"These temple-destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect contempt for Nature, and instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar. Dam Hetch Hetchy?! As well dam for water-tanks the people's cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man."
~John Muir
You do not consider, money never stays with me: it would burn me if it did. I throw it out of my hands as soon as possible, lest it should find a way into my heart.
~John Wesley
Prosperity knits a man to the world. He feels that he is 'finding his place in it' while really it is finding his place in him.
~C.S. Lewis
Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount never blessed a material thing! The richer we get in the church, the poorer we get in the spirit.
~Leonard Ravenhill
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth...
Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.
~Jesus
Way back towards the end of last year, I began offering up some thoughts about why living simply makes sense to me. Those posts can be found here. I'd like to offer some more thoughts and invite some more responses on the topic.
Why simplicity? One answer I may have alluded to before is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Or, put another, more broader way: Live in such a way that you'd be pleased for all others to live.
How is this an answer to the question of living simply? I've recently been in a discussion that touched on this topic and the other fella asked, "In what way does your (efforts at) living simply help the child starving in Uganda?"
One short answer is this: If I live more simply (ie, I make $20,000 a year, but live on $15,000/year), that frees up more of my money that I could then send to those in need. The charity approach. That one is obvious.
But the more profound reason, at least one that makes sense to me (but may be harder to recognize), is the Golden Rule rationale: Live in such a way that I'd be pleased for all others to live.
The thing is, this is a finite planet with finite resources. Sometimes, given the great vastness of the earth and the numbers of people involved (billions and billions), this can be less obvious. But consider it this way: If there were 9 families and EACH of those families consumed 1/10 of the world's resources, that would only leave 1/10 of the world's resources for the whole rest of the population to live upon.
As a matter of justice, it would not be reasonable to think that it's morally acceptable for those nine families to consume 9/10 of the world's resources. Even if the laws were written in such a way that they could acquire those resources legally, it would make for an immoral and unjust situation. Or, if that's not obvious enough, then presume that there were TEN families each consuming 1/10 of the world's resources: Obviously, that is not a moral nor workable situation.
If everyone on the planet consumed at a rate as the average US citizen, we'd need multiple planets to sustain all that consumption. In short, we CAN'T possibly all consume at the rate that I currently consume. And I probably consume less than an average US citizen. Some stats/quotes on this point:
* The average American consumes about fifty-three times more goods and services than someone from China.
* The United States contains 5 percent of the world's population but accounts for 22 percent of fossil fuel consumption, 24 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, and 33 percent of paper and plastic use.
* A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil. He or she will drain as many resources as thirty-five natives of India.
* In fact, comparing statistics on actual resource use as opposed to population numbers has led some to suggest that the most overpopulated country on earth -in terms of impact- is the United States.
Sierra Club
when delegates from around the world gathered in Cairo for the International Conference on Population and Development, representatives from developing countries protested that a baby born in the United States will consume during its lifetime twenty times as much of the world's resources as an African or an Indian baby. The problem for the world's environment, they argued, is overconsumption in the North, not overpopulation in the South.
The Atlantic
Now, it is true that not everyone wants to live to the same level of comfort/consumption. One of our problems, though, is that, through our expertise in commercialism, we are doing a very good job of making everyone want to live up to the same level as we live. This is a problem simply as a matter of mathematics: We can't all consume as much as the wealthy west does. It requires too many resources - more than is possible to attain on this finite planet with an ever-increasing population.
And so, one reason for living simply, it seems to me, is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you; Live in such a way that you'd be pleased for all others to live.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Why Simplicity? A Complex Answer, Part VI
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
If the resources of the planet are finite, that is, there is only so much, then what difference does it make if all resources are used up now, rather than later? What will be the choice of living when all resources are gone? How will the less fortunate be helped at that time when no one has anything?
I take what outfits like the Sierra Club say with a grain of salt (but only one grain because there are only so many available). I don't buy their lamentations about the west using up resources, because like most lefties, they feel good about themselves decrying their own good fortunes.
Biblical warnings about wealth are not a mandate to avoid wealth. If you're a greedy cuss with no self-control, then you're likely doing well to avoid wealth.
I understand, and on many points agree, with your reasons for living simply and advocating for it. While I might not live as simply as you, I do try to be good steward of what God has given me.
However, I think your arguments are a little too simplistic. Let me start with what I see as a parallel.
I spend most of my money on a very few things. My biggest expense is no doubt my house. I pay so much money to one person; my mortgage banker. He and my grocer, between them, probably get the biggest chunks of change out of my annual income. I have a family doctor who, too, gets a significant portion of my resources. And, as my kids have started going to college, two colleges have been getting a bigger slice of the pie.
As a matter of justice, it would not be reasonable to think that it's morally acceptable for those few people to consume more than half of my resources. Even though the laws were written in such a way that they are allowed to acquire those resources legally, it makes for an immoral and unjust situation, does it not?
If all you're looking at is the percentage of resources consumed (and that's all your bullet points cover) and using only that criteria to determine whether it's just or not, then my mortgage banker, my grocer, my doctor and two colleges are acting unjustly with my resources.
