-Yvon Chouinard, Treehugger Radio
First, listening to the words of Yvon Chouinard, the visionary founder of Patagonia clothing company (and a personal hero), speaking about buying less; buying quality items, and less of them. Items that last a long time and do not have to be incessantly replaced. Yet, there is a bit of hypocrisy involved when the owner of a clothing and sporting goods manufacturer, responsible for making lots of new stuff all the time, tells us to buy less and be more responsible with our purchases. But sometimes, hypocrisy is better than the rhythmic, robotic motions of lining up at the stores to buy more stuff, because, like, that's what we are supposed to do, right? We are consumers, not citizens; (that was pulled from Chouinard himself); I wonder if we would be counted in the next census if we stopped consuming, dropped off the marketing radar, refused to let the incessant messages permeate our craniums, took a stand for the environment and for ourselves, started to value ourselves as more than consumers, started to focus on other things that matter more than buying that new pair of shoes. I have a personal theory that people buy, go shopping, go through the motions, because it simply gives them something to do; and in our society, we always need to have something "to do." The first thing we ask, "what are you doing?;" the last, "what did you do today?" or the common, "what do you want to do?"...we need to fill our actions, fill our minds, and fill our days, and consumerism is an easy escape from having to answer with anything meaningful. As usual, the easiest way out can also be the most harmful...
Harmful to the environment-look at the documentary Manufactured Landscapes by Mongrel Media...
...look at the impact of our lifestyles on the environment of China, who has assumed the fiscal as well as ecological responsibility for our lifestyle choices, the contaminated water tables, toxic landscapes, exploding cancer rates....I simply ask, for what? For more of the same stuff? For the "new and improved model?" (I think of the lyrics, '..it didn't even exist last year, but now its what we need...')
Luckily, I'm not the only one who is thinking about these things, about this "Post-Consumer" lifestyle, as one man I spoke to referred to it. I do find myself constantly "wanting" things that I really don't need; I consciously realize it's the constant barrage of media slowly seeping in; I need to be on constant vigil; take a step back; think, do I really need this? (separating need and want is a good first step) Is it going to make me happier to have this? Is it serving a vital purpose in my life? (so, that obviously excludes food products, clothing products, health care and education, think, Maslow's hierarchy), or is it just going to add more clutter to life, add one more item that will need to be given away or thrown away with I inevitably depart (think: the impermanence of all beings, I'm not being selective here).
This is a very delicate situation, and like all, needs to be examined from multiple perspectives and different human standpoints. The massive uplifting from poverty experienced by hundreds of millions of Chinese, unprecedented in history, is without a doubt, a positive occurrence for mankind; the ability of people to have a chance to improve their lives, I will not argue that this is a wonderful thing; but how this is done, how things are progressing, is simply off track and not sustainable. It is the sad truth for many, that this world cannot sustain 9 billion American-model consumers.
The steamrolling stridency for material superiority, seen through the new era of the Chinese super rich, the factory owners pushing for profits over any spec of environmental concern; the overwhelming push to consume by all the developed nations fueling this drive. It is simply not a sustainable way of progressing, from either end of the argument. It CANNOT be sustained. China is completely devastating their land and water making the never ending chain of products that fuels life in the "west"they are supporting gross human rights violators to secure natural resources needed to continue this production (though developed nations have been doing this for years, this is duly noted); the environmental consequences are already remarkable; it will only continue to get worse. There must be a balance.
Back to the human (more precisely, the American Human first hand perspective), the course of making ever more money, working harder and harder, to be able to consume more and more stuff, cannot continue. Either economic realities (we simply cannot afford things anymore) or environmental realities (the environment cannot sustain the creation of these things), or a human reality (I do not need these things), something has to give. I do believe things are starting to give. By choice or not.
Andrew Revkin (NYTimes op-ed) remarks:
"The conundrum is this: All that stuff creates jobs — making it, promoting it, selling it. It’s literally the stuff of growth. "
The question is; can economic growth be sacrificed in developed nations (I make the clear distinction here between those who have already achieved a sufficient level of "stuff" and those who struggle for survival)? Are we willing to take a step back and recognize that economic growth is not the end-all of human achievement? That growth can be measured in ways other than economic data and GDP forecasts? That growth can be measured in terms of quality of life, which does not necessarily correlate to quality of things? (I harken to Bhutan's Gross National Happiness, chosen over Gross Domestic Product, as a measure of development). I will not naively state that nothing is needed for quality of life and that we can all go live in caves; but I can non-naively state, once our basic needs are met: food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, etc., things becomes less and less important. (somewhat separately, from a development standpoint, its a view of giving people the tools to provide for the basic necessities that are needed as the foundation for life... I am also more than willing to recognize that without the tools of this consumerist/capitalist country and economy, I would not have the luxury to be sitting here typing on my laptop computer, transmit this post through wireless Internet, and listen to NPR while doing it...to note, I am not an opponent of capitalism, I am an ardent supporter of the market-though socialism has many advantages, see, Norway, but that's a whole other rant).
As Revkin states, "...at each end of the development ladder – from not enough to too much – we get into trouble."
"Achieving a sustainable and equitable global solution is clearly incompatible with a worldwide replication of U.S. lifestyles or even the somewhat less damaging ecological impacts of the lifestyles of other industrialized countries. In such a situation, inhabitants of the global North can and should opt for a new economic and social vision based on quality of life, rather than quantity of stuff, with reduced work time and ecological sustainability at its core. Such a vision has the potential to create broad-based pressure for an alternative to the current system of ecologically destructive, inequitable consumer-driven growth. Indeed, the future of the planet increasingly depends on it."
“Sustainable Consumption and Worktime Reduction,” a paper by Juliet Schor, a sociologist at Boston College
