Live simply, so others may simply live

[Simpletruther]

A few fairly simple pointers, most of which could be readily adopted by most folk, would be
> Conserve space by preferencing apartment blocks, townhouses or even just smaller houses/yards over sprawling suburban mini-mansions. In general that'll reduce energy consumption for heating/cooling, reduce transport/fossil fuel usage through more compact cities, and hopefully reduce almost all material consumption through the tendency to clutter (rather than artificial need to 'fill') more reasonably-sized living spaces.
> Reduce meat consumption, especially seafood and beef, for their devastating environmental impacts and the effect on global food prices of such wildly inefficient use of limited agricultural land.
> Reduce fuel consumption by using public transport, biking or walking. This also saves money and is healthier both for you and for everyone's air quality. In well designed cities pretty much no-one should need a personal car; as things stand some people (particularly those with small children) may need one, in which case fuel efficient/electric vehicles can be prioritized and still used sparingly/shared among families. (In terms of government policy, registration fees should be based on miles traveled as well as vehicle type to remove the perverse incentive of "I'm paying for it so may as well get the most out of it.")
> Reduce energy consumption by using fans or sweaters instead of air conditioning where possible, using fewer and more energy efficient appliances and turning things off when not in use.
> Replace things only when needed, not just because a company released an 'improved' model. Avoid brands which don't last.
> Obviously, reduce, reuse and recycle in general. Check out local thrift shops, swap meets etc.
> Boycott the idiot tradition of giving material 'gifts,' especially store-bought, for birthdays, Christmas etc. Give your presence instead of presents, or for those truly suckered into the notion that how much you care is measured by what you give, why not truly embrace that notion and just give cash?
> Give more to international aid/development charities like Oxfam, Red Cross, World Vision etc. For most of my 20s I was devoting more of my income to a single luxury for myself (alcohol) than to help my fellow human beings in desperate need around the world. What kind of person does that? Probably most of us in one way or another... but if anything that makes it all the worse.


Sorry, are you pretending that our planet is not finite? Some resources are renewable (although many of those, most devastatingly marine life, are being depleted at wildly unsustainable rates), for others the efficiency of usage can be improved (eg. skyscrapers allowing for more compact cities, fertilizers allowing greater crop yields) and for some resources the quantity available on the planet's surface is far more than we'll ever use (eg. coal, which would last almost three millennia at current usage rates even if we weren't well on the way to cooking the planet). None of that changes the fact that consumption at the scale of current human civilization is devastating or depleting even some seemingly inexhaustible resources.

Why the world is running out of sand

It may be little more than grains of weathered rock, and can be found on deserts and beaches around the world, but sand is also the world’s second most consumed natural resource.

www.bbc.com

Of course those are only doom and gloom facts if they are ignored; if we decide that neoliberal dogma is a better way of organizing our societies than observational science and actively adapting our behaviour to avert the likely problems. Human civilizations for nigh on ten thousand years have known that their worlds and their access to resources were limited. They haven't always adapted appropriately, and sometimes have been devastated by changing climates or circumstances in spite of their best efforts: But it's only been in the past century or two that we've seen a widespread acceptance of this remarkable fantasy that our planet isn't finite, that there aren't any limits to how much we can use and consume. It's really quite mind-boggling that this delusion has spread so much during the period that both our scientific understanding of those limits and our consumption of those resources have increased exponentially; a consequence perhaps of the dual factors of a) endless advertising and mind-numbing saturation of capitalist consumerist culture and b) the fact that we in wealthy countries don't have to deal with daily scarcity for the most part, living instead in our comfortable bubbles where it really does seem like everything is limitless for those with the money to buy it.

Your view that people have changed in the last hundred years is highly suspect.

What has changed is our ability to consume on a massive levels, not our opinions sustainability.

 

[Antiwar]

No. But it doesn't make since. One can live a complex life without hurting others.

It makes sense to me. If one lives an extravagant life, they're very probably contributing to other lives' (not just human lives) suffering.

 

[Simpletruther]

It makes sense to me. If one lives an extravagant life, they're very probably contributing to other lives' (not just human lives) suffering.

