|
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
|
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
I;ve had the misfortune of my toilet near my room goign bad once after a few people had pissed in it. Couldnt get it fixed for 3 days or so, and let me tell you, people can notice .____.
As for vasectomy, why not wait incase you change your mind, as it's kinda permanent =p Do you plan on adopting?
|
Revolution: If my blog offends you, you are perfectly welcome to leave. You are also perfectly welcome to remain and discuss at your leisure - I only ask that you be respectful of me and everyone else, just as I have remained respectful of you.
Dknight: I appreciate your contribution. I didn't mention this before, as what I'm about to say tends to capture everyone's attention, and it's not something I would like everyone to focus exclusively upon, but I have a good friend who drinks his urine daily (1 - 5 cups full) as well as bathes with his urine. He is a huge proponent of urine therapy (urophagia), and says that urine therapy goes back 9000 years in India and Mexico. Yes, everyone tends to think this is very strange at first, but this friend of mine - Don Schrader is his name - is 62 and looks much less than that, and is in SUPERB health. It's astounding really. Also, he doesn't smell weird or anything, in case anyone is wondering. I do believe urine is quite safe to consume, but Don says it is best if you do not use any drugs and you eat a raw vegan diet. He also says, however, that it is still good even if you eat meat. But the drug thing is important, as you can be re-consuming drugs through your piss.
Iloseonpurpose: thank you very much for your compliment and comments. I agree with you very much - I think people have always found things to be happy about, just as you say. I think in many situations, a lack of wealth can focus one's attention on the more important things in life. I think it is no coincidence that so many spiritual men and women have advocated a life of poverty. I am glad to see you are also concerned about these things. Do not let your worry make you think you do not have power to make changes in the world. There is always another move, and change can always be made, even if the only thing we can change is ourselves. Peace, brother!
Glad to hear more criticism or comments of any sort. Love to discuss these things with anyone, peacefully.
Nick
|
Haha Hawk, your toilet story sounds very unfortunate. True, I am gambling that my toilet will work when I need it to. But seriously, if we flush only shit, we can save many thousands of gallons of water a year, I imagine. The downside to not flushing your piss is that when you DO have to shit, if you make a big splash, you'll get lots of piss on your ass. That is seriously not cool. I often flush before I shit, just for this reason. I also prefer just pissing outside whenever I can.
As to the vasectomy, I'll go into my personal life a bit: I am pretty well set on the vasectomy, except for one thing - I just started dating this absolutely gorgeous blonde girl who is set on having kids some day. I'm afraid of alienating her by getting a vasectomy. She knows my overpopulation politics and I know her personal goal to have children. Strangely, though we knew each other's position before we ever met (we connected via match.com) she decided to go out with me. The first date was just wonderful. So that has me second guessing myself. I know I believe in this procedure, but romance can screw with a man's head. Still, it's best not to lose oneself in a relationship. Argh!!!! I know I could get a million women (I got a late start with romance at 22, but now it's not a problem at all), but this particular one seems so cool! Plus the fact that she is gorgeous is NOT helping my political/environmental integrity. O__o o__O O__O!!!!!! Then again, my lack of showering and my powerful BO will probably make her reconsider the whole dating thing anyway.
But to get more on topic, a vasectomy should be considered permanent, but they are actually reversible with pretty good odds of success (about 2/3 chance of pregnancy with reversal.) However, while a vasectomy is between 300 and 1200 US dollars, a reversal is more along the lines of 9000 to 13000 dollars.
Do I plan to adopt? Not sure. I'm open to it! But at 24 years of age, all I want now is freedom and lack of responsibility. Besides, if I really do manage to live below the poverty line, as I intend to do, I can't afford a kid.
By the way, any of you had a long term relationship where condomless sex was possible? I was was with a fixed woman for a year, and totally worry-free condomless sex was just.... just wonderful. I hate rubbers.
Nick / Inky
|
I'm also trying to live the most unpretentious and simple as I can. I've got very few needs. Well, I'm still quite young to live on my own (16) but anyway, I try to live simple by not living a life full of consumption and craving for wealth and reputation.
I think I'm far away of being wise already to say I could live without all the luxuries I have in this modern society. However, I'm trying to be independent from them and see them as what they are... a luxury. I'm happy and thankful that I got them but ain't running after more.
