content is used not to enrich our lives, but to keep us tethered to the subscription loop. At that point, the line between art and manipulation becomes blurred. I would argue that true art challenges us, invites introspection, and sometimes even leaves us uncomfortable. But AI content, designed to maximise profit, risks becoming a one-dimensional reflection of our preferences, feeding us what’s easy to digest rather than what makes us think or grow. I think we are already seeing an emotional flattening, where our cultural diet is reduced to safe, digestible tropes that reinforce existing patterns rather than surprising us.
This was really thought provoking. The subscription model is used everywhere now, and though it feels like it’s a convenience to us it is of course purely a recurring revenue play to lock customers in and reduce repeat marketing spend.
I think your connection to a loss of serendipity is particularly interesting. Once you’ve paid for a subscription you want to get the most you can from it, reducing scope for exploration. For example, an Amazon Prime subscription destroys the need for many kinds of shopping that would previously have been a source of discovery and even joy: now a button click. Convenience and isolation are replacing wonder and community at a societal level.
Like an all you can eat buffet, once we’re paid in we want to squeeze as much as possible out. Just as over production occurs on the supply side, we’re trying to squeeze all the value we can out of our subscriptions, often without much residual value to our lives.
Do you think “conscious consumption” has a place in the digital, all you can eat world?
What are your views on physical subscriptions?
I’ve tended to view these as generally positive, minimalist, anti-materialist. For example Zip-car, Lime bikes etc. However your point about digital curation and predictability struck a chord here too. In return for not owning stuff, are we letting corporations own a bit of us instead?
Lastly, AI is coming imminently to the supply side of digital subscription feeds. What do you think it means for humanity to have machines produce content designed to elicit emotion from us for profit? Does it cease to be art and become pure manipulation?
Thanks once again, really interesting insights!
Hey Sam! Thanks for your comment and for engaging with these ideas so deeply - love the ‘all you can eat’ reference. Ultimately, I think your observations highlight the paradox of the subscription economy - it’s marketed as freedom but binds us in ways we’re only just beginning to understand. In response to your thoughts:
Does conscious consumption have a place in the digital all you can eat world?
For sure - but requires a fundamental shift in how we engage with the services at our disposal. It's about reclaiming the time and mental space that subscriptions quietly chip away at. They’re inherently designed to erode conscious choice.
To consume consciously in this environment, we need to interrogate our relationship with convenience. Convenience isn’t inherently bad, but when it’s packaged with endless options it dulls our capacity to evaluate what we truly value. How much do I actually need to consume before I feel like I’ve “gotten my money’s worth”? What’s enough, rather than what more.
There are certain services that inherently sit outside this, like libraries, art memberships, or community-supported programmes that challenge the consumption-for-consumption’s-sake mentality. Prioritising intentionality, over volume or speed.
Finally, we can’t ignore that this model thrives on distracting us from its environmental consequences. It may feel lightweight compared to the physical, but their digital infrastructure—data centers, bandwidth, electricity—has a massive carbon footprint. True conscious consumption includes these hidden costs in our decision-making, focusing on the finite resources behind infinite content.
Are physical subscriptions more positive?
They have the potential to align with sustainable values, but the hidden trade-offs you mentioned are key. Centralising access to essential services, means corporations running them can control availability, pricing, and the user experience e.g surge pricing, lack of coverage in lower-income neighborhoods, or predatory data collection practices which simply reinforce inequities. As with all models prioritising scale, sustainability is compromised e.g many bike or scooter programmes have faced backlash for high rates of product turnover—vehicles that are poorly maintained, frequently replaced, or abandoned. I think we have to ask whether the entities providing these services are aligned with our values—or whether they’re simply rebranding ownership to charge us endlessly for what used to be ours.
What happens when AI dominates subscription content?
Loved this question. Personally, I think AI-generated content is used not to enrich our lives, but to keep us tethered to the subscription loop. At that point, the line between art and manipulation becomes blurred. I would argue that true art challenges us, invites introspection, and sometimes even leaves us uncomfortable. But AI content, designed to maximise profit, risks becoming a one-dimensional reflection of our preferences, feeding us what’s easy to digest rather than what makes us think or grow. I think we are already seeing an emotional flattening, where our cultural diet is reduced to safe, digestible tropes that reinforce existing patterns rather than surprising us.
Thoughts?