|
|
 |
BEYOND SIMPLICITY:
|
|
One area of discussion is that of the need for, and the
nature
of, a simplification process which would open the door to a fairer
distribution of the world's available resources. My own ideas
have
changed from that of merely vowing to try to live simply, to placing
it
in the context of personal lifestyle, to hoping to demonstrate to
others the need for simplification, and to discover effective ways
of
effecting change. While in theory the freedom to choose to
live simply
is present, the practical ability to spread the word and to persuade
others of its necessity has many hindrances. Let us look at --
* the need for simplification of life;
* the temptation to view catastrophe as a
desired change agent;
* the limited testimony of voluntary
simplicity;
* the possibility of revolutionary change;
and
* the call for greater simplicity through
regulations
and incentives.
The year is 1822, United States of America, a simpler time during the final
term of a
Democratic/Republican administration in the recently painted White
House occupied by a southerner. It is an expansive period
immediately
after the Second War of Independence, with the burning of forests
throughout the southeast for agriculture, the largest export to the
Orient being ginseng, and rapid textile and heavy industrialization
occurring at the river falls of New England and other parts of the
east
coast.
Philip Kunhardt, Jr. and associates writes in The
American
Presidents about Monroe "the last leader to spring from the
revolution
and the first to make politics his life work. He is know for
the
Monroe Doctrine ... the American continents are henceforth not to be
considered as subjects for future colonization by any European
Powers,
a document that Monroe's friend Thomas Jefferson heralded as the
most
momentous pronouncement which has been offered since that of
Independence. Monroe longs to return to his estate, since his
second
term is not a happy one. William Cranford, the secretary of
the
treasury raises his cane at the president and calls him a scoundrel.
Seizing the tongs from the nearby fireplace, Monroe orders him out
of
the White House. Revolutionary War simplicity is already under
strain.
Monroe's wife Elizabeth is the first Lady activist, who once helped
free Lafayette's imprisoned wife, about to be guillotined.
The year is 2006, and we have George W. Bush. This year
finds --
*
an ocean of consumer goods;
*
massive advertisement plastered on vehicles and urinals
and school soft drink concessions;
*
the unbridled power of large corporations which regard
themselves as persons with all rights and few duties;
*
a growing desire to equal the material extravagance of
others;
*
a massive four trillion dollar individual
indebtedness;
*
globalization and environmental degradation; and
*
a false sense of patriotism which extols
material consumption as an economic good.
a) Reasons for Simplification
These new trends lead us to pause as much as it caused
Lafayette or
Dickens or Emerson to pause one hundred and eighty years ago.
Today
we all believe in our heart of hearts that the simple unhurried life
of
the 1820s -- ill health, northern factory work conditions, southern
slavery -- is not worth revisiting.
Today, people of all stripes seek more. They
generally recognize
the need for good health and nutrition. However, they are also
realizing that striving to gain all possible comforts takes a heavy
toll on one's mental life. A recent issue of Utne Reader has an
article on
how much depression is affecting the affluent of our country and
world,
especially the younger generation. This occurs even in this
time of
immense prosperity and relative peace. An uneasiness comes
upon those
with plenty for there is the gnawing feeling that bounty needs to be
shared -- and that it is unpleasant to have the destitute around to
prick our conscience.
The 1820's had their debates on slave trade and the
peculiar
institution. Currently we are concerned about global trade,
distrust
and breakdown of communal relationships, poor working conditions,
AIDS,
and crushing national and personal economic debts. We need to
reduce
waste of resources, expect a higher quality of life coming from
living
more simply, and share, not hoard, material things -- all good
reasons
for simplification of lifestyle.
Furthermore, the trickle-down theory -- that if
wealth is created
it will automatically go in some amounts to all -- is wishful
and even
dangerous thinking. It does not fit emerging facts or current
economic
conditions whether in this country or the world. We hear there
were 66
billionaires in 1989 and now 268, and during that decade 31.5
million
Americans living below the poverty level which has now climbed to
34.5
million. Today, the top one percent of American
households
have more assets than the entire bottom 95% combined. In the
world the
top three billionaires have more money than the entire least
developed
portion of the world (600 million people). The growing gap
between
rich and poor becomes all the more critical when we realize that
mass
communications allows even the destitute to hear about and observe
that
conditions are better elsewhere. They know that concentration
of
wealth is also concentration of power, and that fragile democracy
can
easily become an empty term when big money is involved. How
can even
small nations stand up to multi-nationals?