So what is enough for me? Epicurus said all you need is food, something to drink, a place to sleep and something to keep you warm if it's cold, and friendship. And he means very simple food and beverage: bread and water. And that is what I'm thinking about the physical needs.
The Stoics told that all you need is yourself if you're completely wise and stoic. The wise soul could occupy with itself and be satisfied by it. This is what I'm trying to achieve by living the Stoicism philosophy, thus being enough for me in life - just being a humble Stoic, love the nature, pursue my few interests, having some close friends.
PS: Hi Nick Nice articles as always; you know that I like your writings.
|
As for the current development of things in the world... Mankind is destroying itself and will suffer from it. And honestly, I dare to say that the humans in total have no right to live if don't they give a fuck on nature. We are too presumptuous.
If we are all dead, the Earth will still exist and resuscitate from all the pollution. For the Earth we humans are only a small period of time compared to the whole time of existence of our planet.
If mankind dies completely out, we were a single failure in the end.
|
Asakura, I am really glad to see you are still around! It's good to hear from you, as always.
I am impressed with anyone, especially any 16 year old who has a mindset at all like yours. Just to recognize that material wealth is not everything shows wisdom.
I will say this with regard to your post, and it is not a criticism, just something to think about: While it is probably very possible to be happy with VERY little, there is no need to embrace utter austerity just for the sake of doing so. There is no need to be a purist. It is ok to enjoy some comfort and some luxury. Some people interpret what I've said in this blog to mean we must embrace a life of complete austerity or else keep going with a very materialistic lifestyle. In short, they see things in black and white - they see in digital. In reality, there is a whole continuum of choices. Nothing is ever so simple, and we are condemned to make choices in a complex world. So how much luxury is too much? How much comfort is too much? Well, that is the point of this whole blog - to encourage thought about those questions, without necessarily providing any answers. My personal feeling is that yes, modern affluent societies are consuming far too much. But that doesn't mean we must choose to live in absolute poverty.
But if this stoic lifestyle is something you believe in, I say more power to you. You can be an example to others. I have a very close personal friend here in America that lives on less than 3,700 dollars a year - for TOTAL expenses. He says he lives very well, and wouldn't trade his lifestyle for anything. He wouldn't trade places with a millionaire, he says. He is 62 years old, in wonderful physical shape, and supports many environmental and anti-war causes. Even though I probably will never live quite as extremely as he does, I can say that he is a profound inspiration to me, and so embracing an extreme lifestyle may make you an example and inspiration to others, and we need that right now, Asakura.
But if that lifestyle is too much for you, realize that you can back off and still be a responsible world citizen. Just live lightly. Consume little, waste little, and work little (except on work of your choosing.)
Keep it up, Asakura! I'm proud of you.
Nick / Inky
PS - a diet of just bread and water is a bad, bad idea my friend! However, my friend I mentioned just a minute ago lives on a strictly raw-food vegan diet. It is extremely healthy, consisting of whole wheat kernels, spinach, apricots, apricot kernels, puncture vine, sunflower seeds, flax seed, and lots of fruit. He eats for 2 dollars a day. For the record, to feed a vegan it takes 1/20th the land a meat eater's diet requires. 1/20th!!!
|
Asakura, you are right that the future for Earth and humanity is grim. This is why it is so important for us to act now, while we can. We must live with respect and love for each other and the Earth. To do otherwise will bring only great suffering and tragedy. Even doing the best we can, the future looks pretty bleak - we face a choice between bad, more bad, and hell. I choose bad!
And, for the record here, the single greatest thing you can do to help the environment and to promote economic, social, and political justice is to NOT MAKE BABIES. Nothing else you do can compare to this simple choice not to reproduce.
I will have my vasectomy on December 28th, 2007, at 10:15am. I have no children. I plan to do a post about this later.
Nick / Inky
|
oh my. you're a scene kid
riding bikes, and veganism?
p.s nature has its own ways in controlling overpopulation
|
Belgium6771 Posts
I like you Inky
I myself am getting a license but vowed to myself to use public transportation or bikes as long as I am able to do so. I actually take a bus, subway and tram to school every day, its pretty chill since I can read/draw during the 45 or so minutes.
