>

People have not always had separate rooms and separate boxes (TV) for entertainment. Privately owned vehicles are a rather new phenomenon for both society as well as human existence. 
Some religions also make people weak, and it’s for the same reason. It’s the unquestioned assumption of what your behavior should be. For some religion, it’s the notion that you live a particular way laid out by divine golden tablets. Don’t question authority. 
For consumerism, it’s the unquestioned assumption of what your behavior should be. For consumerism, it’s the notion that you work long hours so that you can consume the next product that will make grinding your life away worth it. Never mind that many people could be content with just not suffering. Instead, in order to be happy, you need buy products so you don’t miss out. Entirely focused on the material world, you forget humans are capable of so much more, such as intense dialogue and contemplation. Or just existing in peace.
/u/ficiousconscious (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

From some of your other comments, I suspect your definition of "weak" just makes this a tautology. 
I mean, sure, if you define "strong" as "People who aren’t concerned with material consumption or pleasure.", then people who are concerned with material consumption and/or pleasure are "weak", and societies that are concerned with that are "weak". 
But that's not really a definition that anyone uses. I defy you to find a single dictionary with a single definition of "weak" (or "strong") that is even remotely similar to that. >

Do weak people exist? If so, please elaborate on their characteristics. Surely physically weak people exist (obesity in developed countries), so let’s try to define what mentally weak people look like. I’ll start. Impulsive. Superficial. Lacking critical thought. Uneducated. Seems like characteristics of a perfect materialistic society. 
You could argue the U.S. is highly educated. I’d argue schooling isn’t necessarily education, nor is having a ball and chain in the form of debt indicative of a good education. But that’s an entirely separate conversation. Higher education in the US is an industry. Clearly. In fact, I could easily use it to further prove my point, as it’s more of a product than intrinsically valuable, especially because it’s a common meme that schooling permits a higher income, and you guessed it, makes a more efficient consumer. >


Impulsive. Superficial. Lacking critical thought. Uneducated.

Only one of these (impulsive) actually ties to consumerism and what people would define as "weak" in any meaningful way. Superficial, lack of critical thought, uneducated I think either aren't related to any widely held definition of weak, or tied in any meaningful way to consumerism and not other social theories. Or at least can you show how they are? >

Not even that one to be honest.
In a consumerist society you are able to plan way longer ahead and think about future products you might want to buy to make your life better. >

What makes materialism uniquely worse than the criteria you’re claiming it is replacing? Nationalism, religion, and consumerism all have storied histories of exploiting the majority to the benefit of the upper class; cynically, the only difference is the “God” that is worshipped, and the important common factor is that the poors are kept in line.
Similarly, what makes a consumerist society more “weak”? They generally seem strong in the geopolitical sense. Perhaps they would collapse if people stopped hyperconsuming, but only in the same sense that a society based around anything else might collapse if that uniting thing no longer functions—e.g. if a nation no longer exists, or the dominant religious sect is stomped out of existence.
Not to keep beating on this drum but none of the factors you attribute to consumerism seem unique to it. Nations and religions essentially DEFINE—often by law—holidays and acceptable social norms and who it’s acceptable to date and whatnot. People have always been “bombarded” with flags/crosses/statues/ etc. Being judged by “your potential for dialogue” is not a thing that really exists outside of maybe an academic environment; on a practical level, speech is historically as free as the degree of divergence from the norm that your neighbors and government will tolerate.
It’s also worth noting that most of humanity lived and died pretty close to where they were born, their ability to travel or seek out differing perspectives restricted by a lack of things like highways/airplanes/internet. >


The immediate environment is also incredibly isolating. You live in a box. You transport yourself in a box. You purchase boxes inside a massive box known as stores, or you get your boxes shipped to the box you live in.

People have always lived in boxes, that is the shape a house is. Wagons, too, are roughly box-shaped. And then if you're religious you go into a big box called a "church" every Sunday and open a box called "the Bible". This is a bizarre metaphor.

Consumerism makes weak people.

Compared to what, religion? Why doesn't religion make weak people?