Except that, for those resources, I'm getting shelter, food, health care and education. I'm getting a disproportionate percentage of what I need to live from this small number of people. Perhaps they could charge less for some things and not take as many of my resources for their lifestyle, but on balance I'm getting some essentials from these few folks.
In the same way, while it is true that the US consumes a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, and while it is also true that many of us could do with less, the world gets quite a bit out of the bargain. Medical advances for longer and better lives. Educational opportunities that people come from all over to take advantage of. Technological advances in energy production to bring a higher standard of living around the world (and higher standards of living almost always result in better health). Agricultural advancements that let vegetables grow in the desert and other inhospitable conditions. And on top of all this, when the world needs protection from enemies or help during calamities, who's the first place they turn for a shield or a helping hand? And who has the armaments and money to help out?
We do. The world's getting quite a lot for the money.
Ask the illegal immigrant risking what he has to come to America for work. Ask the African who now has a garden courtesy of a charitable organization. Ask the Libyan who may soon be out from under a dictator. Ask the Dani tribesman in Papua, Indonesia who won't die from an infection that is now easily curable. Ask the survivors of the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami.
So unless you're ready to start laying into your grocer for his "unjust" use of your resources, it might be best to reconsider this pronouncement of unjustness or failing your paraphrasing of the Golden Rule.
"If everyone on the planet consumed at a rate as the average US citizen, we'd need multiple planets to sustain all that consumption."
Thats not really true, it assumes no increase in supply if demand where to sky rocket. If everyone consumed at the rate of US citizens unemployment would be a thing of the past world wide.
Basic human needs are relatively simple - food and water, shelter from the elements kind of cover immediate, day-to-day physical needs. Good relations with family and neighbors cover our immediate, day-to-day social needs.
While I think a return to some kind of local, sustainable development in which local communities provide for themselves both their immediate and near- and long-term needs is out of the question, the top-heavy condition of our current economy, which exists at the expense of so much of the physical, economic, and social infrastructure needed to sustain it, is clearly untenable. The Walmartization of America is withering on the vine not because Wal Mart doesn't provide a service but because the company is killing itself (trust me on this one).
Creating space for the practice of simplicity beyond individual efforts is sound policy, for any number of reasons, not least because it can help to keep costs down.
Good questions and points, Doug. My post IS perhaps a little simplistic. I am speaking in generalities. Certainly, some good comes from some wealth, not arguing otherwise.
Rather, I'm just arguing GENERALLY in favor of the Golden Rule.
Doug, Marshall, anyone else... tell me what you think, seriously, about my analogy:
What IF there were ten families - or, to make it slightly more realistic, 1000 families - who each owned 1000th of the world's resources and who were not interested in sharing but maybe a pittance of those resources...
Just? Unjust?
Immoral? Moral?
If 1,000 families each owned 1,000th of the world's resources and they each obtained it all legally and are protecting it with security measures that were legal, would you say, "No problem, as long as they legally obtained it, there is no moral issue here. If the rest of the world starves, well, it's really the fault of the starving for not getting in with the 1,000..."?
Yes, it is an oversimplification of things, but sometimes it's helpful to simplify an issue to try to grapple with the moral intricacies of the issue.
Drood...
Thats not really true, it assumes no increase in supply if demand where to sky rocket.
That's assuming there are resources enough to skyrocket along with demand. Do you know, for instance, that there JUST ISN'T ENOUGH oil/gas/coal for everyone to consume at our rates? It's a finite planet, with finite resources and it is just basic math: Finite supplies can not stretch infinitely.
That's still, in my estimation, an extremely flawed analogy, so it's not a good one to pass judgement on its morality. The food, medical knowledge (heck, knowledge in general), and all the other things we export to the world has no place in your analogy. It is looking at the consumption side only, which, to me, sounds like a leading question hoping to suggest a previously-assumed answer on your part.
I appreciate your saying, "Good questions and points", but then you respond with the same question. Perhaps the US, in it's disproportionate consuming, isn't as quite as immoral and quite as unjust as you're trying to paint it.
That we're not perfect, and that injustice and immorality will be a part of any human institution, is a given. I would ask, though, who else is contributing to the world as much as we are? I believe that we, like an engine, are turning raw materials into better lives for people all over the world.
But you choose to rail against the fuel that the engine requires and ignore the work the engine does. It may not be at peak efficiency, but it's a whale of a lot better than the other engines out there.
Doug, why not answer the question? We can admit that it's not an exact analogy, but I'm wondering about the GENERAL PRINCIPLE: IS it okay for some small percentage to own/control everything, or is that immoral and/or unjust?
That is my question. Once we deal with that question, we can move on to perhaps a related question: What if some small minority holds MOST but not all resources and shares some small percentage of those resources? or something along those lines.
But first off, I'm interested in the broader principle: IS IT OKAY for a minority to own everything, or would that be wrong?
Would you mind answering that question?
