Re: Re. [pf] Visions of the future

>At 11:14 AM 09/19/1999 -0400, tully wrote:
>>  How do we go in a new direction?  What do we need to do?  
>
At 13:54 19/09/99 -0500, Nan Hildreth wrote:
> …  Struggle with materialism.  Like a goldfish, see the water of
>materialism we swim in. … 
>
>Materialism is a myth, a story we made up.  See the power of living myth. 
>… 
>
>>At 04:46 AM 9/19/99 -0500, Nan Hildreth wrote:
>>>What to do?  Get clear on Theobald's question "Will limiting our 
>appetites
>>>come from within us or from outside of us?"
>>
>[tully: ]
>>Hopefully it will come from within, as it has (in theory only BTW) with
most 
>>of us.  The problem is putting the appetite limitations into actual
practice. 
>> … Those of us who have already accepted that the appetites are out 
>>of control seem to be at hopeless loss at how to even limit ourselves.  
>We 
>>MUST come up with solutions.  NOW.
>
>Start with limiting yourself.  You are way below sustainability it seems to
>me.  Globally it needs to be cut in half says Worldwatch.  To set an extra
>impressive example, cut it down to a quarter of your peers. 

**  I was about to criticise, that Nan's "cut down to a quarter" wasn't
enough for people in N America. However, since the absolute necessity is
getting started, there's no need for people to change by next year all the
way to living sustainably; that can be spread over a few years (maybe 5?).
  So I think a not-impossible goal like 1/4 is very suitable, so as to get
major movement started. To be quite clear, that means stopping-spending 3/4
of what you are spending now, in ways that aren't just postponing. For
repeat purchases of goods or services-involving-use-of-resources, this
means increasing the interval between purchase to four times what it's
typically been in the last few years, but buying the same amount then, not
more. Sharing a car between 4 times as many people (who currently use their
own) would also be necessary. (That's for the average car; fewer people
need be shared-with if (i) it is very economical, and/or (ii) it is kept
for twice to four times as long.)

**  I could go into amounts of further cut-backs in spending ("peers" is
likely well above the US average; CO2 has to be cut to below 1/6; the
global average referred-to by Worldwatch is under $2,000), but most PF
readers would reject it as completely impossible to do that themselves.


> Time to move on to our positive vision.  What are we FOR?
> … But don't look skinny and cold and miserable, be radiant, jolly, 
>rich in intangible wealth.  Have some fun for Gaia.  (A good one, eh? ) 
>[tully: ]
>>I think the inspiration that is necessary is already done for a large 
>>amount of people, even a majority possibly.  What has not been done is to 
>>develop a theoretical model for a possible sustainable future for all of 
>>us.  That work *must* be done.  NOW.
>
>OK.  We recognize our materialism, and for the earth and the children, we
>limit our footprint to half. …  
>Now that the peerless global power has set the good example, the rest of
>the nations get a headache, talk like crazy among themselves, and follow us
>with a smile on their faces. 
>
**  Almost always I agree with tully, but this time I don't.
    As I said in a post to another list which is now on my Sustainable
Questions page:
http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/Sustainable-Questions.html
    humans are remarkably inventive. tully's idea of needing a model seems
to imply that most would use the model to guide their steps towards
sustainability. In my view, a dozen models wouldn't be enough, though I can
see there's value in having real-life illustrations to give ideas to those
with not enough imagination. I mention one such, on that page; basically,
what old-city lower-middle-class Europeans have been doing for centuries. 
**  The key step is to re-define the boundaries between: necessary,
desirable, and luxury. To ask for every single payment: "do I _really_ need
to buy this?".

**  Repeating an earlier point: for most of us using computers (i.e. not
including Arianna and a few others), the statement: "we limit our footprint
to half" doesn't translate directly to us. It refers to the consumption of
the average North American (US & Canada). Since recent economic growth has
benefitted mainly the top 20% to 33%, the average N American is relatively
"poor" now, and it's that footprint which (as a first step) needs to be cut
in half, and that everyone needs to achieve. Also, that was aimed at
returning world human impact to what it was a couple of decades ago, and
while there wasn't a catastrophe then, I doubt that it was really 
sustainable.


**  The rest of this is from Linda Pierce's pages on her forthcoming book
about living simply. I think it would give more examples, though I haven't
read it (I was one of the 211 who filled in the questionnaire, but not
among the 40 interviewed for it).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.mbay.net/~pierce/index.htm
  starts:

… Linda Breen Pierce, founder of The Pierce Simplicity Study and author of
the book Choosing Simplicity: Real People Finding Peace and Fulfillment in
a Complex World. While the official publishing date of Choosing Simplicity
is not until January, 2000, you can order an advance copy of the book from
the publisher, Gallagher Press:
http://www.gallagherpress.com (autographed copies available on request) or
from The Simple Living Network:
http://www.simpleliving.net/cip/books/defaultbcs.htm
 Vicki Robin, coauthor of Your Money or Your Life has written an inspiring
Foreword to the book. 

 Choosing Simplicity features the real-life stories of people who have
simplified their lives as well as the author's reflections and insights on
their life experiences. The people profiled in the book were participants
in The Pierce Simplicity Study, the author's three-year research project
(1996 through 1998) on what simplicity looks like in our modern world. 211
people from 40 states and eight countries participated in the study. Each
participant answered a detailed survey concerning many aspects of their
lives including work, home, material possessions, leisure, relationships,
environmental concerns, community involvement, health, spirituality,
nature, self-reliance, transportation, and money. The author also conducted
in-depth telephone or face-to-face interviews with 40 participants and
exchanged extensive e-mail correspondence with many of the participants.
The overall results of this study are included in Choosing Simplicity. For
more information on the book, click here:
http://www.mbay.net/~pierce/book.htm
  [that page has: ]
What does simple living actually look like in the lives of real people? How
does it translate into our modern, day-to-day world? Can people who embrace
this lifestyle sustain it over time? What are the downsides? Is it worth
it? Do they miss their former lifestyles? 

 … The study participants represent a wide range of lifestyles, income
levels, and occupations. They live in varied types of locales, including
cities, suburbs, rural areas and small towns. The diversity and creativity
exhibited by their life experiences is quite impressive. In fact, if there
is one truth about simple living, it is that there is no fixed, determined
way to live simply.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

David. (PS I might be able to get Ruth to contribute her opinions. Back
Tuesday.)
(David MacClement) d1v9d @ bigfoot.com (remove spaces)
http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/index.html#top
******************************************************