Explain how

 

[Antiwar]

Explain how

If I owned half of Earth and polluted it like crazy, might more people, plants, animals, etc suffer?

 

[Simpletruther]

If I owned half of Earth and polluted it like crazy, might more people, plants, animals, etc suffer?

You can be extravagant without polluting.

 

[Peter]

Seems a bit ironic having it on a bumper sticker

To be fair there are levels of consumption.
A car can be both frugal and extremely vital for someone with no other options and they may be using it ultra sparingly.

 

[Antiwar]

You can be extravagant without polluting.

I don't think so, because nearly every (if not every) human pollutes. Industrialized humans definitely pollute.

 

[aociswundumho]

A few fairly simple pointers, most of which could be readily adopted by most folk, would be

No, I asked how you, personally, have lowered your consumption.

Your standard of living is based on consumption. The higher your standard of living, the higher your consumption. You wrote, "More for me ultimately means less for someone else," so I'd like to know how you have lowered your standard of living in order to allow someone else to have more.

 

[aociswundumho]

To be fair there are levels of consumption.
A car can be both frugal and extremely vital for someone with no other options and they may be using it ultra sparingly.

Bullshit. You do not need a car to live. Most people on this planet do not own a car.

 

[Peter]

Bullshit. You do not need a car to live. Most people on this planet do not own a car.

That depends where you live and work I suppose.
I myself live within walking distance from work but not everyone is that lucky and if you also don't have public transport a car may indeed be a vital tool.

 

[Simpletruther]

I don't think so, because nearly every (if not every) human pollutes. Industrialized humans definitely pollute.

So you are against industry?
Isn't that a bit hypocritical you going on the internet and all?

No doubt you live what a couple billion people would consider an extravagant life.

 

[craig]

Of all the problems that threaten humanity, over population is at the root of them all.

 

[aociswundumho]

That depends where you live and work I suppose.

No, it doesn't.

I myself live within walking distance from work but not everyone is that lucky and if you also don't have public transport a car may indeed be a vital tool.

Vital to what end? If you mean it's vital to raise your standard of living and your level of consumption, then yes, a car is probably vital. But this is a thread full of leftists preaching self-sacrifice in order to benefit the earth. Talking about it is easy, but I'll bet not a single one of you will voluntarily lower your standard of living for the good of the planet.

 

[phoenix2020]

Have you ever seen that bumper sticker?

I prefer to live Complicated.

 

[Antiwar]

So you are against industry?
Isn't that a bit hypocritical you going on the internet and all?

No doubt you live what a couple billion people would consider an extravagant life.

I'm for revolutionizing industry and the industrial mindset, because we have to change them.

Nearly everyone (if not everyone) is at least a little hypocritical.

I'm an American, so sure. But I've been doing things in my life to make improvements.

 

[Simpletruther]

I prefer to live Complicated.

Yep, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

 

[Simpletruther]

I'm for revolutionizing industry and the industrial mindset, because we have to change them.

Nearly everyone (if not everyone) is at least a little hypocritical.

I'm an American, so sure. But I've been doing things in my life to make improvements.

Ok, good job.
I don't really try, but it just happens that my tastes are simple, and I am health conscience so I don't eat much. Drive a Yaris instead of a big car, cause I am prudent and budget minded not to save the planet.

 

[Mithrae]

No, I asked how you, personally, have lowered your consumption.

Your standard of living is based on consumption. The higher your standard of living, the higher your consumption. You wrote, "More for me ultimately means less for someone else," so I'd like to know how you have lowered your standard of living in order to allow someone else to have more.

A few posts ago I mentioned the teaching of Jesus that his followers must sell all their possessions essentially down to the clothes on their backs to give to the poor. A viable modern interpretation of that lifestyle is a Christian form of freeganism; guerilla gardening or dumpster diving for food, closely-packed communal living, exclusively using second- or third-hand goods and so on. But most people aren't likely to go to those extremes - least of all professing followers of Jesus! - so beyond trying to make some kind of stupid masturbatory gesture, what would be the point in saying I do that? Would you even believe it if I did? Would it change anyone's opinion in the slightest, or would you take it as a reason to dismiss me as an extremist madman?