The Question is -- Can we continue in a
world two-thirds enslaved
by poverty and indebtedness and one third in affluence? Besides
political health there is growing evidence by epidemiologists around
the world that the greatest danger to public health is inequality of
resources - children going without the simplest vaccinations
because
public health programs are curtailed to pay debt service. This
growing
inequality also affects our spiritual health and well-being as well,
making people insensitive to the genuine needs of others and more
ready
to distance themselves from conditions requiring responsible action.
What about the high price of necessary oil for irrigation pumps when
those with Sport Utility Vehicles may consume as much as their
pocketbooks and their own addictions allow -- a famine in which only
the wealthy can afford the price. One can make an effective
case that
actual available resources are limited just as food is limited
during
a famine -- and some do not have the means to obtain their fair
share.
Abraham Lincoln struggled with his earlier held
position that this
could be a nation half-slave and half-free, tolerating the former as
long as the latter could thrive -- and not wanting to extend slavery
to
the new territories, e.g., Kansas and Nebraska. In the middle
of that
terrible Civil War in the gloom of 1862 he would retreat late at
night
into the telegraph office in the Executive Office Building and there
write and rewrite the Emancipation Proclamation. Then he
delivered it
first to his Cabinet and then the nation after the Battle of
Antietam.
Are we arriving at the same but more universal conclusion through
similar struggles of human suffering and mental anguish that we
cannot
continue in a world which is two-thirds hopelessly in debt and one-
third with concentrated and over-bearing affluence?
b) A Catastrophe Model is Simply
Unacceptable
The temptation exists even with some
learned persons that the
only solution is an unspecified Catastrophe -- a meteor strike,
economic depression, worldwide epidemic, famine, earthquake, or
war --
as long as these occur elsewhere. When this daydream ends we
realize
that disasters do not work magic -- The Black Death brought out the
worst in some people in their turning toward isolation and failure
to
help others; disasters always affect the poorest first and
most;
disasters move beyond predictable boundaries; they do not rectify
things; they should never be called Acts of God. Disasters
may happen
but this does not excuse us from acting politically in a socially
just
manner. The Y2K banter proved over-drawn and
turned
some of us away, at least temporarily, from catastrophes.
c) Voluntary Simplicity Model is Restricted
A second route towards simplification which
differs considerably
from awaiting disasters is that of voluntary simplicity and has many
good characteristics:
* it champions good healthy food in
moderate amounts as well as
lower impact on the environment for use of less resources and less
time
consuming practices of upkeep of complex technologies;
* it builds on the solid achievements of
the past without
ignoring or belittling them;
* it is basically conservationist in nature
and leads to reduced
use of available non-renewable and renewable resources;
* it professes the power of demonstration
as a way to show others
what to do and affirms our solidarity with others in the world who
try
to get by through an involuntary simple life of poverty;
* it respects the practices of others
without directly curbing
them;
* and it affirms the translation of
individual proper action
into a grassroots groundswell that is expected to carry the day.
Granted we have witnessed partial success. We
see small groups
living simply in various places and communities, namely community
land
trusts, eco-villages, religious communities. We read materials
which
are long on technique ranging from organic gardening to building
solar
greenhouses. I was one of the early proponents of this
movement as
lead author of a book entitled 99 Ways to a Simple Lifestyle by
Anchor/Doubleday. The statements in
the
Simple Lifestyle Calendar which we have produced for 24 years and
our
60 issues of the ASPI Technical Paper series, along with many talks
and
conferences given on conservation would make one conclude that we are committed to voluntary simplicity.
I must share with you emerging doubts -- not about the
validity of
the message, but the ability to remove ourselves from the margins
that
seemingly triumphant high technologists have relegated us. And
the
mass media reinforces this by making the quest for affluence the
norm.
Voluntary simplicity is not popular and can be
easily
misinterpreted. For individuals the practice has meant much
and they
have been able to live healthy, productive lives, and find much
satisfaction with use of renewable energy, organic foods and clean
domestic environments. However, all is not roses. Offspring
sometimes
want junk food and designer clothes; quality public education
is
lacking; HMOs bring forth insurance officials deciding medical
treatments and those in the non-money economy go without health
insurance altogether.
