What is most shocking is how terrified I felt instantaneously at the mention of having less stuff. It was almost uncontrollable - the thought of less computers, less records, less mixing desks, less video games, less DVDs and clothes.
Althought, I'm telling you, I could throw almost all of my other clothes away and keep only my Lulu Lemon stuff and a few other choice items and be perfectly comfortable.
I wonder what life would be like with only 20% of the stuff that I have right now. Sounds like a nightmare. The real looming nightmare will likely be much more terrifying, because it is so underestimated.
Middle Class
On
2007-03-02
4
comments
4 comments:
Less stuff per se isn't the solution. It is less obsolescence. The NA economy isn't based on merely buying stuff ... it has to be discarded and replaced. And worse, the item that replaces it will likely be replaced itself in less time than the original. This appears to be true of electronics, vehicles, and appliances.
Considering that these are non-consumable, toxic to build, and 'recycle resistant', I think we'll be buried in a tide of poisonous trash long before we choke on our pollutants.
Solving this problem is simple: don't replace anything until it is literally non-functional. Then once your living space is fully populated with stuff, you'll be done spending!
But there is less profit is goods that are resilient to damage and/or less prone to obsolescence.
So, it sounds to me like you are saying we need to get rid of the profit takers. Or am I missing reading you?
Get rid of whatever you like. Something is sold if someone buys it. Money is spent if someone earns it.
consumption = production
Money isn't a term of the equation - it is the operator.
I highly recommend http://treehugger.com/ for various environmental news.
Post a Comment