Conversely, if I told you I'm writing this on my brand new top-of-the-line computer aboard my private yacht in between prime steak meals and naps on my baby seal skin bed, would that magically invalidate any of the facts about the finite planet we live on and the impacts which our over-consumption has on other people directly, on scarcity for future generations and on the earth- and ecosystems the very existence of our civilization depends on?

Once someone tries to get personal, as you seem quite determined to do, it's generally a pretty good indication that they don't have anything with rational substance to offer: It's fishing for an excuse to dismiss the message on the grounds that the messenger is either impure or too pure.

 

[Peter]

No, it doesn't.



Vital to what end? If you mean it's vital to raise your standard of living and your level of consumption, then yes, a car is probably vital. But this is a thread full of leftists preaching self-sacrifice in order to benefit the earth. Talking about it is easy, but I'll bet not a single one of you will voluntarily lower your standard of living for the good of the planet.

Vital to get to work, why is that so hard to understand?
Plenty of people decide to lower their standard of living and do with less all the time, it's not that unusual and some people just don't feel the need to have that much stuff in the first place.
Why are you so angry?

You seem absolutely set on starting an argument here where there is none to have.

 

[Simpletruther]

A few posts ago I mentioned the teaching of Jesus that his followers must sell all their possessions essentially down to the clothes on their backs to give to the poor. A viable modern interpretation of that lifestyle is a Christian form of freeganism; guerilla gardening or dumpster diving for food, closely-packed communal living, exclusively using second- or third-hand goods and so on. But most people aren't likely to go to those extremes - least of all professing followers of Jesus! - so beyond trying to make some kind of stupid masturbatory gesture, what would be the point in saying I do that? Would you even believe it if I did? Would it change anyone's opinion in the slightest, or would you take it as a reason to dismiss me as an extremist madman?

Conversely, if I told you I'm writing this on my brand new top-of-the-line computer aboard my private yacht in between prime steak meals and naps on my baby seal skin bed, would that magically invalidate any of the facts about the finite planet we live on and the impacts which our over-consumption has on other people directly, on scarcity for future generations and on the earth- and ecosystems the very existence of our civilization depends on?

Once someone tries to get personal, as you seem quite determined to do, it's generally a pretty good indication that they don't have anything with rational substance to offer: It's fishing for an excuse to dismiss the message on the grounds that the messenger is either impure or too pure.

If you are not judging others who like to consume a lot, then I can respect your concern.

If however you are wagging the finger at high consumers, then Your own consumption becomes part of the conversation.

 

[beancounter]

Yes, I heard it for the first time in the early 90's. Never saw it on a bumper sticker.

 

[The Mark]

Have you ever seen that bumper sticker?

Nope, but it seems like a typically vague statement which can be interpreted by the viewer depending on their perspective.

 

[aociswundumho]

A few posts ago I mentioned the teaching of Jesus that his followers must sell all their possessions essentially down to the clothes on their backs to give to the poor. A viable modern interpretation of that lifestyle is a Christian form of freeganism; guerilla gardening or dumpster diving for food, closely-packed communal living, exclusively using second- or third-hand goods and so on. But most people aren't likely to go to those extremes - least of all professing followers of Jesus! - so beyond trying to make some kind of stupid masturbatory gesture, what would be the point in saying I do that? Would you even believe it if I did? Would it change anyone's opinion in the slightest, or would you take it as a reason to dismiss me as an extremist madman?

For the third time, here is what you wrote:

Over-consumption is the #1 problem facing humanity in the 21st and late 20th centuries. More for me ultimately means less for someone else,

You're a compassionate leftist who cares about other people and the environment, correct? If over-consumption is the #1 problem facing humanity, why don't you drastically reduce your own consumption? If more for you means less for somebody else, then why don't you drastically reduce your own consumption so that others can have more?

The reason is because you and every other leftist in this thread are hypocrites.