We have schools which do not teach; medical
programs that do not
reach; and churches which do not preach; except the materialism of
ever
bigger sports arenas and air conditioned interiors. Our
individual
voluntary practices may be tolerated, but it is becoming difficult
to
express their health, environmental and social justice values in
such
a powerful and covertly oppressive culture, with its rich media and
impoverished democracy.
Choosing simplicity is one thing -- but try biking on a
highway
built for the auto, try to get low-cost solar energy when all
governmental subsidies go to the non-renewable ones, or try to
discuss
simplicity in a world filled with higher and ever higher
technological
innovations with their instantly rich dot com folks. We are
theoretically able, but, practically speaking, we are drowned out.
The SIMPLICITY model is powerful as
demonstration: our center's one
twentieth of an acre raised-bed garden, planted on what was a black-
topped parking lot, produces over a half-ton of produce each year
and
is well-observed by neighbors. However, such demonstrations
take time
to maintain, have limited reach, and are generally not press-worthy.
Voluntary Simplicity is certainly not dead,
but it isn't a
popular issue either. We must not abandon our goals and
the beauty of
cordwood buildings, dry composting toilets and solar cars. However,
we
are now becoming more concerned here about practical implementation
and
spreading the word -- advocating for a national and world program of
simplification.
d) A Revolutionary Model is Hard to Control
Another alternative is for violent change through
revolution. In
an ideal world it would be far better that the poor would not
attempt
to invade gated communities and take from the wealthy what is
rightfully the poor's, but that the wealthy enter knowingly and, to
some degree, willingly in a grand redistribution. What is at
issue is
the powerlessness and disunity of the poor and the gross addictive
behavior of the wealthy who spread their condition to others as
well.
Grievances. Democracy was threatened
in the last part of the
18th century by the Alien and Sedition Act and the suppression of
dissent during the John Adams Administration. It is just as
threatened
today in more liberal times but in far more subtle ways. The
power of
corporations is so vast that it overwhelms us. This power has
usurped
its so-called right as a person; it has spread its attack to
the far
reaches of its realm -- the world; it has trampled on the
rights of
small farmers and tradespeople. Our list of grievances is
surprising
similar to, but far more far-reaching, than in 1775. However,
affluence has taken its toll on us. We lack --
a shared sense of moral outrage,
a willingness to unite for the good of all,
and
a risk of putting ourselves on the line.
The shame is that our lack of simplicity
* has dulled our senses,
* has turned our attention to manage and
upkeep our
expensive gadgets, and
* has diverted simplicity from being a tool
for change
to becoming a refined time-consuming technique always in need
of further fine-tuning.
The shame is that environmental groups are often
at odds over what
constitutes a victory or the need for further work. A prime
example is
the recent Kick-66 campaign over a billion dollar 30-mile stretch of
unneeded highway in south central Kentucky.
The shame is that all people do not share the
prosperity of the
few who make their billions and retain their six or seven-digit
salaried CEOs -- the latter day King Georges.
The shame is that people do not burn with
indignation over what is
happening to the "little ones" around us, and that
includes the
threatened plants and animals as well as impoverished people.
The shame is we do not share the spirit of the
founders of this
republic.
Any revolutionary movement would have to consider
simplicity not
as an end, but as a means to a better life.
It would have to use volunteer services for
staffing, the
Worldwide Web for communications, and modern training and organizing
techniques for making the movement function better.
It would have to be grassroots-based and thus
decentralized in
structure.
Its vision could not possibly be totally
decentralized, or how
could a new world order control pollution on the oceans or on
Antarctica?
A totally decentralized economy espoused by some
voluntary
simplicity people is as unrealistic as a totally globalized one
which
would become the ultimate triumph of Big Brother. Revolutionaries
know
that simple appropriate technology has value and that the Internet
can
-- within limits -- be part of it.
Was the "I Love You" virus a latter day Boston
Tea Party? Was it a wake up call that says OVER-COMPLEXITY IS
EXTREMELY VULNERABLE? And has this message been heard in
Silicon
Valley, the United Nations, and the halls of Congress? Throwing
a
monkey wrench at a pony express may hurt a horse or rider; placing
it
in the Internet system could paralyze the modern world.
Spouting "revolutionary jargon"
will not ensure success.
Revolutions -- American, French, Russian -- involved disorder and
violence. And just the possibility is not going to be a
popular
alternative to our comfort-laden and consumer-addicted people.
The threat of Internet viruses of a more
widespread and serious
nature is here, but it does not guarantee a better life. In
fact, it
may make people call for more repressive regimes and governmental
practices in order to preserve the status quo, which some find quite
comfortable. It brings us to a moment of decision-making
--
must we simplify in
order to share?
or must we continue
as a world of haves and have-nots?
e) Regulatory Redistribution is an Answer
A sustainable decentralized system operating in a
world with some
functioning global communications requires the full assent of all
the
people. Over-affluence is simply not sustainable, for it is divisive
and encourages dissent by those who regard their only voice to be
violent action. On the other hand, an aroused citizenry can do
things
and do them now.
Certain trends such as a standing United Nations
police force as
proposed this month by the Belgium Prime Minister would start small
and
move rapidly to greater demands of resources, which would call more
heavily on the wealthier nations. The same could be said for a
regulated debt forgiveness program, or for making solar energy
incentives available at least at 1979 levels. In fact, a surer
course
of simplification is possible through legislation and
reapportionment
of funding for the benefit of more people and the Earth.
Simplicity coupled with a political will
would allow us to focus
so that we can --
* refrain from giving tax breaks to the wealthy;
* raise the minimum to a living wage;
* require imported goods from escape industries
to meet minimum
environmental, safety, and occupational health standards;
* shunt national military expenditures to world
peace projects
such as low-cost decent housing and immunization programs for all
children;
* give as much attention to bike networks as to
Superhighways;
* and direct solar and other renewable energy to
replace the non-
renewable energy system that is both tottering and polluting.
But these and other measures require
legislation and regulations.
We need an old and new vision. In
1822 we had a nation that was
half-slave and half-free. Today, we have an indebted
world
which is two-thirds technically enslaved and one-third free. And
any
amount of slavery reduces the freedom of the remainder. As
promoters
of democracy we know that the lowly must be raised up to levels of
human dignity; but those in high places through clever
coverups and
legalisms are consuming most of the world's resources and thereby
denying limited amounts to the destitute. The global challenge
is
greater than the challenge facing our nation in 1822. All must
be free
-- and that goes beyond national boundaries.
How do we bring up those in low
places? Through an awaited
natural disaster, by voluntarily giving up affluence, or a modern
day
slave revolt? The first is full of despair, the second is
tolerated
but little more, and the third is out of the question right now.
What
have we left? Must we impose certain forms of coercion so that
those
in high places are brought to lower more healthy and ecologically
viable lifestyles? A Simple life in the new era must be a
necessity
and goal for a higher quality of life of our American people and for
the world. And it must be available for the many, not the few.
Over-
affluence is anti-democratic and should not be tolerated in a
fragile
democracy and can be curbed through governmental regulation.
Recall the issues facing the Republican
House founders. Today we
are cowed by materialism and excess consumption. We are
marginalized
by a media which does not regard simpler ways as worthy of
consideration.
Our modern prophetic message is becoming clear -- we
cannot have a
better world, a sound environment, or a genuine peace unless we --
* reduce world indebtedness and begin the
process of
redistributing the wealth of the world;
* move toward a global renewable energy
transition within a
decade, (as recent authors in Nature say in the context of global
warming) "with the urgency of the Manhattan Project;"
* set up alternative networks of safe
travel for
pedestrians and bikers as the new greenway from Maine to Florida;
* address our health concerns for all
people both on a national
and a global level -- and that includes affordable prescription
drugs;
* make a distinction between the paper
wealth of money and Wall
Street and the real wealth of human and environmental quality;
* and address all aspects of globalization
issues so that no one
gets left out.
In conclusion, simple living is both a
worthwhile goal and is the
means for us to make a profound change of heart and to become authentic
and credible political activists. True as the candidates
say "In God
we Trust." But we need also go farther than mouthing
mottos. We must
show we have that trust in the Creator by translating words into
deeds
of justice for our state, nation and world. It is not enough
for the
wealthy to give up power, or for the destitute to seize power.
The
challenge is to bring about a mutual letting go and taking on
responsibility through democratic processes. The tough
question is
whether this can and will occur in this new era.