|
This is not to sound preachy, but just to ask a serious question: What do you need to be happy? How much is enough?
Present day civilization is wrapped up in the all-consuming quest for more. More technology, more power, more speed, more possessions, more luxury. Fine… Fine… But if we are going to take on some kind of quest, it helps to know when we have succeeded or failed. There are some people who never have a sense of being full when they eat, and they can eat to the point of death. Likewise, if we do not have the ability to judge when we are satisfied, we may consume ours way to death. There is good reason to believe this is happening. So what is enough?
You have to wonder if people that lived 100 or 200 or 10,000 or 20,000 years ago were unhappy. Do you believe that they were? Maybe they were. They didn’t have climate control or flush toilets or running water or gas stoves.
Do you believe that people were unhappy in 1950? 1970? They didn’t have personal computers back then, and they didn’t have cell phones or flat screen televisions. They didn’t have CD’s or the internet. They didn’t have many of the things that even young children take for granted today, in late 2007. Were they miserable because they did not have cell phones?
Today many of us have flat screen TV’s, computers with high speed internet, cell phones with cameras built in, MP3 players, fast cars with many luxuries, and on and on. Are you unhappy today? More specifically, are you unhappy because you don’t have enough stuff? It’s something to consider, because the way things are going, there will undoubtedly be more dazzling technology and luxury in 10 years. That is, if the world can sustain the relentless growth of consumption that is being pursued. If you are unhappy with your material situation today, will you be happy in 10 years? Will you ever be happy?
Clean water is running out: “More than half of humanity will be living with water shortages, depleted fisheries and polluted coastlines within 50 years because of a worldwide water crisis, warns a United Nations report out Monday” (USA Today). Food is running out. Oil is running out. Various minerals are running out. The air and water and land are contaminated. The forests are disappearing. People are exploited so we can have more, more, and more!
If everyone on Earth lived as a typical American lives, the Earth could sustain 1.6 billion human beings. There are presently 6.6 billion human beings on this Earth. This brings up issues of economic and ecological justice.
We continue to want more things, more toys, and more luxury. When will it be enough? So many people insist on having more children, yet the Earth is already overpopulated and consumption is already ruining the biosphere. One child added here in America is the equivalent of 20 added in Africa. When will we have enough? What will we do when the forests are gone? What will we do when the air and water are ruined? What will we do when billions of people are starving to death?
American happiness peaked in 1957, and has since declined. Wealth has more than doubled since then. The wealthiest 1/5th of the planet’s population consumes 80 percent of the world’s resources. (See the work of economist Alan Durning.) Research shows that as wealth in a given nation increases, happiness does not increase, yet the baseline level of consumption needed to be content DOES increase. (See the work of economist Richard Easterlin.)
How much is enough? This is a personal question. We can complain that there isn’t enough regulation, that the laws are all mangled up and promote waste, and we can complain about the lack of good leadership. Maybe we should do those things, but far more important is to address your own role in the world’s successes and failures. Every single thing you buy and consume has a cost beyond the price tag. How much is enough FOR YOU? Will you take a stand and declare that you have enough? Will you decide at what point you have enough and vow to not go beyond that? What is enough?
|
About this writing, I would like to say that I don't mean to be preachy or judgmental at all. I am merely trying to raise questions that really ought to be asked. The fact is, people are going about things without really considering what they want, and without considering the costs of their actions. What is needed is awareness. We all do have needs, and consumption is part of life. That's fine. But we need to be aware of what our needs are, precisely, and we need to know the costs - not just in terms of the price tag.
I am not a particularly responsible world citizen, but I'm doing what I can. Here is some of what I'm doing or trying to do:
- I drive 80 to 90% less than 6 months ago - I rely on my bicycle instead, and love it.
- I intend to be car-less within the year.
- I've been a vegetarian for 4 years. A vege diet is much friendlier to the environment.
- I eat increasingly local organic food, but still have a long way to go.
- I buy almost no luxuries or fun items for myself now, but restaurant food is still an addiction.
- I've begun recycling.
- I minimize my use of water by rarely showering and flushing only shit down the toilet.
- I try to never use AC or heat.
- I intend to have a vasectomy in the next couple weeks, to take a stand against overpopulation.
As for my limits: I do not intend to ever live in a big home - the smaller the better. No children for me! No meat for me! I have a phone, a guitar and amp, some lights, access to a computer, running water and plenty of food, a good bicycle, and a CD/tape player. I have some books. This all I feel I need.
The process of simplifying and lessening one's impact is tough (yet simultaneously simple!) and it takes time. It's not a pissing contest. I do what I can when I can, and continually look for ways to improve, just as I do in every other aspect of my life. We apply our wisdom and knowledge as we can.
Nick / Inky
|
I have a 7 year old computer and don't spend any money, ever... actually that's a lie I spend money, but never on myself unless it's food. But that's about it.
I understand where your coming from, gullible people are fooled into thinking that material possessions buy happiness. But just go think over your day how many advertisements do you see telling you to buy this and that, and not to mentioned the happy, skinny, anorexic, half naked chick is holding the said product looking like shes the happiest person on Earth. You wake up to the radio first thing you'll probably hear is an advertisement, watch tv more advertisements, driving down the fucking road even more shit that you shouldn't be reading while driving. It's non stop I forget the exact number but your basically exposed to thousands of advertisements a day. And there are millions of stupid people that buy these things, even thou they don't have money and will go in dept because the product will buy them a couple days of happiness.
It's hard to resist temptation, and US consumerism (not sure if that's even a word) is still growing, with new versions of things that due the same thing just look "cooler". I really do think were fucked and not enough people care to make a difference, but I'm a bit old fashioned and would rather try and then fail to make a difference.
And your question of what is enough, it depends on each person, but living and succeeding is enough for me. Things for me don't buy happiness success and knowledge do.
|
BuGzlToOnl: Very impressed with your post. You should be proud that you are doing as you are. Very nice.
Yes, advertising is incredibly important in the process of getting people to consume. It is said that by the time one dies, a person will have watched 2 years of TV commercials. We live under an economic system that depends on frivolous consumption in order to continue operating. Not only must people buy what is produced, but people must buy more each year than the last. So advertising and brainwashing are important factors in that process. This is all very unfortunate.
I disagree that people who fall to advertising are stupid, however. Misguided? Uninformed? Perhaps. But not necessarily stupid at all. It's a cultural issue, not an issue of intelligence.
Last of all, yes, this is all a lost cause. It really is. Billions of people are going to die, there will be widespread wars and suffering in the coming centuries (beginning in this one.) Environmental catastrophe is unavoidable at this point. But we should do the right thing not because it will succeed, but because it is the right thing. We can make a difference, even if horrible things still result (we can make the end result less horrible.) Also, changing one's life in a way that minimizes consumption and waste is a great way to prepare for the difficulties that lie ahead.
Thanks for your comments! I admire your attitude.
Nick / Inky
|
I would ask how much is enough for you. Are you willing to give out all your possesions and live in a cave for the rest of your life?
I buy stuff when I am in need of it. For example if im hungry i buy food, if need new clothes I will buy them. if my sneakers are too old then I will buy new ones. Inevitable some people feel the need to buy to satisfy their loneliness and shallowness but whatever, it's their money (just as long as it doesn't affect society) It actually brings money to the economy so meh.
In your last post you brought up a lot of issues which are common to the typical uninformed teen.
First you say that billions are going to die, where you get that notion that 1/5 of the population is going to die anytime soon?
"This is all a lost cause" ok I guess?
"Enviromental catastrophe is unavoidable at this point" more al gore propaganda please. Look here
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/192 Fixing the enviroment.
And yes, reducing waste is a good thing, reducing consumerism is not. I support your environmental approach. The anti-consumerism attitude not so much.
|
Revolution: I am not advocating that anyone live in a cave with zero possessions. I'm not sure where you got that idea, as it is certainly not in my writing. I'm glad you ask what is enough for me. What I already have is enough for me, and I listed it right below the original post. If anything, I feel I have too much, and want to live with less. I intend to always live below the poverty line. Presently I don't think I am, as I live with my mother, and much of the luxury I enjoy is because of that fact (we still are significantly below the median income). I do intend to live without a car soon, to never have children, to eat almost entirely local organic food, and I intend to go more towards a raw vegan diet. I don't buy for others or want others to buy for me for holidays. I don't buy many non-essential items (the occasional book or CD...) Glad to go more in depth. As I said above, I'm not a very responsible citizen, but the difference between me and a lot of people is that I'm working on it, day by day.
Anti-consumerism is not the same as anti-consumption. To live is to consume. We have to eat, and we have need of some things - shelter, and so on. Consumerism is something more along the lines of the belief that wealth is a primary means to happiness. Consumerism exists when consumption is central to one's life (think of the fact that shopping is America's number one leisure activity). Anti-consumerism is the attitude that other aspects of life are just as important, or more important, than having possessions and consuming wealth. Proponents of anti-consumerism still consume, it's just that they minimize consumption (focus on essentials and some minimal level of luxury.)
As to people who buy to alleviate loneliness or sadness, or to fill some other gap, I will say that my writing is partly an attempt to get through to exactly those people. The fact is, many people who spend as an attempt to find happiness are doing so because of the powerful effects of advertising, and the ubiquitousness of advertising. This is again part of why I write the things I do, to do what I can (very little) to counter the prevailing pro-consumerism message.
About your comment on the economy, I'll say this: yes, spending is good for the economy. However, the purpose of the economy is to be good for us. This present economy is responsible for unprecedented devastation and exploitation. Therefore, I do not feel the least bit bad about undermining the economy and pursuing more humane ways for us all to meet our needs and relate to each other.
So here I have tried to address the first two paragraphs of your post. Honestly, I don't understand the rest of your post, but if you would clarify it, I would be glad to respond or discuss.
Nick / Inky
|
Just a further comment, Revolution: you say reducing waste is good, but reducing consumerism is not. What you seem to be overlooking is that consumerism and waste are two sides of the same coin. If consumerism is the high value of our society, then there will be a lot of waste. Reducing consumption is the direct way to reduce waste.
The economist, Alan Durning, writes about 3 global classes: the wealthy class, the sustainer "middle" class, and the poor. Here are features of the the rich and the middle class, globally speaking:
Wealthy class: $7500 + per year (1994 money). Eats meat based diet, consumes many disposable products with disposable packaging, travels by air or car, lives in spacious single family climate controlled home, image conscious wardrobe, bottled water, etc...
Sustainers: $700 - $7,500 per year. Healthy diet of grains, veges, and some meat. Unpackaged goods, functional clothing, modest naturally ventilated residences with extended/multiple families, transport by bicycle, foot, and public transportation..
The "sustainer" class, or the global middle class, is something of a model for what a sustainable, anti-consumerism society might look like. Unfortunately, people all around the world are attempting to attain the lifestyle of the United States (consumerism is infecting everyone.)
|
If you want to live your life as if you were a parasite that does nothing but consume food and breath then I'm all for you.
I have one question. Do you plan to do anything beside just breathe? How about getting a job and with that money perhaps help the environment or help starving children in Africa? You know, money is a powerful tool. It all depends which way you want to use it. Do you want to use it to help the poor or to create more wealth for yourself?
Sadly you live in a world of capitalism. If it wasn't for capitalism you probably still be a slave.
You preach about not doing anything and living to create as little effect on the environment as possible. What you fail to realize is that you can do this because there is a minimun wage, there is welfare, and your living in your momma's house. Do you have a job?
How about getting with the times and stop being a parasite for society and actually produce something good for humanity? What other ways do you see to better this world. Right now we are stuck with capitalism, you have a better choice?
|
On December 03 2007 07:03 nA.Inky wrote:
Just a further comment, Revolution: you say reducing waste is good, but reducing consumerism is not. What you seem to be overlooking is that consumerism and waste are two sides of the same coin. If consumerism is the high value of our society, then there will be a lot of waste. Reducing consumption is the direct way to reduce waste.
The economist, Alan Durning, writes about 3 global classes: the wealthy class, the sustainer "middle" class, and the poor. Here are features of the the rich and the middle class, globally speaking:
Wealthy class: $7500 + per year (1994 money). Eats meat based diet, consumes many disposable products with disposable packaging, travels by air or car, lives in spacious single family climate controlled home, image conscious wardrobe, bottled water, etc...
Sustainers: $700 - $7,500 per year. Healthy diet of grains, veges, and some meat. Unpackaged goods, functional clothing, modest naturally ventilated residences with extended/multiple families, transport by bicycle, foot, and public transportation..
The "sustainer" class, or the global middle class, is something of a model for what a sustainable, anti-consumerism society might look like. Unfortunately, people all around the world are attempting to attain the lifestyle of the United States (consumerism is infecting everyone.)
I agree, however the world is not gonna change anytime soon. If you believe we should enforce people to spread the money to the poor then we are discussing socialism which is in fact a much more difficult discussion and I dont have time for that sorry.
You can do whatever you please, it is after all a free society.
|
Revolution: there is no need for any kind of hostile attitude. You have personally attacked me multiple times in your last post. I am only interested in friendly discussion here. Friendly discussion is facilitated by being, well... friendly. So let's both do that, ok? I am happy to talk with you and I take no offense if you disagree with me, but let's keep the discussion friendly, or else there just isn't any point.
Well, you said you had one question, but you asked many. I'll try to address them:
It seems to me you keep misinterpreting what I am saying so that you can set up a strawman argument of sorts. Of course I intend to do more than just breathe. It is important, Revolution, that we not see the world in digital (black and white). We have a whole spectrum of choices and ways of doing things. So this idea that we either just breathe and sit around or else consume like a millionaire is absurd - there are many choices in between those. I have no problem with people enjoying possessions or doing things. The whole point of this thread is to consider the COST of our individual way of life, and then purposefully set limits on ourselves. Do I want everyone to live exactly the same? No. It is, however, my wish that people will live in a way that is environmentally friendly and sustainable.
I do, in fact, have a job, Revolution. As to using money to help people, I do, to an extent. I have no problem with people financially supporting causes. However, I like to consider Ghandi's famous quote: "be the change you want to see in the world - my life is my message." The most powerful action we can take in support of a cause is personal action. As consumerism is an individualistic ideology, the solution also lies, in large part, at the level of the individual. So I advocate changing our personal habits.
Why is living with my Mom a bad thing? In many countries, it is very normal for a 24 year old single man to be living with family. I see it as a positive arrangement for me and her. We share expenses, and it is ultimately much less wasteful to live with someone than it is to live alone. This doesn't make either of us parasites, it makes us a team. Team work is good, Revolution. 
You are bringing capitalism into the discussion. This is potentially kind of "dangerous," as there is the risk of getting bogged down in abstract ideological thinking. The fact is, there is no such thing as pure capitalism, and so I am reluctant to discuss America or the modern world in those terms. Much more useful is to talk about a mass production, technologically oriented consumer society. It is also useful to consider the role of bureaucracy and large-scale organization, as well as the profound role of division of labor in our society. These kinds of ideas describe modern society better than something as generic and abstract as "capitalism." This qualifier in mind, you are right, we are presently stuck with this kind of civilization. But to say that I should somehow be thankful for this society instead of an older, harsher one is kind of strange. You seem to be saying we should embrace this society and be happy with it just because it may be less bad than some other society. This makes no sense: if there is something wrong with this society, we should change it, not accept it just because things could be worse.
So we are stuck with this modern society. Yes, pretty much. The interesting thing about the individual action I advocate, though, is that it can potentially undermine this present society. It is the little people - the regular people - who keep things going. If we pull out of the rat race and start taking care of things for ourselves, then this corporate capitalism that we are presently stuck with will crumble. Is that good? I think so. But more important, at least with regard to this conversation, is that taking responsibility for our lives and setting limits is a way to become more responsible world citizens.
Nick / Inky
|
Revolution, in regard to your shorter post above, I'll say that I do not advocate socialism. I'm neither a capitalist or a socialist. I merely believe that global responsibility begins with personal responsibility. I have no interest in coercing anyone to do anything. I spread my ideas peacefully, and what others do with those ideas is their call.
Whether or not society will change anytime soon is completely beyond the point. The point is individual responsibility. I begin with myself.
|
United States22883 Posts
With this:
On December 03 2007 04:30 nA.Inky wrote:
- I buy almost no luxuries or fun items for myself now
And this:
- I minimize my use of water by rarely showering and flushing only shit down the toilet.
I see no reason for this:
- I intend to have a vasectomy in the next couple weeks, to take a stand against overpopulation.
|
Jibba, glad you are reading my post. You seem to have intelligent things to say.
I'm surprised you are with me on minimal bathing! Hahaha! Most of the time people kind of pick on me here, for that. A little side story, I just slept with this woman last week and she never realized how little I bathe. She also didn't complain at all about my BO (I wear no deoderant.) But later it came up in discussion, and I told her I shower maybe once a week, and she was astonished. So, haters of TL.net (not Jibba), what now!? Also, a comment for other readers on the topic of showering: using a low flow shower head, you use 2.5 gallons of water per minute.
Ok, about the vasectomy! Overpopulation is a major cause of the strain on the environment. In the last 150 years, the human population has grown 6 fold. We now have 6.6 billion of us on the planet, and the population is projected to reach 9billion in 40 years. This is just not sustainable. Now, many people point to the lower population growth rate in rich countries, and it's true, some modern countries (ie Japan) have even a negative pop. growth rate. But what this overlooks is that wealthy nations tend to consume and waste FAR more than poor countries (the poor countries have the higher pop. growth rate.) The way it works out is that if you have 1 child in America, it is the same as an average AFrican having 20 (!!!!) children! Deciding to have one or less child (per woman) is a very responsible decision to make for the environment and for the people who are already living.
Glad to discuss more! I also intend to update TL if/when I get the vasectomy (I'm 99 percent set on doing it in the next couple weeks.)
Thanks Jibba.
Nick / Inky
|
hahah, i think you go over the edge, but points to you for believing in something wholke heartedly. vasectamy and not flushing your piss is a tad bit too much for me!
|
United States22883 Posts
You are a very lucky man if you can pull off no showers without the BO.
I don't have the time to get into a big economic discussion (I'm very much opposed to the practices of the World Bank and WTO) or discuss quality of life vs. 50, 100, 200, 500 years ago, but I just wanted to touch on one thing I especially take issue with.
Organic produce is fine for your own life, but genetically engineered and processed foods are a benefit to the world as a whole. There simply aren't enough "natural" food sources to feed the global population, and I think it's absurd that people who live lives of relative luxury try to protest and dictate what impoverished people can eat.
Also, I was always taught in school that the rain forests are being destroyed for paper. They're being destroyed for housing development, which is also a problem like you mentioned, but it's hardly as trivial as paper making, which comes from specifically planted paper "farms." Again, if people don't want those things in their life, then that's fine but they are improving the quality of living for people much less fortunate than us so I'm not going to sit on a high horse and say they shouldn't eat genetically modified corn when they've got no other options.
I also suggest you check out Greenspan's new book.
|
Haha Hawk, I appreciate your comment. In general, you are a fucking hilarious dude anyway. Thanks for reading.