 

[Antiwar]

Nope, but it seems like a typically vague statement which can be interpreted by the viewer depending on their perspective.

Do you have an idea what it means now, or you just wanted to complain?

 

[Mithrae]

If however you are wagging the finger at high consumers, then Your own consumption becomes part of the conversation.

Only in a "how can we all improve ourselves together?" sort of way. The Ten Commandments were written by a murderer; the declaration of inalienable human rights to liberty etc was written by a slaveowner. If you're particularly curious, here's a Facebook post of mine from three years ago:

Some tough conclusions: If I eat a quarter pounder, that's pretty much all the meat I should ethically eat in that week; a double quarter or a small (250g) steak is about all the meat I should have in a fortnight.

I love meat. It's no exaggeration to say that earlier this year probably 90% of my diet consisted of chicken tenders and nuggets, and at other times in earlier years it's been pretty much the same but with bacon, eggs, sausages and Spam straight from the tin thrown into the mix. The problem is that meat takes a lot more land to produce than plant-based foods do. Meat consumption tends to increase with income, and globally both average incomes and total population are on the rise... but the available land surface of our planet is not increasing. Hence, demand for beef is one of the major reasons for destruction of the Amazon rainforest, for example. And to the extent that increasing demand outstrips supply, meat consumption can also be a factor in price increases which keep food off the table of the world's poorest people.

These are relatively simple facts that I've known for years, but always pushed to the back of my mind because they are uncomfortable and my rare few attempts to try vegan substitutes have not gone well.
-
So instead of a doomed all-or-nothing approach I've recently tried a different tack: If we capped the total land used for meat production right now, how much meat could everyone in the world fairly have? In fact to make things simpler, and to allow at least a little leeway for future population growth, what if we cut back to only the land currently used for beef production? (Fish consumption is a whole other kettle of swimming stuff, which arguably could be ethical if 50+% of waters were protected from fishing but, as things stand, may well be the WORST form of meat consumption.)

The calculations seem surprisingly simple, though I'd appreciate any corrections if I've gone wrong. Firstly and most importantly, we need to recognize that not all meat is equal. Following up on one of George Monbiot's citations, Machinova et al 2015 say that:
"When comparing the area needed to produce 1 kg of protein from soybeans(12m2) to the average land area required to produce common cuts of meat, chicken requires 3× more area (39m2), pork 9× more area (107m2), and beef 32× more area (377m2) (Röös et al., 2013a,2013b; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013)."

According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, in 2013 global production of beef (and buffalo) totaled 68 million tonnes, or 68 billion kilograms. Divided by the world's population (~8 billion) and the days in a year we get (68 / 8 / 365) around 0.0233 kilograms: In other words if beef were the only meat we consumed, and we restricted our meat-producing land to areas currently producing beef, in terms of global averages we could eat around 23.3 grams of beef per person per day, slightly decreasing as and when global population exceeds 8 billion.
-
Can I ethically eat any more than this estimated average figure? I don't see how: If anything, growing population, carbon impacts, the likelihood that even beef production alone is already more natural environment than we 'should' be exploiting and -perhaps most importantly- the other moral concerns around intensive or factory-farmed beef which makes up some portion of the total would all suggest erring on the side of caution, considerably lower than that figure to really be ethical meat consumption. As far as I can tell, eating more than ~140g of beef per week would basically be equivalent to saying either that the rainforests and the rest of our terrestrial environment can go hang, or that the other PEOPLE in the world can go hang - that they must have less so that I can get what I want!

The good news is that if I eat chicken, based on those figures above arguably I can have up to ten times as much; since nuggets and tenders are only about 50% chicken, perhaps I can even have a 400g box of nuggets every single day.

I'm actually trying to cut down even below that threshold -since if nothing else I'm bound to have an occasional sausage or steak when visiting friends- and I've found that spring rolls and potato gems are just as microwavable and even as tasty as chicken. Perhaps one day I'll even succeed in going vegetarian. But for now I thought it worth sharing my struggles with this challenging issue; maybe others can relate or even offer further tips for improvement