Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Didn't seem like the economics forum was too interested in this post so reposting it here hoping for some more action.
I like to journalize my thoughts so heres something i was thinking about this morning.
Living within our Means.
Economist, politicians, and fellow Americans have been shouting at the rest of us for far too long. “Live within your means”, they shout, “You don't need a cellphone, a car, or any of the other luxury items. Your spoiled and if you would just live within your means all your problems will go away.” After growing up under this rhetoric, I have to wonder what the implications would be if we all truly lived within our means.
In order to understand what “living within our means” would implicate it is important to define the concept. My understanding of living within ones means is not only a practical statement, but also an ethical statement. Practically it is to only use what is produced by oneself; ethically it is to live a zero sum life, ie: not taking more than ones fair share. In summary to live within ones means would be to live a life that only consumes what an individual can produce with their share of the earths resources. Those resource would also have to become available for use at the end of that person's life to be use by subsequent generations.
The next question that needs to be asked is, how many of us are currently living within our means? There are approximately 315 million Americans according to the U.S. Census population estimates, that means that 4.5% of the worlds' human population are Americans.(National Totals: Vintage 2012 - U.S Census Bureau) A measly 4.5%, yet we consume nearly 25% of the worlds available resources. In an even larger context world wide humans constitute approximately 0.01% of the Earths' biomass yet we are consuming about 150% of what is sustainably produced each year.(Report: Global Biodiversity Down 30 percent in 40 Years | LiveScience, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)) This supposition is supported by our dependence on fossil fuels. If we were to honestly calculate what our share of the planets yearly product should be the figure would be dramatically smaller, somewhere in line with 0.01% of the biomass we constitute. Of that 0.01% of the resources we are entitled to Americans would only be entitled to 4.5% of them. The answer is no one on this planet who is ensnared in our global civilization is living within their means. If we are to live within in our mean the impact on our civilization would be incomprehensible, going from 25% of 150% of the Earths' resources to 4.5% of 0.01% of the Earths' resources.
Lets not beat around the bush, there is no way that we will ever reduce our standard of living to a sustainable level, so the question becomes what do we do next? There is only one viable option, extra terrestrial colonization. Life right now is as good as it is ever going to get. Resources abundance is also as good as it will ever be. Now is the time to seriously consider our future, a future that by necessity will be beyond Earth.
Will we take advantage of the current abundance or will we sacrifice our future for short term profits and selfishness?
let us discuss
Not a terribly debatable argument you're making. The phrase "living within one's means" is a loaded statement bearing the weight of whatever people want other people to live like. Your tepid definition would suggest children should only be allowed to eat what they can forage, or what adults could manage to hunt. That's silly. We live in a society where we work together, individually accomplishing small tasks that alone could not allow us to survive, but together produce more than we could use for ourselves.
A farmer could not subsist on the hundreds of acres of potatoes he grows, but those potatoes provide a partial meal for millions of people while in return he gets things like power, clean water, construction, clear air, technology to improve his yield, et cetera.
In terms of sustainability, to all comes down to electrical power. We have most of the technology to synthesize just about anything we want to, the problem is the lights dim if we try to. We simply don't have the power to fuse atoms together in any meaningful way. We could synthesize helium during the process of fusion power, and use the power from fusion to basically slam elements together until we got what we wanted. It's how the stars work. Once you've unlocked figuratively unlimited energy, we can stop pillaging the planet for resources.
But we're not there yet, obviously, so we have to make due with sustainable resources. But realistically, we're always going to need rare materials to continue our charge towards technological breakthroughs.
I do agree in a fashion, we do need to manage the natural resources much better, today it's all about "he who pays the most, gets the most", that isn't going to last very long.
Konraden has the right idea, we need to find better ways of producing what drives our lives, that is electrical power, without it, we are send back to the dark ages, literally. Once we unlock that we can free up our rivers, we can produce electrical cars that are really practical and not just a stop gap measure, we can do away with fossil fuels altogether.
As far as leaving Earth, maybe in a couple hundred years, we have allot to learn about managing our own planet before we set out pillaging another.
I agree that people should live within their means, but i can't debate you on your terms because I do not accept your definition of means. I wouldn't define it as some arbitrary slice of the Earth's resources, but as what one produces. Since in a modern society we exchange our production for money, it means living on what you earn. When you look at how many spend far more than they take in, living within our means would mean a big shift in lifestyle for many. And since the since the federal government lives far beyond its means, borrowing 40 cents of every $1 it spends, the biggest change needed is right there.
Perhaps the focus is misguided.
Living within one's means is always good financial economic advice - perhaps the 'sustainability' linkage to it is a canard?
First one needs to examine the system (business - economic - financial) within which we currently measure 'success' or viability. And which geo-political power structures benefit the most from the existing system.
Now a thought exercise: What if the system, by how it measures such success, enables wealth to accrue to the few who most often control the mechanism i.e. guiding 'the ship'? Do you think they have a vested interest in what is best for ALL of mankind or for themsleves and maintaining hegemony (control and management of resources)?
Especially, if the control and management of resources enables them to gain a vastly superior socio - economic position and place in the society that let's them maintain that position and furthers an economic 'command control' model?
If energy was 'free' or truly 'renewable' with no ability of being controlled and managed for profit. How would our society look?
How many 'industries' are predicated on false scarcity i.e. control of resources, to maximize marginal unit gain to owners of capital?
Quote from R Buckminster Fuller in Critical Path: "The power structure only interest is SELLING energy - and only energy they can run through a meter. They are not interested in anyone getting - alternate energy - except themselves....power must be piped or wired to them only through meters".
Read up on:
JP Morgan and Nicola Tesla
Fischer - Tropsch Process
Invention Secrecy Act of 1951
John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"
R. Buckminster Fuller's "Critical Path" - especially Chapter 3 Human Power Structures (evolution of Capitalism)
Victor Papanek's "Design For The Real World: Human Ecology".
We live in a world where the predominant business - economic - financial - system discourages 'sustainability' by virtue of how it functions i.e. distributes and rewards the benefits from technological efficiencies. Most attempts at 'sustainability' promoted by current power structure revolve around maintaining the hegemonic command control mechanism's.
I'm reminded of wise adage: 'For we brought nothing into this world and it is certain we can carry nothing out'
Last edited by ciceropolo; 01-21-2013 at 11:59 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
