4 ms·

I wonder if people are missing the bigger point here- this isn't just about selling your car, it's about understanding your real needs and living within them.

I wonder if people are missing the bigger point here- this isn't just about selling your car, it's about understanding your real needs and living within them. Few people have the courage to do this. Fewer still will resist going back to their old over-indulgent ways (spring water et al) once times are good again.

mbubb 17y ago
I agree there is a virtue to living within ones means. Having as small a 'footprint' as possible - carbon or otherwise. I probably first entertained this idea after reading translations of Buddhist texts or things like Merton's "Saying of the Desert Fathers". But for much of my life this was a fuzzy idea like most liberal thoughts something to declaim with out really applying. In my mind it took the form of a clean aesthetic - clean, Zen-inspired, Danish modernist work and living spaces. (Which couldnt be farther from the current reality of a 1000sq' apartment with my wife and two boys.) When I first became conscious of GNU/FSF and Open Source this became a bit more concrete. Before I was able to get Linux working on whatever hardware I could find, it was interesting to me because of its economical and simple design which lent itself to self-reliance and control. I've tried in little ways to wean myself of a certain style of spending/ consumption. Less Starbucks, double edged safety razors instead of plastic, public transit and walking instead of car - but I am far from an example to anyone. But the idea that "less is better than more" would almost seem anti-American up until the past few years. To me it always felt right. So many of our illnesses in the US are ones of over consumption - petroleum, hydrogenated oils, corn syrup, etc. It is hard for me to say if this is merely a aesthetic choice or also an ethical one. It seems to me that it is but I have a hard time formulating a convincing argument. I am not sure myself. The impact of less and less consumption could hit the service industry and further reduce jobs. If we really lived within our means what would result? On a tangent I saw a fun movie last night with James Cogburn and Rod Steiger - "Duck, You Sucker!" also called "Fist full of Dynamite" in Italian. Sergio Leone direction and Morricone score. Much of it corny and implausible but fun nevertheless. Steiger plays a semi-literate Mexican peasant who at one point blurts out "revolutions are started by those who read and the ones who dont read suffer through them..."

mbubb 17y ago

I agree there is a virtue to living within ones means. Having as small a 'footprint' as possible - carbon or otherwise. I probably first entertained this idea after reading translations of Buddhist texts or things like Merton's "Saying of the Desert Fathers". But for much of my life this was a fuzzy idea like most liberal thoughts something to declaim with out really applying. In my mind it took the form of a clean aesthetic - clean, Zen-inspired, Danish modernist work and living spaces. (Which couldnt be farther from the current reality of a 1000sq' apartment with my wife and two boys.) When I first became conscious of GNU/FSF and Open Source this became a bit more concrete. Before I was able to get Linux working on whatever hardware I could find, it was interesting to me because of its economical and simple design which lent itself to self-reliance and control. I've tried in little ways to wean myself of a certain style of spending/ consumption. Less Starbucks, double edged safety razors instead of plastic, public transit and walking instead of car - but I am far from an example to anyone. But the idea that "less is better than more" would almost seem anti-American up until the past few years. To me it always felt right. So many of our illnesses in the US are ones of over consumption - petroleum, hydrogenated oils, corn syrup, etc. It is hard for me to say if this is merely a aesthetic choice or also an ethical one. It seems to me that it is but I have a hard time formulating a convincing argument. I am not sure myself. The impact of less and less consumption could hit the service industry and further reduce jobs. If we really lived within our means what would result? On a tangent I saw a fun movie last night with James Cogburn and Rod Steiger - "Duck, You Sucker!" also called "Fist full of Dynamite" in Italian. Sergio Leone direction and Morricone score. Much of it corny and implausible but fun nevertheless. Steiger plays a semi-literate Mexican peasant who at one point blurts out "revolutions are started by those who read and the ones who dont read suffer through them..."