For me, it's an easy answer: No, it's not okay for a small minority to own everything, and I don't think there are any "gotcha" points to the question, I just want to establish that we can agree that it is wrong for some minority to own/control everything.
It's not that the analogy isn't exact. It's that it's useless. It does not in any way fairly model the real world. It does approximate the very narrow view of the real world you'd like to expound on, but as I've already noted, that view is so narrow that it can't be applied to an identical real-world situation.
Sorry, but I won't get dragged into this useless thought experiment.
Doug, it is not useless. The point is to establish whether or not we can agree that there is a point where owning "too much" can be a moral problem.
Do you think there is such a point? THAT is a legitimate question.
This world IS finite. There IS an increasing number of people. IS there a point where some folk could potentially own "too much," even if it's exaggerated? This is not tying you down so you can't say, "But this is NOT where we find ourselves..." and explaining the difference, but the question is a legitimate moral question.
I guess unless you don't believe the world is finite, but no rational person would think thusly, right?
There may or may not be a point where God's morality says it's too much. However, God never touches on that subject; the quantitative. He instead looks at the heart. To the rich young ruler, He said sell it all. To Job, He gave him riches. Did Job own too much? Abraham?
Again, you're trying to come up with a hard and fast rule that I don't think you have either Biblical support for, and that can't be applied anything close to universally. You have a narrow hypothetical you'd like to apply it to, but since it doesn't consider a great many other parameters, I won't take the bait.
Doug, PLEASE, look at what I'm ACTUALLY saying. I'm specifically NOT speaking of a "hard and fast rule." I'm not going to say, "See? If it is objectively wrong for 1000 families to own everything, then wealth is bad!!" Nothing like that.
Rather, I'm striving to establish: DO we ("WE" in this case, includes me - well, actually all cases...) agree or not that there CAN be a point where owning too much can be a moral wrong.
You know, I'm sure, that we can decipher moral wrongs even on topics where God has not offered an opinion, right?
Rather, I'm striving to establish: DO we...agree or not that there CAN be a point where owning too much can be a moral wrong.
You are trying to establish a hard and fast rule that you can own too much. Given your ground rules (i.e. this post), not gonna go there.
My problem is not with the issue, but with the way you pursue your point. I have no doubt that the narrow view you take in your post in order to make your point, excluding any and all mitigating circumstances, is how you will pursue this.
I've been in here before, as you know. I'm not going there again. My purpose was to point out how flawed your premise was and how inapplicable to real-world issues it is. Ignoring inconvenient issues like that is a hallmark of discussions here, from more folks than you to be sure, and I have no desire to beat my head against that again.
Your call. I just can't take you very seriously as a discussion partner if you refuse to engage in discussion. Only asking questions and not answering? That's a rant or an accusation, not a discussion.
But consider it this way: If there were 9 families and EACH of those families consumed 1/10 of the world's resources, that would only leave 1/10 of the world's resources for the whole rest of the population to live upon.
You're assuming that "resource" is a fixed quantity. Consider: this approach reduces aggregate demand. If, for example, you save money by not drinking as much coffee, you could have an adverse impact on Uganda's coffee market (its largest export industry).
If everyone on the planet consumed at a rate as the average US citizen, we'd need multiple planets to sustain all that consumption.
Again, you're incorrectly assuming that "resource" is finite. If demand for Ugandan coffee drops to the point where the industry becomes unprofitable, then the fields will lay idle and the "resource" will diminish. If it picks up, then not only will fields be replanted, but more will be carved out of the wilderness and the "resource" will increase in size.
I think that you're approaching this issue from the wrong direction. The problem isn't that the US is so wealthy, but that other nations are so poor. And your model seems to presuppose that other nations are poor because the US has deprived them of wealth. Wealth building is not a zero sum game.
Our focus should be not on diminishing the wealth of the US, but increasing the wealth of poor nations, such as Uganda.
Let's get right to the heart of the matter.
The thing is, this is a finite planet with finite resources.
1. You believe that this is true, then explain why Julian Simon won his bet against Paul Ehrlich?
2. If you believe this is true, then how has human civilization increased its prosperity over the past millennium? Human population in the year 1000 AD was 400 million. Now it stands at 7 billion. Under your model of ever diminishing, finite resources, this should be impossible. How do you account for this simultaneous increased population and increased prosperity?
Earth's resources are infinite? Really??
I guess we'll have to trash the law of conservation of matter as well as the laws of thermodynamics.
Oh, silly me. I forgot that the basic physical laws of the universe are just another part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.
I know that Christianists have their own pseudoscience for any reality they don't like, but I was unaware they had also come up with their own version of entropy.
Next they'll be denying gravity. It's the only thing left, it seems.
In and of itself, wealth isn't "immoral". The pursuit of wealth as a "good" usually - not always, but usually - leads to ethical decisions that are deleterious for oneself and others. Wealth as a by-product of a set of principles such as thrift, hard work, attention to the needs of one's family isn't an evil; on the other hand, it isn't a good either.