Going to bed now, havent read half of this topic yet but will tomorrow.
|
CultureMisfits: Not sure what you mean, but I do know I'm not a kid. I am 24 years old! I have officially earned the right to be called "dude" or "man." Yep, riding bikes and veganism! Fantastic! Don't you agree? And yes, things will take care of themselves one way or the other, but some ways are preferable to others.
Xeofreestyler: Thanks man! And major kudo's on minimizing your car use. I also have a driver's license and a car, but I try not to drive more than a couple times a week. I aim to be car-less within about 6 months, at which point I will rely 99% on the bike. Sometimes it is a challenge, but mostly it is a lot easier than I thought it would be, and, like you, I notice many benefits to minimizing the use of cars. Keep on with the art, reading, and simple living. Fantastic.
I understand people are a lot smarter about their car use in Europe. Here in the U.S., it is considered a God given right to be able to drive, and it is considered pretty low to not have a car. This is precisely the kind of conventional wisdom that must be challenged.
Peace!
Nick / Inky
|
On December 03 2007 04:21 nA.Inky wrote:
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?
I interpret it as the dominance of a worldview propped up by advertising. Our culture is created by people whose job it is to get us to buy more, and our government is run by people who believe the more we sell and buy the more successful we are. As individuals (the perspective you are taking on it), we have been careless with our habits and have had our assumptions about leisure, entertainment, etc. exploited and let these exploitations change us haphazardly.
Besides, it isn't adults who are being fooled. It's each new generation of young people who adopts the new technologies as their way of life, who demands them as gifts from their parents. In essence if we want to get on the household level, it's bad parenting that is to blame, because children now decide what a household needs. And their culture is even more dominated by advertising-created cultures than the adults. A shift has taken place, from adults deciding which products rule, to the children, and this shift has been exactly what the advertising strategists wanted because kids are the most susceptible to their methods.
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.
In the U.S. at least, our ability to promptly solve our own problems, if it ever existed, seems dead and buried. We can't even impeach criminals or run a foreign policy or an economy. So how are we supposed to challenge ourselves to really secure the future in all these obvious ways? Facts don't have much pull in politics. So many of them are not even acknowledged by any of the candidates in the upcoming election (except the ones that are ignored and covered up by the media). This isn't meant to change the subject but to point out that as a group the bigger problem is that we can't address problems like the ones you're mentioning because there is a systemic problem going on with the way we find out and believe what's happening and the way we then do something about it. The very process has been perverted and taken over by money interests and we have yet to take it back, so the weight of all the people unaware of this is what is driving us into the ditch you describe. Moralistic appeals like yours are only going to convert the fringe, who were already ripe for conversion. The goliath remains untouched.
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?
This is not to sound preachy, but just to ask a serious question: What do you need to be happy? How much is enough?
Me personally, I don't believe in happiness. I don't have a television. I have a SanDisc mp3 player, a computer from 8 years ago, cars handed down to me that my parents bought 10+ years ago. I work 40 hours a week and this helps me pay the rent. If I rode my bike to work I would not only probably die at 30 but would probably die sooner due to some elderly person hitting me as I try to cross the eight lanes in front of my apartment. If I spent any more on food I would be losing money each week, so organic crap is out. There are bigger fish to fry because in the U.S. we are working our entire lives away and not getting anything in our pockets out of it, and the only jobs we can get are jobs to try to sell things to people.
Your question is a spiritual one, and the basic answer is that we don't want to admit there's a question and will anesthetize ourselves in the short term to avoid it.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 09 2007 23:35 lugggy wrote:
Me personally, I don't believe in happiness. Yeah, you need clinical help.
|
Luggy, your post just above is very, very impressive! Thanks for joining the discussion. You touch on several issues that are so important and very worthy of consideration. I hope anyone reading this thread will think about what Luggy just said above.
Lifestyle and advertising: yes, an excellent point. This deserves serious discussion. You know, most people like to think that advertising has no effect, at least not on themselves, and many corporations that spend exorbitant sums on advertising will also claim that advertising does not make people want to buy things (it's a real issue when we talk about alcohol or cigarette advertising.) The fact is, if it didn't work, billions of dollars would not be spent on it. It works. It works, and it works very well. There are all kinds of brilliant psychologists and sociologists at work behind the scenes trying to help corporations and various interests manipulate you to a certain end. So part of why I try to raise the questions I do in this thread is that I would love it if more people would question the vision laid out in so much advertising, namely the notion that you can buy your way to acceptance and fulfillment. Do you need all the crap they tell you that you need in order to be happy? Do we all need nice cars and big homes? Do we need flashy products and hardware? etc etc.... A yes answer is a death sentence to the environment and a prison sentence to your life.
