Disposable DVDs not so popular after all, although due to economic reasons rather than ecologic.
So, assuming that we are now in a state of consumer individualism, we can see that success of a concept is weighted heavily towards the short-term gain of the individual. Duh. Question: Is it possible to use this narrow-minded immediacy to create either awareness of sustainability and broader society/influence, or to come up with a system that benefits said more than it benefits the individual? i.e., the consumer benefits and so the scheme stands a chance of survival, but the side-effect is also great.
This could be seen either as an unseen primary effect (where the secondary effect is actually the most visible to the instigator, but lesser on a larger scale), or as a moulding of non-individualism to natural capitalism. The two are are somewhat opposed, but more intertwined than inherently mutually exclusive, I think.
So can we exploit consumerism's primary objectives and fundamental machinations to be of greater benefit to "bigger issues" than current? First, we would have to readily admit that the effects would not be as significant as they would be in a non-capitalist, ideal state, but I feel it is harder to either force or try to convince people to do something when they have already been coaxed into a way of mind that is a). not receptive to such issues, and b). perhaps open to "exploitation".
So far, this is quite abstract, yes. But to take an idea that ties together and worked so well for Star Trek and martial arts, and apply it to economy and society has to start somewhere. It is about using the force present in a system to actually change that system. It can almost be envisioned as a form of momentum - by realising how best to apply further force to the right place, one can influence the behaviour of a moving object to something or somewhere quite different.