For we who live in late-capitalism, where everything from our bodies to what we do in the bedroom to our political candidates have become products to be consumed, the issue is far less the morality or immorality of wealth, but seeing and thinking critically the ways our society presents the world of objects to us. Even natural resources are there for our "consumption", rather than an integral part of our world to be tended with care and thoughtfulness.
For me, the issue isn't the morality or immorality of wealth; for me the question is about the healthiness of converting much of the world around us in to products available for us to use and consume.
Also, I think the point the others are trying to make that Alan is (rightly) poking fun at is that it is true enough the earth is not a closed system. This is a point biologists and others make when people make the silly and wrong claim that the theory of evolution by natural selection violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. On the other hand, this same point - the earth is not a closed system, we are constantly having both matter and energy provided to us by the larger Universe - has nothing to do with whether or not our natural resources are finite or not. Obviously they are.
The question remains: So what? If our resources, which ever resources Dan may have in mind, are finite, what difference does it make when they get used up?
As to the question of the morality of a few owning or controlling all of a resource, the answer is: No. Not immoral at all. Not in the least. For one to own the whole world? Not a question of morality at all. Is there, as Barry O'Bummer assumes, a point at which one can make/earn/own too much? No. There is no such point.
On resources: Kevin Drum has an excellent post on the topic, with links to other sources that make an overwhelming case that peak oil output is at 90 million barrels a day, with a cost-effective rate of around 85 mbd (that higher rate of production brings on price shocks).
While the track record of the human species realizing that something bad is around the corner, and doing something to avoid it, is really quite awful, one would at least like to believe that, since this is a subject that has been discussed for decades, and now that we're up against it, maybe we could do something about it.
Since Art doesn't believe it is immoral for even a single person to own all resources, tell you what. I will monopolize all grains on the planet - rice, wheat, corn, barley - and charge whatever I want for it.
How's that sound?
This is why I avoid "discussion" here and would just rather speak my piece. Geoff has completely and utterly missed any point both Marshall and I have made.
Marshall spent a whole paragraph making his point.
As to the question of the morality of a few owning or controlling all of a resource, the answer is: No. Not immoral at all. Not in the least. For one to own the whole world? Not a question of morality at all. Is there, as Barry O'Bummer assumes, a point at which one can make/earn/own too much? No. There is no such point.
He said owning is not a moral question. He said not a single word on doing with what you own. Only Geoff comes in and, in (supposed) response to this, "I will monopolize all grains on the planet - rice, wheat, corn, barley - and charge whatever I want for it. How's that sound?" What you do with what you own most certainly is moral.
My comments, as well, noted that there more to the issue than owning, and listed so many ways the US does so many good things with what it owns and as a result of what it consumes.
Dan asked an overly-narrow question (as I pointed out), but insisted that one must answer it to enter into the "discussion". Turns out the "discussion" is merely a way to smear people who disagree with the answer to a question that has no bearing to real-world situations (as I also pointed out).
Dan, that's a rant or an accusation, and that's why I (and I would think you as well) wouldn't want to get deep into something like that. Motives are assumed and accusations hurled right out of the gate with an innocent. That's why I can't take you or anyone here seriously as a discussion partner, and prefer, decreasingly occasionally, to just make my point and leave it at that.
"Motives are assumed and accusations hurled right out of the gate with an innocent question." is what I meant to say.
Doug - If I owned, say, all the molybdenum on the planet, who would care? I would encourage a monopoly on molybdenum. A rough cartel-like, practical monopoly on vital resources - food (ADM), oil (OPEC) - however is a different story. The distinction you make - owning something and choosing what to do with it - is false. If it is perfectly OK for me to own all the grain on the planet, it is then perfectly moral for me to choose whatever price I see fit for it. You don't like it? Grow some wheat yourself, but I'll undercut your price, and charge you double for the tools to grow it. Because it wouldn't be enough to own the grain. As John D. Rockefeller showed - you have to own everything. From the basics of production through distribution. Which is what ADM, the big oil companies, all have.
Living simply is difficult, and I think it is admirable that Dan is both conscientious about it, and willing to make clear why he does so. Distractions like, "Geoff spoiled our party because he was MEAN," are ridiculous. You want me kicked off? Fine. You guys go ahead and have at it; I contributed to this conversation, and made a point about something Art said - that's it.
I'm tired of playing with children.
The distinction you make - owning something and choosing what to do with it - is false.
Really? I can own a hammer and choose to build a bookcase with it or knock someone over the head with it. Owning the hammer is amoral. Choosing what to do with it is a moral choice.
I could own all the grain in the world, and choose to, as you suggest, make you pay through the nose for it, or sell it at cut rates (or give it away) to countries in bad shape. Owning the grain is amoral. Choosing what to do with it is a moral choice.
The distinction is entirely obvious.
Distractions like, "Geoff spoiled our party because he was MEAN," are ridiculous.
So if I, then, like you, make a pronouncement about what you believe based, not on what you said, but on the worst possible assumption I could make about you, that would be OK with you? Art says owning is amoral. You shoot back saying that, since he believes that, how about I grab it all and screw you over. The latter does not follow at all from the former, except in an "amoral capitalism" sort of way (which is exactly the stance you use to then defend what you assumed).
I think it's absolutely proper to point out where participants in a "discussion" are being incredibly unfair in their assumptions. That's the distraction; responding to your own assumptions rather than to what was actually said. But here, in what passes for "discussion", setting the record straight is a "ridiculous distraction".
Craig,
Such explanations expose the transparent self-promotion inherent in his use of obscure words like "molybdenum" to make a point that isn't strong at all. THAT is a distraction as most people will have to take time to look it up, only to find that its use was totally unnecessary and gratuitous.
But you have nailed my point precisely. "Owning" carries no moral connotation in and of itself. Thus, owning all cannot, either.
Still waiting for an answer to my question. What difference does it make when we use up finite resources? Adding to it, what difference does it make who uses it up?
As to Dan living a life of simplicity, I don't much care, except when he then prattles on about how others live. THEN we can comment on the value of it, even his doing so. For myself, I'd be far more pleased to see as many people living the life of luxury and excess and enjoying as much of what God has provided as possible. Thus, I hope to do so as well. Living Dan's way is not proven to be better and right off the bat I can see how he has limited his ability to really help others. If he is capable of earning more, then he should be doing so. For if he truly is capable, then that is a result of talents and skills given him by God, and as Dan likes to say, to whom much is given, much will be expected. If he is capable and chooses not to make use of the talents and skills God has given him, then he is squandering what God has given him in the same way he assumes the wealthy are squandering what God has given them.
It seems that what I regarded as typical is likely true, seeing as how my question yet remains unanswered. Folks like Dan ignores and dismisses logical and natural questions they're "thoughtful" ideas provoke.
So, to the "Golden Rule", I would not want my children to live a life of need or want. I would not like anyone to do so.
Dan posted his income, not saying whether it was gross or net, but either way, it is "gross" of a different kind. The cost of living in his area may be vastly different than mine, but I could not support my family on that income. And my family is now only the three of us. Perhaps it is Dan's wife who makes the big bucks, but even if both are making the same, it would still be a major struggle, if even possible, to get along in my area.
But again, if Dan is capable of earning more, he is hurting both his family and his community by not doing so.
My position is that if one brings into the world a child, that child is entitled to the best life that can be provided by those who invited it. If Dan can do better for his kids than he is, he is obliged to do so by virtue of his having dared bring them into the world. It's his duty.
My position also holds that if a woman agrees to commit her life to me, I am also obliged to make her life as comfortable and enjoyable as possible. If she's slapping wet clothes against a rock because I want to live simply, I have failed in my duty make her life better. She may agree to do it on my account, but I have no right to claim her life and make it hard and miserable (not to be confused with being at that state despite all efforts to do better).
One is not living a life of service by allowing family life to be harder than it needs to be.
Also, there is the matter of taxation. Dan believes in progressive taxation. At 20K, he's getting a lot from those who have expended the effort to acquire and contributing nothing in the process. I believe that 20k is below the line where he needs to pay income tax at all (assuming his wife doesn't work). No wonder he supports progressive taxation.
But if Dan increased his income, because he has the skills and talent to do so, he is doing far more for society and his family than he doing now, and really for the same amount of effort (assuming the jobs are all 9-5 jobs). What's more, the increase in wages does not require an increase in consumption. Dan can still carry his sick kids on the back of his bicycle to the hospital when they start coughing up blood and maintain his principles. He can still live simply.
Indeed, there's a book entitled, "The Millionaire Next Door" that suggests that many people who are wealthy are not the least bit ostentatious and this by choice (sure, sometimes to hoard their bucks, but others because they don't want the trappings). Such people are good examples for those Dan might otherwise influence as they are contributors to society, if only compared by the size of tax contributions, then any "simple living" person making only 20K.
My position is that if one brings into the world a child, that child is entitled to the best life that can be provided by those who invited it. If Dan can do better for his kids than he is, he is obliged to do so by virtue of his having dared bring them into the world. It's his duty
You presume too much, Marshall. Who says that "doing better" or "best life" = making more money? I challenge you to support that with anything other than an odd and materialistic opinion.
Marshall...
At 20K, he's getting a lot from those who have expended the effort to acquire and contributing nothing in the process.
What do you think it is I'm "getting" by making less? I'm contributing less to the problem of pollution, so that is a net gain for society by people driving and consuming less. Again, I think you presume too much.
Just because you have a thought does not, in and of itself, make it valid or rational or supported.
Aside from the proper teaching of the Christian faith, which I don't believe you've provided based on years of reading your words, material comforts cannot be excluded from the equation of providing the "best possible" life for the children one brings into the world. It's the difference between getting them a bus pass to school or making them walk in sub-zero cold to stand on some goofy principle of "simple living". It's the difference between making them sit and be satisfied with a future of waiting tables than to provide the education necessary to allow them to work in the field of their choice. You're making them "make do" so that you can maintain this goofy simple living philosophy and then pretend they're free to make choices? You limit their choices by not working to provide them with options from which to choose. You are forcing them to live as you'd want them to live, not giving a rat's ass that they might want more, not as greedy people looking to serve themselves, but as young people with dreams that are limited by your "principles".