Anyone interested in the manipulation of public thought by corporations and government should do a search and some reading on a man named Edward Bernays, who revolutionized PR and propaganda (He wrote the book on propaganda - literally, it was called Propaganda) in the early 1900's.
Politics and Economy: Yes, modern economies depend on we the consumers buying all kinds of crap we do not need. Modern economies are built on the idea of perpetual growth. Perpetual growth requires people to buy, buy, buy! And buy more next year than this year. The fact is, economies today tend to serve powerful interests and not regular people. So this is a real problem when one considers that most of the environmental degradation taking place is a result of economic activity and consumption based lifestyles.
You are right that the political system, at least here in the U.S., offers us nothing in terms of solutions. Choices are purposely constrained so that any choice regular people will make will be a pro-corporate, pro-consumption choice. The media will not cover anything you or I have mentioned here, because it would offend their advertisers and threaten economic activity. This is why I advocate individual action. We can be upset that the political situation is virtually hopeless, or we can take matters into our own hands.
Will most people take things into their own hands and make changes? Probably not - at least not right away. But I began changing, and I know others can too. Many people have made much deeper changes than I have, and there are many people who think and act differently from the mainstream, even if collectively we all represent a small percentage of the population. I have found that changing my lifestyle and becoming a more responsible world citizen is very empowering, and eases my worry and anxiety about the ills of the modern world (because I know that at least I am doing something about it all.)
About Luggy: You sound very, very disillusioned. I don't think you are so crazy for that, although maybe somewhat exceptional in your sober consideration of the modern situation.
Some people have it harder than others, in the US and elsewhere. But everyone has choices.
You are right, people in the U.S. are working more hours for less money (incomes have been dropping since about 1980 - I believe the increase in material well being of many US families has to do with the availability of credit, aka slavery.) Americans and many others live a vicious cycle of work and spend. But a lot of this (not all) is a situation of the horse and the carrot. The American Dream is dangled in front of our faces and we are told that by joining the rat race we can obtain it. But the faster we run, the faster it eludes us. The trick is to recognize that we don't need so much of what they say we need. Then, many times, we realize we don't need to work as much, because we aren't buying as much. This is the road to freedom, and it is also a way to reduce our impact on the environment. We go under the wall instead of over it.
We have to recognize what we do not need, and resist the forces that try to tell us what our needs are. We have to take back our power and make responsible choices. At least that is what we should do. It's hard, but the difficulty is mostly in changing how we think.
As for bicycling, the conditions vary place to place, but all risks included (and they can be considerable), bicycling will improve your life expectancy AND save you a shitload of money, AND reduce your environmental impact. I highly recommend it!
Thanks again, Luggy.
Nick / Inky
|
i think its sad the way the world works today. Im not the most eviromental-friendly person, but i try my best. I barely use the car, i move on public transport, i dont buy much stuff for myself etc. My big weakness could be that i love taking a shower and spend 30++ minutes under the water. I have to change that habit.
Im happy atm, but of course if i had some more stuff, i could use it pretty much. I think what makes you happy is the way you live life, and not what you have.
|
RtS)Night[Mare: Good, buddy! Every little thing you do to help is appreciated by the Earth. Be proud of each step you take, and keep looking for new ways to improve. That's all there is to it!
You are absolutely right, I think. How you live is important, not what you have.
Last of all, nearly everyone has a vice when it comes to these kinds of things. In your case, maybe it is the shower. You can work on this!
Just for your information (not to make you feel guilty, but so you can be aware), I'll tell you that on a low flow shower head, you are using roughly 2.5 gallons of water a minute. On a 30 minute shower, that comes out to 75 gallons of water! Bear in mind that clean water is becoming scarce on Earth, and in 20 to 30 years, it is believed that 50 percent of the human population (total population will exceed 7 billion then) will face water stress and water scarcity. Also keep in mind that if your water is chlorinated, and you are taking a hot shower, you are breathing in chlorine. Did you know chlorine was a chemical weapon used in WW1? It is a poison, and linked to myriad health problems.