Yes, the vasectomy decision is very heavy. I encourage it, but more than that, I encourage deep thought about it first. I've been thinking of it daily for months now.
As to piss - there is a lot of misunderstanding about urine. Urine is actually quite clean. It is primarily sterile water, probably a lot safer than what you get out of the tap, and some urea (see many women's cosmetic products - some kind of urea or derivative is in there) and vitamins. Urine should not properly be thought of as waste, but rather as just "excess." So it is kind of weird to use gallons of water to flush a tiny bit of piss.
Nick / Inky
|
Jibba, I have BO. I also notice, though, that it comes and goes throughout the day. Right now, I have no noticeable BO, and I showered only yesterday morning.
I won't claim to be an expert on this issue of agriculture and such. My information could be wrong:
My understanding is that large scale agriculture is good for profit, but bad in terms of efficiency. What I mean is that using practices like permaculture, people can coax more food per bit of land than mass agriculture does. This is because of added attention to the particulars of a given piece of land and because of more eco-friendly methods. Large scale agriculture uses much oil, for fertilizer and for pesticides, large tools which compact the soil, and large scale agriculture exploits the soil and often turns good land into worthless land, this through over-tilling and over-irrigating.
A major issue of the world wide food shortage is the fact that people in wealthy nations consume so much meat. We must feed so much of our food and water to animals (10 billion animals are raised for slaughter each year in the U.S., not counting fish.)
As for forests disappearing - much of it is to make way for agriculture. Forests are cleared, then land is exploited for food. A lot of the slash and burn clearing of forests is done by poor people who have no other way to get food - they are pushed off of other land by wealthy and powerful interests. So part of the issue of starvation has to do with politics and social justice.
If people ate less meat and took better care of the land, and worked for social justice, I believe the world's population could be fed. We should still lower the population, though.
Organic food is more healthy for us, and far more healthy for the environment. We all should eat organic food and support sustainable farming. At any rate, much of what I advocate, Jibba, I advocate because it is fair to other people on the planet. This is part of why I say people of wealthy countries should voluntarily reduce their consumption - to make room for fairness for other people as well as the environment.
To see what I mean about small scale agricultural efficiency, there is a film out there about Cuba during it's own peak oil crisis (during the early 90's when the USSR stopped sending fuel.)
Sorry, kind of rushing through this post because I have to leave very soon. Glad to discuss more, and appreciate your comments, Jibba. Peace.
Nick / Inky
|
On December 03 2007 08:25 nA.Inky wrote:Haha Hawk, I appreciate your comment. In general, you are a fucking hilarious dude anyway. Thanks for reading. Yes, the vasectomy decision is very heavy. I encourage it, but more than that, I encourage deep thought about it first. I've been thinking of it daily for months now. As to piss - there is a lot of misunderstanding about urine. Urine is actually quite clean. It is primarily sterile water, probably a lot safer than what you get out of the tap, and some urea (see many women's cosmetic products - some kind of urea or derivative is in there) and vitamins. Urine should not properly be thought of as waste, but rather as just "excess." So it is kind of weird to use gallons of water to flush a tiny bit of piss. Nick / Inky
You didn't just encourage vasectomy, oh god.
Urine is not clean, god. Urine has a lot of toxins if you are a meat eater.
I'm done with this blog  I take your measures to reduce environmental issues fanatical and religious at best. Are you in some kind of environmentalists cult?
|
Don't know where you got that from Rev0lution. Urine is one of the cleanest fluids and is virtually sterile. Only when it is allowed to sit does it produce various toxins and chemicals and eventually, ammonia. In fact, a few years ago, the US Army came up a way to keep soldiers from going hungry: re-hydrating food with urine.
|
Nice articles, I'm sure people were happy way back when too, if you think about the sapien people, don't you think they were happy finding a mammoth, making fire? I do believe consumerism is a big part of todays world and its not healthy, I'm always worried about our water and pollution
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