"What do you think it is I'm "getting" by making less? I'm contributing less to the problem of pollution, so that is a net gain for society by people driving and consuming less."
That's like a kid saying they shouldn't have to help clean up when all he's doing is sitting on his ass watching TV. What you're gaining is the public benefits of living in a society like ours without contributing, but instead insisting that those who sacrifice, sweat and risk to make more (including more jobs for people) pay more for the privilege of sacrificing, sweating and risking, generating the tax revenues that are appropriated by people who think like you to cover the asses of people who think like you and do as little as possible to contribute.
Marshall...
material comforts cannot be excluded from the equation of providing the "best possible" life for the children one brings into the world.
Says who? Based upon what?
Are you simply saying, "I, Marshall, think this is true..."? If so, then go for it. Your welcome to your opinions.
But if that's the best you have (ie, it's your opinion and naught else), you'll have to understand if I find your case underwhelming.
Marshall...
What you're gaining is the public benefits of living in a society like ours without contributing
But I am contributing. I'm paying taxes, state and federal and local. But consider the Amish: Do they contribute much to society via taxes? No. But at the same time, they don't require much from society. They don't benefit from massive interstates which they can't use, for instance.
Do you think those who consume less from society really ought to be paying more into it?
Again, says who? Based upon what?
Dan, if you have time and interest, I'd appreciate answers to my two questions, too.
Soon as I get a chance, John. Thanks.
Marshall, you seriously want someone to answer this question?...
What difference does it make when we use up finite resources?
It depends upon the resource. IF it is a resource that we have become dependent upon for life, then it matters a helluva lot because people will start to die. THAT is a big difference.
IF, for instance, we have learned how to feed the ~ 7 billion people on the planet by using petrochemicals and now we are dependent upon petrochemicals to produce that much food and then PETROL goes away, we have serious starvation issues.
IF we depend upon water and air (as, indeed, we do) and we manage to pollute it to the point where it is effectively used up, then we have issues.
IF on the other hand, we use up the resources necessary to make TVs, then the world becomes a happier place.
So it depends upon the resource, but some resources, it matters a great deal.
Marshall...
Adding to it, what difference does it make who uses it up?
Because if Group A uses up 80% of the water, leaving Group B without enough, Group B WILL be pissed off. Further, if Group A is Christian, they will not be living out the golden rule, seems to me.
John...
1. You believe that this is true, then explain why Julian Simon won his bet against Paul Ehrlich?
You are assuming that because he won, he was right, which is not necessarily a good assumption.
I don't know enough about economics to dwell on that too much, though. My point is that we ought to live simply and within our means because we share this finite world with other people.
Do you disagree on any of that sentence?
2. If you believe this is true, then how has human civilization increased its prosperity over the past millennium?
By exploiting available resources. But those resources are finite. We have enjoyed a fairly big century, for instance, by living on oil consumption. But we've gone through a good bit of the accessible oil in that century. It won't last forever and any society that has its economy tied into or based upon an assumption of cheap oil will suffer.
And again, my point is that living in such an unsustainable way is contrary to the Golden Rule, for those for whom that rule is important.
John, two questions for you: Do you think the earth can support 70 billion people? Do you think there can come a time when population outstrips resources?
Dan,
None of that answers the question.
Say there are ten hungry people and only a limited amount of apples on one tree. How does it matter if they take small bites every day or eat until they are full and no apples remain? Because they might last an extra couple of days before hunger kills them all? At least they enjoyed themselves on full stomachs before hunger set in, rather than to prolong their anguish and suffering by being hungry the whole time they could have been eating well. That makes perfect sense.
But that is the difference you wish to put to the world. "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO ENJOY LIFE BY USING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES BECAUSE WE MIGHT RUN OUT SOMEDAY LONG AFTER WE ARE ALL LONG DEAD!" What's so golden about that rule?
And we might be using most of what gets consumed because we have developed most of the resources for use in the first place. What of those who aren't doing so? How are they living? Not well, and usually because they haven't been doing what we do in this country. But you go ahead and send them a quart of oil every month if it makes you feel better.
It does answer the question, Marshall. If one presumes that we CAN live sustainably, then the righteous, moral behavior is to live in that way.
Beyond that, if there are ten people and a limited number of apples on a tree and ONE of those people eats them all, he has not lived in a loving manner.
Which is the point of this post: Living simply and sharing responsibly is one way of living out the Golden Rule.
Overconsumption equates to "enjoying life" only if one does not care about one's fellow humans. IF one is striving to live in a Golden Rule sort of way, then one can't "enjoy life" that involves overconsumption.
One COULD equate that sort of consumption to "enjoying life" if one is a hedonist and a nihilist, though, which appears to be your position.
But then, that gets back to the point of this post.
Marshall...
you go ahead and send them a quart of oil every month if it makes you feel better.