These are things to think about, and it is up to you how to use the information! I used to be addicted to long showers. I still am. The way I get around it? I shower once a week, tops, and I continue to try to reduce the length of my showers. Otherwise I will use a washcloth and water.
Thanks for commenting!
Nick / Inky
|
i am happy with my life, my work is great, my social life is excellent, everythings going fine.
i prefer driving with my car instead of bus, train, bike etc. i like to take long showers and bathes, i like to buy things i like. i like to waste my time and money on stupid things.
if i feel its worth buying some expensive brand, i am going to buy it.great life.
i couldnt live the way u liv na,inky,
|
HiTexas, thanks for commenting. I think your attitude and lifestyle are really common, and both are understandable. Like I said, my thread is not about preaching so much as it is about questioning and encouraging.
Whatever lifestyle choices you make, what is really important is to simply understand the COST of those choices. You may differ, but I think many people would want to change if they understood the cost of what is considered a normal modern lifestyle. But wanting to change and actually changing are still separate things. Beyond wanting to change, one has to know HOW to change. I think many people, myself included, often get hung up on the difficulty of carrying on a successful unconventional lifestyle. It is difficult, but not impossible. The difficulty is primarily in learning to think differently, and in going against the grain.
Either way, how you live is mostly your choice. I would hope you would make responsible choices, but at the end of the day, I hope you are happy with whatever you choose.
Last of all, I ask that you not be so quick to decide that you are incapable of making changes. People are capable of many amazing things. Most great changes take time, however. If you decided you wanted to change, there would really be no need to do it all at once. You just take one thing at a time and do the best you can.
Peace!
Nick / Inky
|
I've only read the OP and Inky's response to it, for the most part. There is much more here that I haven't touched yet, so I'm sorry for that.
Advertising may not be working through every individual directly, but the culture clearly corresponds to some reality propped up by some corporate product (loosely put together by a combination of compromised artists, gatekeepers, "producers", etc.). Whether designed by evil or simply haphazard, for our purposes it's culture coming to us from above, vertically not horizontally.
Think of it this way. People all around you are starting to get the latest mp3 player, computer game, new car, nice house, clothes, etc. It just seems like reality. Where did it start? Was this really an improvement on the way things were going? It's pretty clear that our lives are not getting better by this. Just do the math. You or someone who takes care of you probably worked (or will work) thousands of hours to pay for that car and other crap. That's a year of full time hard labor. Which means their life consists, then, of weekends. A hard separation between life and work is then created, both of which are driven easily from the outside by business interests in you as consumer or employee. Humanity then has to work through those institutions or outside of them in a very, very small way.
I have to reiterate that I think the amount of people that will change on the "moral appeal" will be small, and that if you want to tackle these bigger issues there has to be a change in the external forces that so many people yield to or have unknowingly committed their lives to. Governments have the ability to do that, by changing what they do, and by coming to agreements (for instance, if one country decides to stop expecting growth but instead to aim for sustainability, that only hurts them on the international scale, but if all the major players agree to do this, like nuclear disarmament, or the kyoto treaty, then it can really happen).
The biggest thing individuals can do is to make sure the right people are winning elections. That means not only figuring out who to vote for but doing it in a way that makes you able to inform everyone around you. I can't say I've spent the time to do that. If we give up on using elections then the only option left for change against these external forces will be violent conflict. So let's keep that in mind when deciding whether to half-ass the option we have to elect officials.
|
Luggy: good points about advertising and consumer lifestyles. People do very much get caught up in the work/spend cycle, losing many important aspects of life to consumerism. This is exacerbated by debt, which may lead people to spend 2 and 3 times as much as the given price for various goods and services. I think it is no coincidence that Americans are working more hours with less vacation time year after year.
But I disagree with you on tactics. You said yourself, in an earlier post, that the politicians are offering us no real alternatives. The fact is the political process is a joke. If we wait on a political solution, we will wait ourselves to death. It just isn't happening that way, because those politicians serve the interests that are working us to death for a bunch of crap we don't need in the first place. They don't serve us. I see no mechanism for changing that besides showing the politicians that we can make them and the powerful interests superfluous (taking things into our own hands.)
