What if saving the world meant life was tasty, beautiful and just long enough?

22 comments on “What if saving the world meant life was tasty, beautiful and just long enough? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Stuart Munro 1

   4 August 2021 at 11:52 am

   There are, of course, a number of institutional obstacles to overcome before a gracile turn in human consumption is likely to be embraced. One is the crude economic measures used, like GDP, which seems to be designed as much to misleadingly equate unproductive activity like real estate speculation or banking with productive enterprise, as to provide intelligent guidance for future policy.

   Another is the concentration on vehicles, of which the electric copy of the petrol version falls short of a well-designed alternative mode. We would be seeing sensible outgrowths of the electric bicycle for local transport by now, were bureaucratic priorities well aligned with future needs, not to mention growth in rail and shipping.

   We should not be altogether surprised however – even the immediate need for coherent housing solutions is being kicked down the road while our erstwhile leaders exercise themselves with ill-conceived hate speech and gender issues laws for which they have no mandate.
   • weka 1.1

     4 August 2021 at 12:05 pm

     True. And yet we have other models to work with. Marilyn Waring wrote about women's unpaid work a long time ago, that's been a missed opportunity to rethink mainstream economic models. Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics is mainstream enough to not scare the horses. Ardern's government is at least nodding in the right direction with a wellbeing budget. These are not fringe ideas. What's stopping us from exploring limits of growth more deeply? Not the politicians, us.

     Systems thinking is not something we are taught, and it's hard to explain, it's like having to learn a new language. Why the big resistance to that?
     • arkie 1.1.1

       4 August 2021 at 12:24 pm

       Many associate Fredric Jameson’s remark, “it’s easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism” with Mark Fisher. For good reason: Fisher’s account of capitalist realism confronts us with capitalism’s unbearable yet unavoidable horrors. From the genocidal destruction of settler colonialism, through the demolition of cultures and modes of life that accompanies commodity production and exchange, to planet-altering anthropogenic climate change, capital subsumes the world. We can easily imagine an end to the world because under capitalism most of us confront it every day as we are forced to choose our exploitation, dispossession, and confinement. It’s easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism because capitalism is the end of the world. We witness and endure it in the ruins of everyday life—lost lives, lives of loss.

       https://mediationsjournal.org/articles/end-of-world

       The resistance comes from the scale of the task, and the power of the status quo. It is frightening to abandon the known for the uncertainty of a newly-forged path.
       • weka 1.1.1.1

         4 August 2021 at 3:11 pm

         “it’s easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism”

         That's a great point. Although I would say that ending capitalism isn't a necessity for our next move and we shouldn't get stuck on that point. But it's true that it's easier to imagine an end to the world than it is to imagine good change to prevent that that involves a paradigm shift. This is why I think we need to be talking about it way more, normalising it.
     • Stuart Munro 1.1.2

       4 August 2021 at 12:30 pm

       Why the big resistance to that?

       It may in part be the messengers – I think the 2nd worst textbook I ever read was on systems thinking.

       Robert's approach may be better – seed libraries and cutting exchanges. Once people start spending a bit more time with trees, they get the picture.
       • weka 1.1.2.1

         4 August 2021 at 3:12 pm

         haha, yeah, I think systems thinking has to be matched to the person.

         Spending more time in nature for sure, trees, gardening, wilderness. Anything that pokes holes in the denial of nature as what we are immersed in. Also, that it's primarily a relationship of love.
2. Cricklewood 2

   4 August 2021 at 12:35 pm

   Re antibiotics we are see the discovery of entire new classes which are showing great promise in the lab against super bugs.

   Somewhat apt given the post is that we are finding them in soils.

   Just another good reason to take care of the environment.
   • weka 2.1

     4 August 2021 at 3:12 pm

     what classes of drugs are those?
     • cricklewood 2.1.1

       4 August 2021 at 4:53 pm

       The class I'm most aware of has been named Malicidens.

       Basically most of our modern antibiotics come from the soil ie penicillin and streptomycin. Because at the time extracting new potential antibiotics was challenging we turned to creating them in the lab based off the original source material which have exhausted the potential of.

       We have now turned back to looking in the soil, and our technological advancements have lowered some of the early barriers. I think human trials are scheduled to start in 2022.

       Obviously I would hope that we are far more careful if we do get a second shot at it.
3. barry 3

   4 August 2021 at 1:31 pm

   We are biologically driven organisms, with evolution favouring overconsumption in times of abundance to build strength to tide us over in times of adversity. Village life allowed us to counter this to an extent by allowing us to see the value of self-control.