Actually, according to the law of supply and demand, we simple life-advocates are reducing demand and should be, thus reducing costs, which does help out the poor, as well as the hedonists. So I'd think that it would help us all feel a bit better.
But it seems like a funny thing for a Christian to be mocking, Marshall.
Although this resource may not be the best one, it gets across a point I've seen written in multiple places. You can read here to see what might happen to an oil-dependent population when oil ceases to be abundant and cheap.
They point out...
The "green revolution," which has enabled the Earth to support so many more people now than in the past, is a combination of genetic engineering in plants, mechanization, and the petrochemicals provided by oil and natural gas.
Emphasizing the importance of petrochemicals, Pimentel (1998a), states:
If the fertilizers, partial irrigation [in part provided by oil energy], and pesticides were withdrawn, corn yields, for example, would drop from 130 bushels per acre to about 30 bushels.
However, this is assuming legumes can also be used to provide a little nitrogen. Without the use of legumes, yields would decline to about 16 bushels per acre. This is about the corn yield in developing countries.
The additional hundred bushels has been produced from "ghost acres" which do not exist except in the form of the fertilizers, largely made with natural gas, and oil for pesticides. When the "ghost acres" provided by oil and natural gas no longer exist, the agricultural productivity will be dramatically reduced.
Before the "green revolution," people predicted mass starvation in a world with a population approaching a mere 3 billion (in the 1950s) and that was continuing to grow. We just couldn't feed that many people on this planet: we were approaching a point where we'd become as productive as we thought we could be.
Then the green revolution came along and we became much more productive. BUT, we could only do that because, in part, of the contributions of cheap and abundant petroleum.
Now, we ARE producing enough to feed our 7 billion people. But what happens when that petrol becomes less cheap and abundant?
It's not good news and continuing to consume it and saying, "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die" is not a compassionate way to live, at least for those who hold that the Golden Rule is a good measure.
More on peak oil and the green revolution...
Global food production has increased dramatically since the 1950s thanks to technical advances collectively known as the Green Revolution.69 Several components defined the Green Revolution: mechanization, irriga- tion, agrochemicals, and the development of new strains of plants.
Each of these innovations, with the exception of new seed strains, is heavily dependent on petroleum. For example, the enormous harvesters that permit large-scale farming, the irrigation systems that deliver water to otherwise arid land, and the trucks that deliver produce from California to the East Coast, all run on petroleum-based fuel.
The two major categories of agrochemicals are pesticides and fertilizers. Pesticides are widely used to control insects and other pest spe- cies; pesticide manufacturing is heavily dependent on petroleum feedstocks.70
Fertilizers provide fixed nitrogen, an essential component of plant growth, far more efficiently than soil bacteria (often associated with the roots of legumes) can provide it.
Fertilizer is manufactured through the energy-intensive Haber- Bosch process, using electricity, and the hydrogen molecules that are fixed to nitrogen come from a fossil fuel—coal, oil, or, more recently, natural gas.
Scarcity of petroleum and natural gas will increase the price of both pesticides and fertilizers. The same is true of other nitrogen-based agricultural chemicals, such as the urea used in cattle feed.71
Food travels long distances from farm to mar- ket. A large share (by volume) of the U.S. diet is imported—an estimated 32% of fruits and nuts, 13% of vegetables, 10% of meats, 79% of fish and shellfish, 11% of wheat, 11% of rice, and 16% of wine and beer during the period 2000–2005.72
The concept of “food miles” captures and quantifies this phenomenon.73 Various analyses have calculated the “weighted average source distance” produce travels to U.S. consumers’ tables as between 1,346 and 1,500 miles.
source
Dan wrote:
I don't know enough about economics to dwell on that too much, though. My point is that we ought to live simply and within our means because we share this finite world with other people.
Do you disagree on any of that sentence?
Yes, and this is why: you are conflating two terms as synonymous when they are not. Those terms are resources and physical materials.
The physical material of the earth is finite, but resource is a more nebulous concept. Petroleum, in 2011 AD, is a resource. In 1000 AD, it was not.
I'm just deriving my own definition, but let us say that to be a resource, something must be (1) known, (2) extractable, (3) useful, and (4) profitable. Oil was not a resource in 1000 AD because very little of it was known. I mean, the Middle East has piles of it, but who was to know that? Nor was it, with a few rare exceptions, extractable. It was stuck under the earth, inaccessible. And it wasn't useful either. What was the human from 1000 AD to do with petroleum? It would serve no purpose. And one certainly couldn't make any money by just burning it. There were more profitable sources of combustion.
So to human civilization of 1000 AD, petroleum was not a resource. That changed, mostly in the past century. And our knowledge of where oil can be found changed -- and continues to change constantly. And new technologies permit known, but inaccessible sources of petroleum to be extracted. Or it makes known, extractable, but unprofitable methods, such as shale oil, to become profitable.
So look at what's happening: the concept of resource -- and one particular resource -- is changing all the time. It's not fixed. Shoot, we’ve been kicking this subject around for about three years, Dan. And as the Reuters article indicates, there have been more oil sources confirmed off the Brazilian coast just this summer. Now if “resource” is a fixed quantity, how can that happen?
Now the humans of 1000 AD could just as well say "We're running out of forests, so we'll have no fuel! This level of population growth is unsustainable!" And they'd be wrong because their knowledge of what was known, extractable, useful, and profitable would be incorrect.
This is precisely why predictions of the world running out of oil in 1980 were wrong. The doomsayers who made such predictions assumed that their knowledge was absolute; that, unlike the ignorant people of previous generations, they had learned all that there was to learn.
This is why Malthusian predictions have always, always failed.
So your assumption that our resources will run out is framed by a particular concept of resource. I'd like to know why you have confidence that your fixed concept of resource is right – unlike those who predicted that we would run out of oil in 1980, etc. What thought process are you engaging in that is different from theirs, and therefore avoids their mistakes?
John, two questions for you: Do you think the earth can support 70 billion people?
Yes.
Do you think there can come a time when population outstrips resources?
As in world population? No. Now you could artificially create overpopulation in a selected area. You could, for example, dump 10,000 people without special skills onto South Georgia and they'd starve to death. But breeding into overpopulation in a world system? No.
You could also induce famine by refusing to use resources.
"Beyond that, if there are ten people and a limited number of apples on a tree and ONE of those people eats them all, he has not lived in a loving manner."
How is that? There is only one tree and all will soon starve. What possible difference does it make? Is it more loving to prolong the inevitable?
What I mean is this: If all ten people lived within the same area of the one tree, it's doubtful any one person could overwhelm the rest anyway. But if they lived in different areas, the one who lived by the tree would have no reason to assume the others had no tree of their own. In other words, you're changing the picture by adding things the original hypothesis doesn't have. So we can go back and forth adding to the story in order to get our way.
So, the only question is whether or not to eat the apples at once or little by little because there is a limited amount. There's no moral factor either way assuming all ten are thinking of eating apples. If they all simply eat until they aren't hungry, they likely will each eat at different rates given different body types, but they all are eating the same way. No one is left out or denied. The only factor here is whether or not it is better to eat the apples slowly because there is only one tree or to just eat as each feels the need. What's the difference if the finite resource is used up now rather than later?
What's more, the notion of "living sustainably" in the face of a finite resource makes no sense. How does one sustain what cannot BE sustained, that is, the finite resource in question? If it can be sustained, how is it finite?
"Overconsumption equates to "enjoying life" only if one does not care about one's fellow humans."
"Over-consumption" is subjective. If we eat more than we need to stave off pangs of hunger, we are over-consuming. If we drink more water than we need to stave off thirst, we are over-consuming. If we use any electricity at all for any purpose of personal enjoyment, we are over-consuming. If we buy a book, we have consumed paper we didn't need to consume when we could have borrowed the book or simply had someone tell us the story face-to-face. If we build a home large than the need for a place to lie down to sleep and another to cook our meals over an open fire that lasts only long enough to cook the food, we have over-consumed. How far do you wanna take this? Do you live in a lean-to? One could say pretty much anything done beyond that which is necessary to survive is over-consumption.
"One COULD equate that sort of consumption to "enjoying life" if one is a hedonist and a nihilist, though, which appears to be your position."
Why does that sound like complete class envy? Indeed, it reeks of class chauvinism. You assume those who splurge, generally after sacrificing, risking, working to acquire a comfortable life, are nothing more than hedonists and nihilists because while they enjoy the fruits of their labors there still exist those in the world with less? What kind of cockamamie crap is that?
"But it seems like a funny thing for a Christian to be mocking, Marshall."
What I'm mocking is you. You think by not using your car you're helping someone else live better? Bull. How does that help the truly poor in the world if you're not using up all the oil? You haven't explained that. THAT'S why I suggested that you send a quart of oil every month to some poor Bangladeshi or the like. It's a false sense of having done something. There's no way to gauge the impact, if any, of such "simple living" behaviors. But boy, one can sure feel good about one's self, can't one?
I would like to add Alex Tabarrok's response to Kredosky's argument:
If the conclusion is that prices go up as well as down, even over a 10 year period, then there isn't much to complain about in Paul's analysis. But I think he misses the key point. The bet was never fundamentally about prices, the bet was about scarcity, living standards and whether we were running out of natural resources–remember that at the time Ehrlich was predicting hundreds of millions would die of starvation and even that England would not exist in the year 2000! Prices were just a convenient but imperfect way to mark the bet to market.
The reason prices have risen in the 1990s is not that things are getting worse but that things are getting better–especially in China and India where things have been getting much better. As China and India have become richer demand has increased tremendously in these countries putting upward pressure on prices. In other words, prices have risen because the value of resources has risen. That's quite different–indeed the opposite–of what Ehrlich was predicting.
The world is getting wealthier. It's been getting wealthier within our lifetimes, despite warnings of the doomsday prophets who were active in the 70s (when I was born). Now unless your economic model is substantially different from theirs, then you should not be confident that your similar predictions will bear out.
Post a Comment