A problem with the political solution also is that it encourages division of labor (it is division of labor.) Wherever you have specialization, you have disconnection and alienation. The amount of disconnection depends on the amount of specialization, but what I am getting at is that if regular people give their power to politicians, the politicians won't manage it responsibly or in the interests of the people the same way the people would. In other words, do you trust someone you don't know and who doesn't know you to make choices for you? Or would you rather make those choices for yourself? Who knows your interests as well as you do?
What happens is these politicians probably typically mean to do well, but we place them in a position where they are tempted to do something other than what they should. And many will give in to temptation as the temptation grows.
The surest way to change the world is to change yourself. Like Ghandi says, "we must be the change we want to see in the world." Your life is your message. Your vote is just your vote, and, sadly, it won't amount to much of anything today.
By all means, do still vote, just don't be tricked into thinking that is ENOUGH.
And the very last thing I would advocate is any kind of violent action, just to be clear.
Even if people like me manage to convince only a very small number of people, it is a start. People who believe in these kinds of ideas need to be outspoken. Large scale change happens one small step at a time.
Nick / Inky
|
I think you will convince people who are ripe for the convincing, a fixed, small group, that had it coming, if not by you, then someone else.
I'm not just saying to vote right, but to make sure everybody does. If we can't win any elections, that is, have someone really representing necessary changes, then how is all this going to change? You are going to slow down problem X by 5%, nothing more. Systemic change is necessary for the other 95% and that has to come from above, which means we have to win elections or violently overthrow (impossible, therefore we need to get people to vote for our informed choice).
|
A few points, Luggy:
You never addressed my argument against depending on politicians, so your last post is just a reassertion of what you said before. How do you get the politicians to offer any meaningful change, especially when politicians are bought and paid for by the very organizations and people who resist such change?
Secondly, I am not against voting - I vote in most elections - but voting and large scale action are beyond the scope of this thread. I am willing to talk about these things here, but the focus of this thread IS on individual action, regardless of how effective or ineffective that might be.
Third, in your talk of political action, you seem to presuppose that people would want to vote for the sorts of changes I advocate. True, it would be a big help if systemic changes were made that eased a transition towards sustainable and responsible ways of doing things, but why would people vote for such changes if they won't even change themselves? Put it this way: why would people vote for politicians who will pressure them to do the "right" thing if the "right" thing is not even something they want? Why not just do the right thing without coercion or incentives? If people are so resistant to a green lifestyle, why would they vote for politicians who will push the green lifestyle?
I approach this issue the way I do because, while there is great systemic evil in this society, I believe changes need to be made on the level of the individual. If we can't change ourselves, we can't change. No one forces us to buy all this crap we don't need. No one forces us to work 40 hour weeks. No one forces us to have cars, huge homes, cell phones, etc. We feel PRESSURED to have those things, because of advertising and the desire to conform, but we don't have to. So I'm trying to get people thinking more about resisting much of the crap they don't need. Which, again, there is nothing wrong with having some luxury, but the sheer cost of modern lifestyles (for us, for society, for the environment) should make us very skeptical of modern lifestyles. That is my point.
|
I think I've already answered all of that at least twice and really don't want to do it again. Sorry.
|
Luggy says: "We can't even impeach criminals or run a foreign policy or an economy. So how are we supposed to challenge ourselves to really secure the future in all these obvious ways? Facts don't have much pull in politics. So many of them are not even acknowledged by any of the candidates in the upcoming election (except the ones that are ignored and covered up by the media). This isn't meant to change the subject but to point out that as a group the bigger problem is that we can't address problems like the ones you're mentioning because there is a systemic problem going on with the way we find out and believe what's happening and the way we then do something about it. The very process has been perverted and taken over by money interests and we have yet to take it back, so the weight of all the people unaware of this is what is driving us into the ditch you describe."
If this is true, how is voting going to change anything? We vote for candidates. Candidates run, ostensibly, on positions on issues. If no politician offers the desired stance on an issue, voting cannot work. The people have to change themselves and show the politicians they do not need government or corporate power. Then the government and corporations will start listening to the people. The people have all the power and always have - we are the ones that produce everything, do everything, and consume most of everything. Without us, they are powerless. But power will not respond to us unless we start recognizing our own power.
Given your own statements (in the paragraph above) we face a choice between personal action, which you say is unlikely to work, or political action, which, again, according to the above, will not work. I choose to take things into my own hands, and encourage all to do the same. If we want social, political, and economic responsibility, let's start practicing it ourselves!
|
Again, I have answers. I already said them. I really cannot answer without repeating myself for the 3rd or 4th time.
So I'm just letting you know that I'm reading what you're saying and all I would do is paste quotes from myself in response. Maybe i'll do it eventually but it's already there and there is too much to respond to in this thread for me to dig up quotes or repeat myself. You're taking what I said and making weaker versions of it to match against yours.
|
Do not repeat yourself. Clarify yourself. I'm trying to get it, but I'm not getting it. I don't see where you addressed the above - perhaps you could just quote yourself and explain the quote.
|
If politicians aren't offering us the choice we want (something you stated - I quoted you on it), then how is voting going to do anything?
|
I'm trying to keep this very simplistic to make my point, Luggy.
The best answer that I've seen from you with regard to my last question ("If politicians aren't offering us the choice we want - something you stated and I quoted you on - then how is voting going to do anything?") is that we have to be sure the right people run and get elected.
Ok, if we accept that, it means we have to go through a grassroots effort to run a radical candidate, AND we have to turn up en masse to vote this person in. To do this requires that the majority of the population have similar radical views (certainly not conventional views since we are trying to resist the conventional).
The fact is, the majority is conventional, they participate in the consumer culture, and they don't seem to care much about politics. So, for YOUR solution to work, we have to convince people to take part in radical politics, running and electing a candidate. In what way is this really any easier than convincing people to change their lifestyles to something radical?
Either way we have to put in a lot of effort convincing people, and the fact is, sort of like you say, many people will not be quick to adopt radical views or actions.
The difference between you and I is that I simply advocate making changes directly. Rather than going through all this effort to run a candidate who may or may not win, so that this candidate can tell us how to change our lives and make changes to the system, I simply advocate changing our lives for ourselves, and changing the system directly via changing ourselves.
Either way will be difficult. Mine is simply more direct.
This is not to be confrontational, Luggy. In fact, I think there is room for personal and political action. But this thread is primarily concerned with personal action.
|
"You never addressed my argument against depending on politicians, so your last post is just a reassertion of what you said before. How do you get the politicians to offer any meaningful change, especially when politicians are bought and paid for by the very organizations and people who resist such change?"
Your argument "against" "depending on politicians" has nothing to do with me. I do not say to depend on politicians anywhere. That is a straw man.
"Secondly, I am not against voting - I vote in most elections - but voting and large scale action are beyond the scope of this thread. I am willing to talk about these things here, but the focus of this thread IS on individual action, regardless of how effective or ineffective that might be."
I did not say that the solution is to vote. I said the solution is to get elections won by the best canidates. That is not just voting, and especially not just voting sometimes. It's getting you and everyone you can to take the best option. This will change who runs, and this will change the way laws are written and enforced and to what ends they will be aimed.
"Third, in your talk of political action, you seem to presuppose that people would want to vote for the sorts of changes I advocate. True, it would be a big help if systemic changes were made that eased a transition towards sustainable and responsible ways of doing things, but why would people vote for such changes if they won't even change themselves? Put it this way: why would people vote for politicians who will pressure them to do the "right" thing if the "right" thing is not even something they want? Why not just do the right thing without coercion or incentives? If people are so resistant to a green lifestyle, why would they vote for politicians who will push the green lifestyle?"
No, I don't presuppose that people will want to vote for the sort of changes you advocate. I presuppose that easily manipulated people are winning the elections and that the "moral minority" are not reaching them because they either don't vote, or don't dare to try to get their ideas across effectively. It will take systemic change to solve the problems you presented (energy, water, waste, economy, wars). Trying to convince every person individually to lead a holy life is not the answer because such a moral argument will be defeated by all of the giant external forces shouting much louder and running the economies of every household and providing every second of their lives to them, whether it is entertainment (and culture), employment, or at least that of their peers which then becomes reality for them.
"I approach this issue the way I do because, while there is great systemic evil in this society, I believe changes need to be made on the level of the individual. If we can't change ourselves, we can't change. No one forces us to buy all this crap we don't need. No one forces us to work 40 hour weeks. No one forces us to have cars, huge homes, cell phones, etc. We feel PRESSURED to have those things, because of advertising and the desire to conform, but we don't have to. So I'm trying to get people thinking more about resisting much of the crap they don't need. Which, again, there is nothing wrong with having some luxury, but the sheer cost of modern lifestyles (for us, for society, for the environment) should make us very skeptical of modern lifestyles. That is my point.""
I interpret it as the dominance of a worldview propped up by advertising. Our culture is created by people whose job it is to get us to buy more, and our government is run by people who believe the more we sell and buy the more
successful we are. As individuals (the perspective you are taking on it), we have been careless with our habits and have had our assumptions about leisure, entertainment, etc. exploited and let these exploitations change us
haphazardly.
Besides, it isn't adults who are being fooled. It's each new generation of young people who adopts the new technologies as their way of life, who demands them as gifts from their parents. In essence if we want to get on the
household level, it's bad parenting that is to blame, because children now decide what a household needs. And their culture is even more dominated by advertising-created cultures than the adults. A shift has taken place, from adults
deciding which products rule, to the children, and this shift has been exactly what the advertising strategists wanted because kids are the most susceptible to their methods.
Do you expect some word-of-mouth moral argument to spread to teens to be anything different than what they are as shaped by the public school system and advertising superstructure, for instance?
"Luggy says: "We can't even impeach criminals or run a foreign policy or an economy. So how are we supposed to challenge ourselves to really secure the future in all these obvious ways? Facts don't have much pull in politics. So many of them are not even acknowledged by any of the candidates in the upcoming election (except the ones that are ignored and covered up by the media). This isn't meant to change the subject but to point out that as a group the bigger problem is that we can't address problems like the ones you're mentioning because there is a systemic problem going on with the way we find out and believe what's happening and the way we then do something about it. The very process has been perverted and taken over by money interests and we have yet to take it back, so the weight of all the people unaware of this is what is driving us into the ditch you describe."
If this is true, how is voting going to change anything? We vote for candidates. Candidates run, ostensibly, on positions on issues. If no politician offers the desired stance on an issue, voting cannot work. The people have to change themselves and show the politicians they do not need government or corporate power. Then the government and corporations will start listening to the people. The people have all the power and always have - we are the ones that produce everything, do everything, and consume most of everything. Without us, they are powerless. But power will not respond to us unless we start recognizing our own power."
If it is true, that means we have to do a better job in being political! When I say that facts don't have much pull in politics, I don't state that as some unchanging law. It's the state of current affairs, it's the result of what we have been doing or not doing. We need to change that fact. That is something that the minority of people who are susceptible to "life-changing" "moral arguments" can really do. They can convince others, they can inoculate them against the television ads that buy their influence and the sound bytes that win their vote. You personally can change how 100 people vote. That will do more than eating vegan your whole life ever will. There are better choices in each election that could have got more votes if the "moral argument" people directed their effort elsewhere. We should be building a political presense so that the candidates come to us. If we simply give up on politics and start individually saving water and eating organic then politics will continue its slide into fascism and it will be on our watch.
I hope this clarifies things.
|
Thanks for your post, Luggy. I can't do a thorough reply right now. I'll say this: I don't think our positions are at all mutually exclusive. In fact, with regard to the sorts of actions you recommend, I am 100 percent in agreement with you. I think taking your approach does not take anything away from what I'm talking about, nor does mine take away from what you talk about. They compliment each other very well, and I would like to see people changing themselves AND educating others and encouraging others to see through the indoctrination and propaganda (something I try to do myself.)
It is important that we practice what we preach, but it is also important that we do address things on a systemic level too. Let's do both!
But to reiterate, Luggy, personal action is HIGHLY important in these matters. Even taking things from your position which says we must educate and act politically, personal action will make your message more compelling - it will set an example to back up what you advocate.
Veganism, vowing to not have biological children, carl-lessness, low consumption, and simple living in general are very powerful steps that DO make a difference. You make some good points, Luggy, but please do not make the mistake of disregarding the power of personal action. At the end of the day, we are all just individuals, and we are responsible for ourselves.
|
Just like to say I am happy to have others comment, discuss, or criticize anything in this whole thread. Love to hear people's thoughts. There are good posts throughout this thread that are worthy of discussion too.
|
Let's say there are genes that make people more likely to be moral. Those people will have less offspring, and will soon fade. Meanwhile joe redneck has 10 kids in 3 different cities. So I think systemic change takes precedence over self-neutering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