   However, we are now so disassociated from the consequences of our profligacy that theoretical knowledge is not enough influence our behaviour. That goes for the personal (e.g. obesity, debt etc) as much as societal.

   Given that the non-consumers among us have very little influence on overall behaviour of the rest, we are doomed. The rewards for overconsuming are too great.
   • weka 3.1

     4 August 2021 at 2:41 pm

     While I appreciate how people end up thinking nothing can be done, I think this is also a failure of imagination.

     Worst case we are forced to change by the environment as climate and ecologies collapse, so having paradigms and systems ready is still very important. But social change can happen fast for other reasons, less extreme, so taking about how to facilitate that is the greatest task we have.
   • GreenBus 3.2

     5 August 2021 at 7:46 am

     Great points barry. I love to see manufacturers of retail packaging reined in by regulation to minimise the materials used and massively reduce the recycling load.

     Your right we don't have control as consumers, if you need a product the packaging is not optional.
     • weka 3.2.1

       5 August 2021 at 6:58 pm

       the parts of the population that have wealth beyond survival do have some control though. Firstly in what we consider is a need. And secondly in choosing items that don't have packaging where that is an option.

       The shifts happening around packaging are fast atm. It's grass roots and consumer pressure, political parties like the Greens being in government, businesses ideologically onboard, and design/manufacturing stepping up and providing what is needed. That's how change happens.
   • Drowsy M. Kram 3.3

     5 August 2021 at 6:06 pm

     Given that the non-consumers among us have very little influence on overall behaviour of the rest, we are doomed. The rewards for overconsuming are too great.

     “Rewards” resonates with me – buy one, get one free. That's get one for FREE people!

     Consider 'retail therapy'; fashion's just another word for 'planned obsolescence'.

     Fashion has a Planned Obsolescence Problem
     My 100 year old grandmother reminisces on decades gone by when clothes were seen as an investment. Items were designed to last many years, and be easily taken in and out. Fast forward to today, and clothes are hardly ever constructed this way.

     I recall Mum taking bed sheets worn thin in middle, cutting them in half and sewing the less worn ends together to extend linen life. But the golden 1.3 billion are so busy now – who has the time, skills or inclination to make items (that) last longer?

     Tisco Waikato 2005 LTD is still operating. Over-consumption is a behavioural disorder, and most of the golden 1.3 billion have it bad.

     Solutions? Plan ahead. Walk (or cycle) when and where you can – make the time. Favour durable, repairable, locally-made products, and (as GreenBus says) mind the packaging. Before each purchase, ask yourself (honestly) – "Do I really need it?"

     Lastly, and most important – treat yourself (and others) occasionally.
4. Maurice 4

   4 August 2021 at 2:54 pm

   "Less for Thee … but not for Me" tends to be the blockage in the road to sustainability
   • weka 4.1

     4 August 2021 at 3:13 pm

     How so? The transitions cultures are already doing less for me.
   • WeTheBleeple 4.2

     4 August 2021 at 4:37 pm

     I've stopped driving, smoking, using a phone… and life is BETTER than it was.

     I've shifted to part time work because consumption for the sake of it is a tedious bore. That made life EVEN BETTER.

     Then I put some of the spare time into helping others less fortunate – and guess what, happiness was WAY MORE BETTERER THAN THE BETTER BEFORE THAT.

     Excuse the caps, but SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS. You'd be surprised just how good it is to slow down and chill out.

     This whole property prices getting JACKED again… I sometimes wonder if it's an artificial thing to keep workers working so hard, because it's a bit of a farce really.

     Bring on the slow down. Fuck the rich stop serving them. Serve the planet and community.
     • weka 4.2.1

       4 August 2021 at 5:02 pm

       All of this ✊
       • weka 4.2.1.1

         4 August 2021 at 5:03 pm

         And yes to shouting it from the rooftops
5. RP Mcmurphy 5

   5 August 2021 at 3:54 am

   we have created an acquisitive society where desires can never be satiated and the media is constantly creating new distractions for an infantilised populace.
   • mikesh 5.1

     5 August 2021 at 12:30 pm

     Thorstein Veblin in his book The Theory of the Leisure Class pointed out that much consumption is "conspicuous consumption", ie it was indulged in to enhance one's status rather than to satisfy needs. A need for status probably has no obvious limits.
6. RP Mcmurphy 6

   5 August 2021 at 6:41 pm

   the drive for status in the proletariat to acquire goods is a futile attempt to emulate the ruling class who while they are the first acquirers of luxury goods masks the real motive of the ruling classes which adam smith in his theory of moral sentiments opines is the command over labour. no amount of goods can ever equal having the power to make the workers kiss the bosses bum and like it. DIG?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS