One major way we struggle to keep up with the Jones's is with housing. Of course nowadays that has turned into a bit of a joke, but that is a little glimmer of light that maybe we can use to illumine other ways we chase rainbows.

Status is a common factor in much of our chasing. So we can look at 1) to what extent is it smart to try to achieve whatever level of status; 2) to what extent will investing a lot in stuff type X actually gain us status?

An important consideration in status is community of various types, especially family and work team. We want our children to grow up happy and to have friends who will lead them in good directions. Society does run on status, and high status opens up lots of valuable doors. But there is also some paradox here - if a person is seen as a status seeker, they actually lose status.

Does a big house really gain a person high status? It can make a person look like a status seeker! And it can be so expensive that one cannot afford the car, schools, country club, clothes, vacations, fitness club, etc. that can also earn status.

Just some thoughts here to seed discussion.

We seldom question if more of a "good thing" is desirable for our supposed happiness in life. The question, that Voluntary Simplicity helps answer, is the question of what IS enough so we may be happy right now in the present.

A life of Voluntary Simplicity focuses our attention on the fact that "everything we own take a little piece ~ peace of us." And in doing so, we can let go of peace and life destroying rituals and possessions and replace them with a contented, satisfied and complete life in the present moment instead of a life that revolves around the next thing to be acquired in hopes of satisfying our insatiable appetites.

Greed is never satisfied by attainment - it is only satisfied by contentment. This orientation of conscious thought to simplify ones life in whatever activity the individual is engaged in is the foundation of success when it comes to simple living...mindfulness of our direction in life.

Voluntary Simplicity is the tool I use to counter this desire to constantly expand my life with more complexities, stress and problems and to live within my comfortable boundaries for a serene life. I started with 12 step programs in 1974 to work on various addictions. As such, I find a less complex life very useful to my addictions recovery work. The 12 Step programs do actually touch on the VS topic, although it is not specifically called VS. Here are a couple of quotes that can be taken as their efforts at applying VS to one's life.

........From page 76 of the 12 & 12 of Alcoholics Anonymous........

"The chief activator of our defects has been a self-centered fear-primarily that we would lose something we already possessed or would fail to get something we demanded. Living upon a basis of unsatisfied demands, we were in a state of continual disturbance and frustrations. Therefore, no peace was to be had unless we could find a means of reducing these demands."

I cannot tell you that I have no 'unsatisfied demands' in my life; but, I will say that since joining the simple living movent my unsatisfied demands can now be counted on one hand, whereas in my prior life, I needed a notebook to record them all.

........Taken from pages 122-125 of the 12 & 12 of Alcoholics Anonymous.......

"In later life he (the addict) finds that real happiness is not to be found in just trying to be a number one man, or even a first-rater in the heartbreaking struggle for money, romance, or self-importance. He learns that he can be content as long as he plays well whatever cards life deal him. He's still ambitious, but not absurdly so, because he can now see and accept actual reality. He is willing to stay right size."

End of quote.

I find VS to be a very important state of mind to be in. It shows which direction a person is pointed in with their life. The same way an addiction has 3 roads to go down, so it goes with VS. An addict can be expanding their addiction, freezing their addiction or reducing their addiction. A person suffering from an overly stressed or complicated life can be expanding the complications, freezing the complications or reducing the complications.

Thoreau says that we need food, shelter, fuel and clothes as necessities. In modern times, I will add transportation to the list depending on your local. Everything else is pretty much optional. If we have these needs met and are not happy, then their is no end to our supposed needs for that elusive state of happiness that we seek. We all seem to have no shortage of supposed needs or wants as complexity addicts. We only want to go in one direction...more.

Life does not go in one direction no matter how wealthy you are, life is always up and down. My goal in life prior to joining the VS movement was to get rich and buy anything I wanted to. My goal now is to live within my means, comfortably fit within my space and gratefully accept my current position in life.

VS has contributed to this recovery and continues to do so each day. I make it a practice to wake up with VS, eat lunch with VS and to go to bed with VS the same way I do with my 12 step program work and without this constant awareness of how daily decisions affect my VS or 12 Step program, I'd be back on the road to my prior sick life.

We should not confuse Voluntary Simplicity with the misnomer of 'Voluntary Poverty' VS is not about living low, it is about making choices and balanced living. We can take a vow of poverty and not have a pot to piss in-yet we can still live a complex, sickly life full of unneeded rituals and stress. What it does take is introspection and balance coupled with working towards inner peace.

You get out what you put in with VS. If you do not cut back enough on the complexities that rob you of living life, then all you have is your same complex life back that you started with. If you cut out too many complexities and are unhappy or bored, don't worry, you can always add them back.

We suffer from no shortage of stress and complexities of living, especially if you have a family. Life gives us plenty of problems for free. You can even trade the complexities that offer no reward other than more problems for new complexities that offer rich rewards or good feelings.

For instance, I gave up some of my computer compulsion time and put that time into yoga class and meditation. I started with VS in 1996 by canceling some subscriptions to 5 business newspapers and magazines and pulled out about 50-60 rosebushes that we could not care for.

After that, I saw the beneficial results and kept at it, questioning everything and experimenting with which complexities could be removed and which needed to stay in order to live a balanced life. We make what we want of VS, there are no rules other than if you do not do enough you do not get any results.

There are no VS police to boss you around and tell you what is right or wrong. We have to decide this for ourselves as individuals. As I have said before, the program is the final judge of your success, not you, not me, not anyone else.

A lady wrote in asking if she could be into VS and still have a gold chain? Yes, we can have a gold chain, we can even have 10 gold chains if we please. Can a person have 100 gold chains and still be into VS?

No, I could not say with a straight face I was into VS and own 100 gold chains. But, the person that has scaled back from owning 1000 gold chains could definitely say they have applied VS to their lifestyle by cutting back from 1000 to 100 gold chains.

It is all relative and all up to us and what we wish to derive from our efforts at simplicity. Another fellow posted how he wanted a canoe, but his wife said he could not have one and be a VS devotee.

It is not up to others to tell us what we can have - our recovery or VS program will tell us. If the canoe would comfortably fit within a financial budget, and a person has the comfortable space required to store it and the object does not cause a person any undue harm or problems such as maintenance that they cannot upkeep, legal problems or rob them of time they cannot afford to give, I see no problem in having it.

A person wrote me and asked, "Is writing your long 5 page post really simple living?" My response was, "Yes, writing 5 pages or even 5000 pages is vastly superior to living the old, sick life that I used to live." Critics are all around us and work to tear down programs instead of building them up. Either our efforts at simplicity or recovery will promote our peace or destroy our peace - so put peace first. Always listen to your recovery program instead of the critics - it has the final say.

Below are some definitions of VS from the book The Circle of Simplicity ~ Andrews.

"For me, voluntary simplicity is living consciously, trying to eliminate the unnecessary, the superficial clutter. It is trying to live morally and ethically in the global economy by using less."

"I think that voluntary simplicity as living on purpose, making sure I have the time to do the things I want to do, not wishing my time away."

"I think voluntary simplicity is being true to yourself, true to the environment. It's finding that place for every facet of my life and defining how much is enough. For me it is spiritual."

"It's choosing to enhance one's life by surrounding yourself with what really brings you fulfillment. It is defining my own standard of success and prosperity, community and fun."

"Voluntary simplicity is balancing the realities of my life (limited economics, time and energy) with my values and implementing them into a lifestyle that is comfortable and rewarding. I think voluntary simplicity is an "art of living." I believe it is an art to live, to be true to yourself and to be open to innovation."

An in-depth discussion and clarification of the term "Voluntary Simplicity" by Philip Slater

All personal solutions to wealth addiction involve one form or another of what has come to be called Voluntary Simplicity. This doesn't not necessarily mean going "back to nature" and does not mean living in poverty and discomfort, although some people may elect forms of simplicity that would be highly uncomfortable for the rest of us. Above all, it does not mean forcing yourself to give up something you really enjoy, out of some pious conviction that it's the "right thing to do." Voluntary Simplicity merely means trying to rid one's life as much as possible of material clutter so as to concentrate on more important things: creativity, human survival and development, community well-being, play.

The key word in Voluntary Simplicity is "voluntary," which means that the giving up of the material clutter is not coerced either from the outside or from the inside. As Andre Vanden Broeck observers, only those who have experienced affluence are in a position to have a "choice divorced from need." The poor aren't in a position to make such a choice-they are stuck with a scarcity that is neither simple nor voluntary.

Nor is Voluntary Simplicity coerced from within, for to deprive yourself out of some ideological conviction is merely to feed the Ego Mafia. The word "simplicity" may have overtones that arouse our suspicions: a vaguely puritan ring, conjuring up images of drab smocks, self-righteousness and flagellation. But if this is in the spirit in which Voluntary Simplicity is embraced the result will most certainly be noxious.

There is an old Zen story about two monks traveling together who encounter a nude woman trying to cross a stream. One of them carries her across, much to the consternation of the other. They continue in silence for a couple of hours until the second monk can stand it no longer. "How," he asks "could you expose yourself to such temptation?" The first monk replies, "I put her down two hours ago. You're still carrying her."

Addiction is internal; if you experiment sincerely with Voluntary Simplicity and find yourself still thinking of money and possessions, your simplicity is a fraud and you might just as well go back to pursuing wealth until you've had your fill of it. To achieve its goal, Voluntary simplicity must be undertaken in the spirit, not of Puritanism or self-flagellation, but out of adventure. All adventurers throughout history have, after all, been people who abandoned comforts, possessions, love and security to seek new experiences in faraway places.

Richard Gregg, who coined the term in 1936, once complained to Gandhi that while he had no trouble giving up most things, he could not let go of his books. Gandhi told he shouldn't try: "As long as you derive inner help and comfort from anything, you should keep it." He pointed out that if you give things up out of a sense of duty or self-sacrifice they continue to preoccupy you and clutter your mind. To talk of "denying oneself" is to use the language of despotism. Simplicity is an affirmation, not a denial of oneself.

It is always nice to have our own work confirmed by others that have gone before us as well as those that follow us. Many years ago I coined the phrase "Everything you own takes a little piece ~ peace of you." A couple years ago I came across Richard Gregg's original work on Voluntary Simplicity penned in 1936 and this is what he said on the subject of peace disturbance or as he termed it "SIMPLICITY A KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HYGIENE".

Taken from the original work:

Pendle Hill Essays Number Three
THE VALUE OF VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY
RICHARD B. GREGG
Acting Director of Pendle Hill 1935-36

Chapter X. SIMPLICITY A KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HYGIENE
There is one further value to simplicity. It may be regarded as a mode of psychological hygiene. Just as eating too much is harmful to the body, even though the quality of all the food eaten is excellent, so it seems that there may be a limit to the number of things or the amount of property which a person may own and yet keep himself psychologically healthy. The possession of many things and of great wealth creates so many possible choices and decisions to be made every day that it becomes a nervous strain. Often the choices have to be narrow. The Russian physiologist, Pavlov, while doing experiments on conditioned reflexes with dogs, presented one dog with the necessity of making many choices involving fine discriminations, and the dog actually had a nervous breakdown and had to be sent away for six months' rest before he became normal again.

Subsequently, American psychologists, by similar methods, produced neuroses in sheep by requiring many repetitions of mere inhibition and action; and as inhibition is an element in all choices, they believe it was that element which may have caused the neurosis in Pavlov's dog. Of course, people are more highly organized than dogs and are easily able to weigh more possibilities and endure more inhibitions and make more choices and nice distinctions without strain, but nevertheless making decisions is work and can be overdone.

I'll leave you with a snip of wisdom from Thoreau from his book Walden.

"The twelve labors of Hercules were trifling in comparison with those which my neighbors have undertaken; for they were only twelve, and had an end; but I could never see that these men slew or captured any monster or finished any labor. They had no friend Iolaus to burn with a hot iron the root of hydra's head, but as soon as one head is crushed, two spring up."

I grew up in a small town in northern Minnesota, and many of my friends consider my stories of what it was like to be a kid back then was a pretty ideal life. Here's a few examples of simpler living from the mid '60 to early '70s:

Because of proximity to schools, and the rather large population of kids near my age, I was able to walk the 3 blocks to my kindergarden, then walk or bike the 6 blocks (Uphill, into the wind, both ways, in blizzards) to my grade school, and then 10 blocks to Jr. High. The only time I was driven was when one of my parents had to be at the school to register me.

We lived a block from a lake, so as long as there were 2 or more over the age of 14 wanting to swim, we could go by ourselves. We could go to the public beaches (where they had lifeguards) alone, when we were 8-10 years old. (I rode my bike to swimming lessons by myself.)

We had a B&W TV, that got the 3 major networks*, until I was like 14. No VCRs, No DVS, No computer games. *One of the stations lost its tower when it was hit by a helicopter, so for about a year, we had the two networks, so I read a lot of the books my older brothers got from the science fiction book club.

We had record players, but only AM radios. I did get an FM radio when I was about 12, which netted an additional 3 stations. (But remember, the new music was AMAZING then. Beatles. Doors. Jethro Tull. Dylan. Byrds.)

While my father was incredibly talented at home remodeling, but we had very few tools around the house, but they were enough. I think you could easily replace every tool we had for under $200 at home depot today. (I, on the other hand now have a rather ridiculous collection.)

One winter we flooded the front yard to make an ice-skating rink. It was the social hit of the neighborhood.

Hardly anyone I knew took major vacations, and when they did, it was usually a car trip, or down to the twin cities by bus or train.

Being near lakes, my father built a duck boat, one winter which we transported on roof-racks on the '50 Dodge, which we kept until about 1968, when it threw a rod and was sold to someone who fixed it to use on their farm.

As kids we got gifts like wood carving tools. Yes I cut the hell out of my finger once, no stitches, but to this day I have a great feel for materials and using edge tools.

We never had a snow-blower, and had to dig out frequently. (One day my dad suggested we also dig out for the neighbors who were out of town. They were very, very happy to be able to get in their driveway that night after a long drive. That still feels good 40 years later.)

If you saw someones car stuck in the snow, you just stopped and helped them out. Often the thanks were only a wave though the back window, but that was plenty.

I only knew one guy who had 4-wheel drive - and he ran the marina which required him to trailer boats from storage in and out of the lake. Everyone else had ordinary passenger cars, unless they actually had a farm, then they might have a pickup truck.

The lumber yards always delivered, even if it was only one sheet of plywood.

TL:DR (Too long, didn't read) Life was pretty fulfilling, at least for a child, back before things got so hectic.

"What's enough" is a learned behavior. We get it from our upbringing, our schooling, and our media influences. There is no objective standard; all concepts of "enough" are subjective and culturally based.

My mother swallowed the Hollywood/Madison Avenue agenda hook,line and sinker. All her life she was miserable, angry and bitter because she didn't have the mansion, new car, servants and diamonds she saw on tv and in the movies. Her life was consumed by and wasted in loathing of being less than rich. It always angered me, because what did she expect, with no education, no valuable skills, and of all things married to a quasi-hippie country boy? But she truly believed that what she saw on tv was the way life was supposed to be.

Her constant viperish bitching deeply influenced me; so I bought into a different version of consumerist propaganda. Just get a highly advanced college education, it said, and the world will be at your feet. So I did. I came oh-so-close to making it. But when my health collapsed, so did everything.

I learned that the very best remedy for "keeping up with the Joneses" is complete finacial collapse. And a financial collapse is not complete until it results in homelessness.

The experience of homelessness does an amazing job of reprogramming one's beliefs about "what's enough". It's a highly unpleasant and very effective way to learn what is truly important. Like a roof over your head, food, and warmth. You learn to have vast gratitude for simply being able to look out the window at the rain, instead of being out in it. For being able to wash your hair whenever you wish, or having a toilet at your disposal whenever needed. A warm soft place to sleep with some semblance of security is a wonderful thing.

In a society that is so drenched in consumerism, people come to believe they will just die if they don't get the latest (fill in the blank- car, iPhone, fashions, whatever). I know better. But I only know better because I got there first, and then lost it. A person who has never gotten there has nothing to compare to, so they rely on what others tell them is the proper goal for "enough".

There are needs, and there are wants. I think whether you end up content with your life depends on whether your personal definition of "enough" lies close enough to the needs end of the scale, and not the wants end. And knowing the difference between the two.

You have enough when having just a little more would kill you.

I come from a fairly religious background (not fundamentalist) and find I often have songs and Bible verses running though my head. For example

Seek Ye first the kingdom of God,
And His righteousness,
And all these things, shall be added onto you,
Alleu, alleuia

Man shall not live by bread alone,
But by every word
That proceeds from the mouth of God
Alleu, Alleuia

Ask and it shall be given unto you,
Seek and ye shall find.
Knock and the door shall be opened onto you.
Alleu, Alleuia

Seek ye first the kingdom of God
And His righteousness
And all these things, shall be added onto you.
Alleu, Alleuia

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. - 1 Corinthians 13:4 - 7

People may think this sounds crazy, but I don't feel very concerned about having the newest this or the fanciest that. My family and I have been fairly privileged financially --but perhaps that is partly because we don't spend too much, so we always have money left over at the end of the month.

A lot of people think of religion as "fire insurance". I see it more as learning from other people's experience regarding how one can live happily and peaceably in this world. If there are parts of the teachings you find disagreeable, you ignore them.

I am uncomfortable with attributing the excess "stuff" that most Americans accumulate to either greed or a quest for status.
My observation would be that the "stuff" accumulated was borne of a desire for an experience.
Someone desires the experience of riding a bicycle so he/she goes out, buys the bike, the shoes, the Lycra, the panniers, the rack for the car, the hooks to hang it in the garage, the shoes, the helmet, the lights, a patch kit, etc, etc, etc. add it up, even for a relatively benign low-impact hobby like riding a bike one starts to accumulate a lot of stuff.
Then suppose that person wants to go hiking. Innocent enough. Again, shoes, tent, sleeping bag, pad, bug spray, mosquito netting, sunscreen, GPS,
etc, etc, etc.
Then that person wants the simple pleasure of grilling outdoors. BBQ, tongs, lighter fluid, briquettes, etc.
I go to garage sales, estate sales, and auctions. I see the crap that Americans are trying to shed. They weren't trying to impress anyone and they weren't indulging in an orgy of consumption.

They just had an appetite for a type of experience.

Even an experience such as travel entails accumulating 'stuff'.

Often the experience desired is hosting one's friends and family to a nice dinner or party, that entails a ginormous amount of 'stuff', much of which will rarely get used.
But it was not an appetite for the 'stuff' that drove it, but a hunger for an experience. We all want to be good hosts, right?

The challenge is to get more people to hunger for understanding as opposed to indulging a whim for an 'experience'.
Good luck with that. That goes back to Socrates.
Humans crave novelty, or in Socrates day, 'relishes', and this restless hunger for new experiences leads inevitably to more and more 'stuff'.

We are, by default, a herd animal. Enough is having the same as everyone else, or actually that little bit more because we all fancy ourselves the alpha of the pack.

Breaking from that expectation means breaking from the norm of the pack - something only a few will ever do.

The question is not so much 'what is enough', because we already know the answer to that. Rather its 'how do we move the field for comparison'?

In past times your 'standing in society' was judged on 'refinement', or 'learning', or 'charitable giving'. Today it has a component of how 'green' you are, but based on poor understanding of what they facts are. People compete on 'organic' food or 'recycling bins' and prime ministerial candidates put tiny windturbines on their roof, even though it would never payback its manufacturing cost in carbon.

So its not really a question of a big change. Just requiring that the 'ladies who lunch' (or nags that natter) have a better education of what matters, and that the 'solutions' don't impact the obvious status symbols to directly. Less 'smaller more discrete houses', more 'better built and insulated', less 'get a smaller car, you don't need a chelsea tractor', more 'smaller parking spaces and tiny gaps that only a nimble car can get through'.

Maybe the really big question is how you can sell holidaying close to home as the chic thing to do, rather than jetting off multiple times a year? The 'staycation' is a start, but a bit too downmarket. Something in the line of 'meditation', 'getting away from distractions', being pampered and some decadence would probably do it. That would save gallons of aviation fuel and tonnes of carbon.

Great Big Stuff - Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

Another way to phrase the question: What do I need that I don't have? That helps in both directions: I don't NEED a new car and I don't need the latest gadget but I probably should build a big plot of top-quality garden soil, and I probably should invest in a quality 1- or 2-man crosscut saw to cut firewood should that become necessary. I also need some new skills. And I should not only stay fit but get fitter. I'm retired at age 70, and comfortable enough, and unlike young people I don't have to worry about providing for surviving the next 60 years or so. What I do not have is a good idea of how to help people who are in deep trouble in this declining economy. So far my hope is that my government will provide for them, and I am willing to pay the extra taxes as long as that burden is fairly distributed.

I think my way of asking the question throws "keep up with the Joneses" out the window and replaces it with a practical assessment... but for a younger person, "keeping up" is going to be much more relevant, as an indicator of whether I am going to make it for those future 60 years... but skills and tools and other assets are what they need, not "stuff" or appearances.

Two things:
First, most people acquire stuff as a way of representing themselves to the world. We show others who we are through our various skins: our body and hair; our clothes; our cars; our homes and all the stuff that goes with that. Our stuff is an expression of identity. Think of the tribes in High School and how they identify themselves.
Second, we need to be aware that ours has become a more unequal society. The top 10% earns as much as the bottom 90% and wealth is even more skewed to the top. Whereas the top 1% claimed 8% of the income pie in 1970, today they claim about 24%, the same as at the onset of the Great Depression. A lot of people are just trying to keep their heads above water. And the analysis of spending patterns shows that the average person today spends less on food, clothes, appliances and cars as a percentage of income than did his/her counterpart in the 1950's. What has changed is the soaring cost of medical care, education and housing. Quite often these latter three entail huge debt.

It took me a while to understand the ""keepin' up with the Joneses" thing. It's about ego, a big waste of our energy and resources and way too much work.
"Mine's big'r 'n yours!"
It's how we buy ourselves.

(I would like to have more solar panels than J.R. Ewing :-)

"What's enough?"...having spent some years paring things down and learning to enjoy "voluntary simplicity", I can look around and make a list:

A smallish house, my bedroom/bathroom/closet sparingly furnished and clean.

A simple futon bed, which I built of simple pine and cedar, and with a headboard left to me by my great aunt.

A small computer desk with a decent computer, which I also built.

Two bicycles - the heavy one I commute on, set up for every kind of weather, and the light racing bike (which I built) I ride out with the guys on twice a week.

My sewing machine on a little table.

A pine chest I built, lined with linen, with nicer clothes and things packed away.

A box of drawings, writings, and miscellaneous treasures from my childhood.

A shelving unit with clothing neatly arranged, a laundry hamper, and a washing machine. Clothesline outside.

Then there is my vegetable garden outside, and the kitchen where I cook meals, which I keep clean and well organized.

...that's all simple and rewarding, while the rest is not so much. I probably have experiences similar to many, where I try to live in a way that seems wise and in keeping with necessity, and I enjoy it in that way. The rest of the family, however, seems more and more distant and uninterested, keeping to the rest of the house; where there is continual entertainment, living in chronic clutter and waste, shopping to the limit of $ and quite upset about that, rushing about, critical of everyone, bored, strenuously avoiding anything involving physical effort, unhappy, on one high horse after another, planning for nothing beyond the day, imagining a "real world" where all that is normal and good...

Enough: "occurring in such quantity, quality, or scope as to fully meet demands, needs, or expectations ... enough food for everyone"(from M. Websters' online dictionary).

To me, the problem is not sufficiency but greed. Enough would be, the food, clothing, shelter, and protection from heat and cold necessary for human survival and happiness.

Problem: Greed: "excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed

Greed must take from someone else that which would allow them "enough." Result: a lack of food, clothing, shelter, protection, survival, or happiness. Anywere from one to all of those are what is stripped from some inhabitant(s) of the Earth by those who exercise greed as though it is actually "good." And, it is taken every time they exercise their greed. And, it is evil!

Q.E.D.

Nuff said!

Craig

been lurking in the evenings for a while as I bought a house and emptied an entire lifetime of brickabrack from former owners. I can say now that I will NEVER accumulate 175 avon bottles, 10 boxes full of clear glass serving dishes, 4 rooms full of rotten clothing...a total of 6.5 tons of accumulation. There were some gems though, as a consolation prize. I even found a 1/2 gallon of milk in a freezer with a pull date of 7/20...1981 !!!!! Someone wrote on the box outside, before placing it there...7/25/81...incredible! I have friends younger than this milk carton!

I kept the carton, and so it begins...hahahaha...

mr.fixie

Over here in Australia we are having elections.
If I ever got the chance to quiz the candidates I would ask them
"How many doublings are enough?"

"Huh?"

"If we have a growth rate of 3%, that implies a 21 year doubling time.
Every 21 years the economy will double.
So how many doublings are enough?
2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128....?

Clearly a 3%pa growth rate leads to absurdities.
Are we to believe that in 42 years we will be using 4 times as much oil?

So where will you draw the line and say,
"This is as good as it gets.
No more 24/7 work rosters. No more tearing parents away from their children to feed the Monster that is Growth."?

"If you cannot or will not answer the question, then a pox on both your houses and I am voting Green."

Alas, the concepts are way beyond the attention span or comprehensive powers of our candidates.
Further, I believe that the horse has already bolted.
It is too late.
It is now every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost.

Hows this:

When your things are serving you, you have enough.
When you start serving your things, you have too much.

The US economy has been able to produce more of everything than was demanded since the 1930's. It took a decade after the depression before enough new consumer items were either developed or demanded to regain full employment. King Hubbert wrote about the 4 hour workday as early as 1936. Today's version of that is collecting social security at 65 and living to be in the 80's.

Most spending is not to keep up with the Joneses, although houses are too large, partly because it is a hedge against inflation and a tax deduction. And our cars are not just transportation but carpeted with climate control and sound systems just like home. It’s not just to impress others; it’s what makes us feel comfortable, as extravagant as it may be.

It's hard to cut back on stuff because a lot of this stuff is labor saving, like being able to drive to the store and by a loaf of bread, unlike the days when the man of the house took a pack animal to a nearby town to have grain ground into flour, which was handmade into bread back home by a woman or girl who spent much of the day cooking. And let's not forget about cutting down trees and chopping the firewood.

Up until the mid 1800's the standard work week was six 12 hour days. Women who didn't work spent many hours carrying water (100 gallons daily), bringing in firewood for cooking and heating (including bath water), growing a garden, canning and hand washing the laundry every Monday.

And if all that weren't bad enough, there was always the hunger and disease. Curing malnutrition, hunger and understanding sanitary practices did far more to extend life spans than the rest of modern medicine. But we are willing to pay a lot for a few extra years.

During the back to the land movement in our neck of the woods, it was about keeping down with the Joneses. If you had found a good deal for $10 and told someone about it they would inevitably tell you they had gotten it for $5.00 or knew where you could have gotten it for free!

Today, "enough" is an important part of peak oil prep, with what is needed being shaped by what will make our lives less inconvenient and difficult than it will be otherwise. As westexas said 2 or 3 years ago: Economize, Localize, Produce.

Material comforts are one thing. But many people seek life in the city because they want mental challenges. They might be satisfied materially with a simple country life, a field, a stream, etc..but knowing that in the city some other people are writing and publishing things or making money using ingenious schemes in hedge funds, or doing leading edge science experiemnts......well, that seems like it`s more exciting somehow. They want to be among the literati, the players, the hoi polloi..There is a competitive drive to match wits with the best.

..O.K. so they might have a simple apartment, 1000 books, a bed, a few dishes (materially not wealthy)...but if they can work for a hedge fund or a famous university and publish a few books or be in the running for science awards, they are very satisfied.

So what does someone say to these people? Your ambitions are stupid and unnecessary? go back to the farm? If there is a broad collapse and universities and hedge funds shut down, then these people will suddenly be unemployed, in my mind there is the idea that they won`t care as long as EVERYONE else in their professional sphere is also thrown out of work. What smarts is being a "failure". Being a victim of a broad collapse is not shameful.

Actually, these elites will be among the last to experience the unemployment and poverty that are plaguing the less educated now. In some ways, our society seems structured to give preference to the intellectuals, scientists, elite investment managers....I`m not sure they contribute such a great deal (they might---I don`t know) but they are valued for now.

What a stupid question.

It always devolves to THIS

Ugh.

Gail, this is key to accepting what we are heading for. Most of us have too much today.
I know, since my wife and I are preparing to move into a flat from a villa (house) these days.
The chinese used to say: "If you own more than three things, the things own you".

Although my wife and I both came from simple backgrounds (much like the Minnesota description above), we used to have a villa, one holiday house in the mountains, two cars, an airplane (glider), and a boat (cabin cruiser), plus a variety of bikes, skis, and canoe, etc. The spring always just disappeared in preparations of the varous items, and yes, the things "owned" us.
Happy to get rid of the plane and boat now. These things were partly keeping up with the neighbours, but also because the economy allowed for it.

One saying goes: Men never grow up from playing with toys. As you get older, the price of the toys just go up. A friend of mine (from Denver, CO, now Norway) used to have a T-shirt:

"The one who dies with the most toys, is the WINNER".

I liked that. It makes you think, and it reminded me that the only things you really can bring with you over to the other side are "opplevelser" (a Scandinavian word which combines "a positive, enlightening experience" into one word).

A nice sunset, the birth of your kids, encountering an eagle in the air (glider), seeing a beaver swim by at 10 feet distance while the kids in the canoe sit quiet to not scare it away, teaching your kids to ski/ride a bike - and their joy when they make it, reaching a summit with its fantastic view. These are priceless collectibles, and far surpasses "things" in value. Most of them are even free or just moderately costly.

We need to get back to appreciating the value of riches via "opplevelser", not just keeping up with the Joneses in having the things they have or better.

Being an optimist, I think the internet is having a positive influence on "How much is enough".

It is making the impact of distance much less than it was, and so rural and small town property values, are not falling in a relative sense.
(at least not in this part of the globe)

If a real crunch comes, the Internet should also allow social-function, with less use of the car.

The ideal world is one in which freedom is maximized. I define freedom as the ability to live whatever lifestyle one wants consistent with two limitations.

1… It must not infringe on someone else’s freedom.

2… The individual must pay the full cost of the lifestyle they choose.

So the answer to the question, "What's Enough?", is different for each human and varies with time.

The most annoying people are those who think they know what lifestyle is best for everybody, except perhaps for themselves.

When the opposite sex is no longer impressed with conspicuous consumption, then it will end. How can I let my prospective mate know how successful I am unless I drive a fine car and have a huge house? I have no cars and live in a modest house, so I should mention to all my dates my bank balance to get respect? Most people want to be associated with those who are successful and not those who are successful by being frugal (cheap). It's a peacock display, even for those who are married. If my wife is not kept in the finest cars then I am a failure and so is she for marrying me.
I believe that being happy with what you have is more important then having more. I have taken a year off from work because I think I deserve it (I've been working since I was 14, now I'm 47). I'm living off my savings and not on the dole, but many people think I am a lay-about even though I pay all my bills myself with out any hand-outs.
I have been thinking about the future, as I waste my time surfing the web, and have found many interesting facts.What about the new carbon based tech?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19308-the-next-best-thing-to-oil.html
Global warming? sure it exists, but is it from CO2? Maybe the increase in CO2 is from the warming, not the cause.
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-A...
Maybe the changing land uses and de-forestation has led to warming which has decreased the ability of the oceans to adsorb CO2? Recent CO2 reading are much lower then expected, is that from the extra polar seas exposed by warming and ice sheet reduction? The numbers show that northern seas adsorb CO2 and southern seas release it.
We do not have the power to destroy this planet, only to make it less then optimal for our survival.

For awhile I was living alone on about a fifth of my paycheck, while sorting out my life. My budget (this was 1999) was $450 a month. I lived in a campus quad (I was a manager in a university library). I did my laundry in the sink. I had a bicycle, five changes of clothes, a rice steamer, a few dishes, a laptop, and, of course access to a 2 million volume library. And health insurance. And the love of my family, who were waiting for me to come back to them.

I was incredibly rich.

As ever, how much we want is probably a function of biology and thus not something we can ever hope to change on a significant scale. Here is wikipedia on intersexual selection for example, with obvious implications for those who have recognised the importance of female and male concession in the reproduction of Homo sapiens, and who also recognise the link between resource consumption and partner "quality":

“In species where the reproductive success of one sex depends heavily on winning the concession of the other, as with many polygamous birds [and humans?], sexual selection will act by increasing the degree of preference to which it is due, with the consequence that both the trait preferred and the intensity of preference will be increased together. This process causes a fervent and rapid evolution of both the conspicuous ornamentation [branded clothing and other possesions?] and the preference for such, until arrested directly or indirectly for ecological reasons [peak oil?]. Thus, in many cases a positive feedback loop of sexual selection is created, resulting in exorbitant physical structures in the non-limited sex, the most notorious example being the peacock. It is important to note that while a peacock may have exorbitant plumage, the peahen has even more exorbitant taste for such [if high “consumption is a marker of reproductive fitness, is sex driving the consumption bandwagon in humans?].” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

You only need to watch a music video to see the "fervent and rapid evolution of both the conspicuous ornamentation and the preference for such" to accept the sexual foundations of what Thorstein Veblen called "conspicuous consumption":

“Conspicuous consumption is a term used to describe the lavish spending on goods and services acquired mainly for the purpose of displaying income or wealth. In the mind of a conspicuous consumer, such display serves as a means of attaining or maintaining social status. A very similar but more colloquial term is "keeping up with the Joneses". Conspicuous consumption is antagonistic to sustainability because it greatly increases resource use and environmental impact.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

Basically, how much we have is an honest signal to others about our means and I cannot see how anybody can reasonably expect the voluntary elimination of honest signalling while attracting (and keeping) the best mate remains important (it may even apply to friends and business partners). We are competitive and competition always leads to escalating resource use:

“…the fundamental object of contention in the life-struggle, in the evolution of the organic world, is available energy. In accord with this observation is the principle that, in the struggle for existence, the advantage must go to those organisms whose energy-capturing devices are most efficient in directing available energy into channels favorable to the preservation of the species [/race].” A J Lotka

The fairytale ending will only occur when all competition is eliminated, everywhere, and that is just not going to happen:

“Only a minority of zero would permit a voluntary system to work. Obviously we would be fools to adopt any political or economic system that functions successfully only if literally everyone is virtuous.” Garrett Hardin

I know It's been posted frequently, but around $12,000 auffices for individual income, so if the question stands as "what is enough?" then we need to move beyond asking 'what is enough' on and individual basis and ask what what is enough as a group

Whats enough?

Housing: 100 sq meters / 1000 sq ft plot per person. One quarter of that in the main building with atmost another quarter in auxillary buildings (kitchen, toilet, garage / stable, well / pond) separate from the main building. Its assume that there are 4 people in a house in a single family living. Therefore at the minimum, each housing plot is 400 sq meters, has a main building of 100 meters. The main building is of three levels: ground floor is just one big hall, basement is for storage and bomb shelter, top floor is for bedrooms.

Income: Twice than needed to buy following items per person per year:

Food:
Grains:

100 to 120 kg. Items vary but one choice is:
                            40 kg wheat, 30 kg rice, 20 kg oats, 15 kg barley, 5 kg pulses.

Fruits:

156.25 kg raw with edible portion 100 kg.

Vegetables:

40 kg raw with edible portion 25 kg.

Milk: 156.25 kg including milk for tea, milk drinks (lassi etc), milk dishes (custard etc), milk items (yogurt, butter etc).

Oil: 12.5 kg

Dry fruits: 12.5 kg

Honey or Sugar: 12.5 kg

Spices: 12.5 kg

Meat: 50 kg. Quarter each from goat, cow, fish, birds.

Clothes: Total 6.25 kg cotton or silk or other fibers. Supposing 20% of it get wasted in threading, weaving, cutting, stitching etc we are left with 5 kg cotton. Use 1 kg cotton for raw cotton use like for filling pillows, mattresses and for making bandages. From the rest 4 kg cotton weave 40 sq meters cloth.

Use 10 sq meters cloth for family stuff usage like for curtains, bed sheets, table covers, cleaning clothes etc that all members of a family share.

Use 20 sq meters cloth to make 4 dresses per person per year, each dress consuming 5 sq meters cloth. So, every person gets a new dress every 3 months.

Use 10 sq meters cloth to make under garments, socks, handkerchiefs, amamas etc.

Shoes: Every person get 2 shoes a year. They have to be designed in such a way that the same shoe / sandal, slipper can be used for all foot wearing purposes including work place requirements, casual wearings, party wearings etc. If such a multipurpose footwear can't be made then use 1 footwear for formal wearing for office, party etc and 1 footwear for casual wearing.

Vacations: Out of 365 days in a solar year, give vacation of 15 days for religious and national holidays. Rest 350 days means 50 weeks. Give one day off each week. From the rest 300 days give 30 days off for sick, leisure, rest leaves at minimum and 60 days off at maximum, former is for city / industrial / trade / crafts workers and latter for farm / govt workers. For former 6.66 hours a day work so 270 x 6.66 = 1800 hours a year work (6.66 hours a day means 400 minutes). For latter 6 hours a day work so 240 x 6 = 1440 hours a year work (6 hours a day roughly means time between sunrise and noon with no breaks).

Working age: 20 to 50 years for manual workers like those who work in farms or factories. They require little education and training. Due to hard work its reasonable to give them early retirement. Between age 50 and 60 they can be hired at supervisors or trainers or given light office work. 25 to 60 years for govt officers, engineers, doctors, accountants etc that require high level of education. Due to light work they can be expected to work till age 60. Note that in both cases, the working age people are 50% of the total population in numbers.

Open place around buildings: For proper ventilation, its required to have a 10 meters / 11 yards open place outside every window and every door of every building. At the end of those open place no building greater than a height of 10 meters / 11 yards should be made. At a distance of 20 meters / 22 yards from a window, door a building can be of height of 20 meters / 22 yards and so on.

Lets define a term "sky angle". Its the angle between foot of a wall to the roof of another wall in front of it. Its the angle which determines how much of sky would be visible looking out from a window or door in a dense living of city or close village. The preferred sky angle is 30% which means that distance between buildings must be twice than the height of buildings. Expected sky angle is 45% which means both distances would be equal. The very extreme of accepted angle is 60% which means distance between buildings must be half than the height of buildings. Note that the least height of building is 12 ft to put a 6 ft tall person in it so least distance between buildings is 6 ft. Assuming that all buildings would be 2 storey, means 24 ft high and adding something extra for ground base and roof thickness, a 33 ft height of building is very much expected.

Thickness of walls: For single family houses, 9 inches to 36 inches (0.25 yards to 1 yard). For joint family houses, public buildings etc double than that.

Fuel:: 200 to 400 kg wood per person per year or some other fuel equal in energy.

Personal servants: Given to only managers (that includes all people whose primary work is to take work from others and not work themselves). Each such manager have to have on average 8 workers under him which can vary between 4 and 16. Such a manager gets two personal servants who are atleast 5 and at maximum 10 years younger than him. One such servant is male who work as secretary / driver / guard etc and another is a female servant who work as house maid / nanny for kids etc. So, on average, at the lowest level, 10% of workers is managers, 10% is personal servants and 80% are workers. At each level up in management, workers underneath get multiplied by 8, salary by 4 and personal servants by 2.

I live next door to the "Joneses" -- they have a huge house, 5 cars (including a Porsche), motorcycles. Absolutely anything they want, they get.

But this Spring when my expanded garden was producing like mad, I got to play a new role -- I had something the Joneses wanted that they never would, because you can't just go buy yourself a garden so full of goodies. I'll not claim it was a turning point in my life, but it does reinforce in a way that building up something by hand has genuine value, and, of course, that money can't buy happiness.

The Joneses put in some herb boxes, but mine are so much bigger it is scary.

Whats enough?

A farmer family living traditionally in isolation needs a total of 20 average acres inside a village. Let me describe what I mean by each term (written in bold):

Farmer: A person who works on a farm and own that farm. He is employee of nobody.

Family: A group of very close relatives from which there is only male of age 20 to 50 years. This is the primary worker. His corresponding female can work too as a secondary worker but only half as much because she has to do house work and take care of kids too. There can also be teritiary workers like males and females of ages between 15 and 20 or 50 and 60.

Traditionally: It means without use of any fossil fuels, electricity, automatic machines (cars, tractors, water mills, wheel barrows, wind mills etc). For farming there is no use of any inorganic fertilizers, there is no use of any pesticides. There is one crop a year. All the water for the crops comes from rains. All the work is done by muscle power of humans and farm animals.

Isolation: Almost no trade except of one time buying of machines, annual buying of salt etc. All the food, clothes, shoes, housing, fuel consumed by the farmer family is produced by the farmer family.

Needs: 1/8 of production goes in charity, 1/8 of production goes in fighting depreciation of soil and tools, 1/4 of production goes in taxes. Half of the production is used by the farmer. Given that it takes 0.8 acres of land to support one person, 0.2 acres of land to support farm and draft animals for that person, 0.2 acres of forest to provide wood, herbs for medicines, honey etc for that person and 0.4 acres forest and grasslands left for wild life (one quarter of arable land), the land in possession of farmer is 0.8 acres per person (half of the arable land), the 0.4 acres arable land in form of needed forest and grassland for the supported person is around the village that is outside the village and the rest of the 0.4 acres is far away from any village in deep, dense, vast forests.

Its simple to visualize that. Out of all the arable land in world, humans use half directly, quarter semi directly and not use quarter at all. Direct use of land means owning it, plowing it, seeding it, harvesting it, putting nutrients in it etc. Semi direct use of land means just taking what nature grows, taking animals there to feed on naturally growing land, take wood from naturally growing forests, taking fishes from arable land under rivers, lakes etc. No use of land means leaving land for wild plants, wild animals and insects, not going to such land except once in a long while for hunting, no use of land also means giving some place for those people to live who want to live outside society.

Average: Land which gets 10 inches rain water or 1 acre ft canal water per year per acre. It means 800 cubic meter effective water per year per acre. Effective water is that water that the crops gets when they need it, for example in the rainy season right after summer etc. Such a land can grow 400 kg wheat or 800-1200 kg rice or 500 kg sugar or 2000 kg wood or 1600 kg hay per acre per year.

Village: Village is 80% arable. All the arable land corresponds to 0.8 acres needed per person per year directly, that is, not the grassland or forest or wild forest or wild grassland. Since a farmer family needs 20 acres in the village so it means 16 arable acres directly farmed. That is enough to grow food for 20 people.

Usually villages are 85% to 90% arable but I am taking a small number here for resilience.

It takes about 40 hours work per year per acre in actual farming (plowing, seeding, harvesting, caring). Since each person needs 0.8 acres so 32 hours of work. Each person also needs 0.4 more acres in form of grassland and forest but since that grow naturally so only takes a quarter as much effort. So, for those 0.4 acres, there is a need of 4 hours work. 32 + 4 = 36 hours work at farm per person supported is needed.

It takes 36 hours work to grow food, get woods and keep farm and draft animals for each person.

It takes another 18 hours to do supporting activities like milking, preparing animals' feed, butchering, skinning, milling, oiling etc. For each person there is a need of 156.25 kg milk. At speed of 31.25 kg milking per hour, 5 hours of milking. Each person needs 50 kg meat. At speed of 12.5 kg meat butchering (including mincing by hand, taking out brain, skinning etc), 4 hours of butchering. At speed of 6.25 kg oiling per hour, 2 hours work for 12.5 kg oil producing. At speed of 12.5 kg sugar making per hour, 1 hour work for 12.5 kg sugar producing. At speed of 160 kg excretions processing (taking dump from animals to ground, bury it, taking out and spreading on farm), 960 kg means 6 hours work there. Total 18 hours farm supporting activities.

36 hours of work to do weaving, making shoes, making dyes etc for each person supported. Weaving takes 1 hour of work to prepare 2 sq meters of clothes, adding threading and cleaning it takes like 1.67 hours for 2 sq meters cloth. Given that each person needs 40 sq m cloth so 24 hours work there per person. 12 hours work in producing shoes, dyes etc.

36 hours of work in making buildings, copper utensils, iron tools, wooden furniture, glass etc.

Altogether, as far as goods are concerned, each person needs work of 108 man-hours per year: 36 hours farming, 36 hours farm supporting activities, 24 hours weaving, 12 hours shoes and dyes making, 36 hours in light industries like construction, metal works, wood works, glass works etc.

A farmer can work 240 days a year. It is because in winter and in between sowing and harvesting there is lots of free time which means lots of holidays. During each working day a farmer works only from sunrise to sunset, 6 hours. Total a farmer works 240 x 6 = 1440 hours a year. Farmer is of age between 20 and 50 years which means half of male population and quarter of total population. Given some level of unemployment, lazyness, disability etc we can assume that at all time atleast 80% of males between age 20 and 50 works, this implies participation rate of 20%, 1 in 5 people works. The farmer's wife (or anybody of age 15 to 20 or 50 to 60) also works, but only half as much per day, so 720 hours there. Total 1440 + 720 = 2160 hours. I emphasize that on a per family basis, 2160 hours a year is the most expected number. Note that if there is only one worker in every family, who work like a person in city, 270 days a year, 8 hours a day, then that also means 2160 hours a year (270 x 8 = 2160).

Since there is need of 108 man-hours work per person, so each farmer family can produce enough farm and industry goods for 2160/108 = 20 people or 4 families. So, in short, one worker can support 4 workers. It includes growing food for 20 people. Since, to grow food for one person we need 0.8 arable acres inside the village, so for 20 people we need 16 arable acres inside the village per family. Since village is 80% arable so for each family we need 20 acres in the village.

The farmer family produces enough for 20 people in farm and industry goods, lets give this unit a name "p". One "p" is equal to all the food, clothes, shoes, dyes, raw cotton, furniture, utensils, buildings, tools and glass needed per worker family person to live and work. Note that p is not a measure of money, its a measure of stuff or goods. If you have to buy one p equivalent stuff from a market then in terms of money you have to give off stuff (or services) which value more than one p because traders need to make profits.

The term "p" btw corresponds to sub-continent coin "paisa" which people of the region use as a metaphor for all belongings, wealth, status etc. In english it can simply means "person".

The farmer family like all worker families needs 5p. Being owner of their farm they take 5p in rent too. It means if they don't own the farm and are working as labor for somebody else then they take only their salary and no rent. Having accounted for 10p we are left with another 10p. Out of this, one quarter of production, 5p goes in taxes to govt. Out of the rest 5p, half or 2.5p is given in charity and half or 2.5p is used to compensate for depreciation. Compensation for depreciation may means buying back excretions of humans and animals from city where farm goods were taken, or using effort in getting green stuff from a forest or simply doing more effort in recycling farm wastes.

Altogether, for each farmer family, there is a need of 80 acres in the country as a whole if that country is 40% arable, 160 acres if that country is 20% arable and so on. Note that here I mean just acres, not arable acres. If country is 40% arable, and there are 80 acres in country for each farmer family, then there are 32 arable acres per farmer family. The farmer family itself owns only half of the arable acres, 16 arable acres (and village being 80% arable each farmer family has 20 acres in a village). In the surroundings of each village, there is 8 arable acres per farmer family of the village. Given that village is 80% arable and surroundings of village is 64% arable, a 1000 acres village added in its surroundings means 1562.5 acres. Its like having a 2 x 2 square with walls 0.5 units thick, so the entire thing is 2.5 x 2.5 units.

Note that each worker family works 2160 hours and each person needs 108 hours work. Given that there are crop failures and usual crop failures means production fails to half and assuming no storage mechanisms (no refrigerators to store meat for example), we can at maximum have a population that consume only half as much as produced. Taking average this compensates for extra consumption of govt officers, traders and other service people. It implies that half of the country's population need to be farmers.

At a 40% arable country, where each farmer family requires 80 acres, there is 16 acres per farmer family person. Since half population of country is farmer, so there is 8 acres per person in country. Given that one sq km equals 250 acres, there can be 31.25 people per sq km in such a country.

I said in above post that there are managers and each manager manages 8 workers and have one personal servant. I also said that each level up in management, the number of sub-ordinates get multiplied by 8 and personal servants by 2. Adding that to all the human population, 1/8 of population need be managers, 1/8 be personal servants. That makes a quarter. Lets assume another quarter of freely living service people and knowing that half of the population need be workers we get a complete plan for population.

Here I want to show that in all ancient civilizations, that is where farms were traditional, there used to be 31.25 people per sq km on average. This number used to double at times of peak of those civilizations probably by buying food from outside (in return of taxes on occupied territories in other countries, in return of excessive industrial production like in mughal india, by over utilization of land as in roman europe, by cutting of trees as in 19th century ireland etc).

Not everyone likes to keep up with the Jones. If one must have something that makes them feel better than others, culture an attitude of pride for living on less ie have a goal of being better than others by using less.

Isn't it strange that in a "Christian" country the two commandments on not coveting are so ignored, and coveting is actually seen as a positive value along with greed. It has turned out that somehow capitalism and Christianity are linked, when in fact socialism is what Jesus and his disciples practiced - heck one set of greedy humans got killed by God when they joined the Christian commune but lied about how much goods they really had - see Acts 5 http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Acts+5

What is enough is whatever it takes to pass your genes on. That is our biological imperative.

Whats enough?

If consuming the balanced diet I stated above and amount of clothing and shoes I stated above (a new suit every 3 months, a new pair of shoes every 6 months, 2000 calories diet a day per person and 2500 calories diet a day per average adult person and 3000 calories a day per person per adult male working person), one half of income goes in buying food, one quarter of income goes in buying clothes and shoes, rest quarter of income goes in buying house, utensils, tools etc. For a city person, this last quarter can be used in paying utility and transportation (by bus) bills.

If half of the income is going in buying food then its the lowest level of income needed to live and work. Lets call this Level 1.

A family can live where all the income goes in buying food but then its very hard for them to work. Lets call this Level 0. Its really like living animals, getting food and nothing else.

A family can live where all the income goes in buying half-than-needed food but then this family can't work at all. Lets call this Level -1. Its the level of beggars, refugees, new immigrants.

The preferred level is when 25% of income goes in buying food. At this level there is enough flexibility. The family actually earns double than it needs. Lets call this Level 2.

The highest level where waste is still very little is when 12.5% of income goes in buying food. Lets call this Level 3.

In america today, on average 9.5% of income of people goes in food. I assume that part of this goes in buying packaged food, already cooked food and in eating at hotels. So lets say 6.25% income goes in buying food. This is level 4.

We can define line of poverty as level 0, when all of the income goes in buying food. People survive but in poor condition, have no money to buy clothes, shoes, medicines, houses etc.

In Pakistan, 50% of income of people goes in meeting basic necessities. So, Pakistan is at Level 1. Same is the case for more than half of world's population today, including people of india, rural china, africa, south america etc.

There is actually no need to become richer than Level 3. After Level 3, wastage starts. It also means that america can happily go through a 50% fall in standard of living before noticing it.

Getting 4 times than needed, that is when 12.5% of income goes in food, is indeed the highest level with little waste. Its because, on average, it takes 2 average or 4 lowest items to get 1 high quality item. Consider for example food, organic foods, those that are really organic, have to be twice as much expensive as industrial food. Genetically modified food can be as cheap as 4 times organic food and 2 times industrial food. Consider sweet apples as compare to average apples or sour apples. Consider quality of cars. Even consider quality of people. You can hire two average engineers at cost of hiring one high quality engineer. (I call this 1-2-4 rule).

Having 4 times than needed makes sense. Use half to get high quality and half to get flexibility. It really makes no sense in going further.

Note that I am talking in aggregate. Individual incomes could and should vary.

I can sum it up in four words:

Live within your means.

"Keeping up with the Joneses" implies getting rid of something with plenty of useful life in it for something bigger, "better", newer, more up-to-date, more functions, etc etc etc.for the sake of appearances rather than utility.

Like trading in a perfectly serviceable vehicle with 50,000 miles on it for a brand new model. Or trading an older home for a new home with all the latest gadgets.

This really is consumerism at its worst, and the doomed treadmill we are on. How many people lined up to by a new iphone, even if the one they already had was perfectly useful ? I still have an old flip phone, whose only additional feature is it takes photos (which I don't use).

One could say nobody "needs" a cell phone at all, but my work requires that people can get ahold of me when I'm not in the office, and I'd have no work if I didn't have a cell phone. It's where society is right now. However, I don't need to have a cell phone that does any more than make phonecalls.

My personal philisophy is that there isn't any point trading an old house for a new one, even if it does have a smaller footprint, have the latest eco options, etc etc, because the "greenest" house, and the one which uses the least materials, is the one you didn't build.

We're at a point where there is already so much "stuff" in the world we should make a concerted effort to get as much use out of it as possible, and then recycling, shredding and/or composting what's left, if that's possible.

If that means trading it to someone else for them to use, great! Just don't replace it with the newest, latest model. When it falls apart, or is no longer serviceable, if one still has a need for it, source another from a recycle shop or yard sale.

example : I have an old washing machine and drier. I could trade them both for the latest energy-saving models than use 30% less energy, and produce fewer emissions. Or, I could just do half as much laundry, and line-dry the clothes, and save more energy, more CO2, and save the materials for a new washer and drier. Of course, people would probably laugh at my 1980's washer ;)

When they both finally die, I could move to only hand-washing and line-drying.

There's likely to be a thriving trade in used items and parts, as opposed to new items.

Edit : somewhere in the back of my head is an old sci fi story about a guy living in a world where one is required to consume, consume, consume, to keep the economy going. He gets worn out trying to use up all his "stuff" and buys a couple of house robots to use it up for him, while he relaxes and reads the paper. (funny how the sci fi authors could imagine household robots but not the demise of the newspaper ;))

Before we can meaningfully address the gigantic human-induced challenge posed by the unbridled growth of absolute global human population numbers, we need to widely share an understanding of human population dynamics. Without this knowledge, which is already living in the world but universally denied by the brightest and best among us, we will simply do what we are doing now: playing around the edges of what ails humanity in our time and threatens the Earth as fit place for habitation by the children. We are filddlin’ like Nero chose to do while Rome burned many years ago. Today the Earth itself is beginning to combust.

How much is enough is a valid question, but it is inevitably wrapped up with the question of how MANY (of us) is enough.

We, AS A SPECIES, must address the problem of fundamentally unsustainable population growth. Unless and until we do so, the question of how much is ENOUGH dims to irrelevance.

We know that natural systems not only osscilate but are often either growing or declining exponetially. Enough is having your needs rather than wants met. It sounds basic but that doesn't mean in the future we will have enough. Working with what you have at the time is the best you can do.

Whats enough?

Govt Servants / Govt Size : Once we found out that the most appropriate number of subordinates under a manager is 8 (with variations from 4 to 16), we can think about having one lowest level govt servant (that is a soldier, a constable, a sweeper, a peon etc) per 8 workers. Since there is 1 primary worker per family of 5, there are 40 civilians per govt servant. Lets suppose that govt servants are given personal servants so counting that and family members of govt servant himself, out of every 50 people in country there is 1 govt servant of the lowest rank.

Lets look at the salary structure. There are 8 workers per lowest level govt servant. Each worker produce 20p. Lets suppose all land is of govt and govt takes rent on it. If rent is 5p, from 8 workers there is a collection of 40p. Govt servant gets 20p, 10p goes to retired, disabled govt servants (like soldiers injured in wars), 10p goes to high officers. In this way we can keep one lowest level govt servant per 50 people and adding high officer govt servants one govt servant (of any rink) in every 8 workers. If govt servants have servants too then there is 1 such servant per govt servant on average, so a quarter of population is directly depending on govt.

Now assuming that among all govt servants, one quarter is soldiers, one quarter is policemen, rangers etc, one quarter is in administration like judges, intelligence, governors, tax collectors, record keepers etc and one quarter is in welfare services, that includes teachers, doctors, para medical and para education staff. That way there can be one soldier in a population of 200 people.

Note that in a farm based economy (and infact in every economy) due to droughts, excess rains, floods, recessions, wars, diseases etc production can fall to atmost half than average before the collapsing of economy so taking this into account we must reduce the number of govt servants to half than calculated above. That way we can have a soldier per 400 people. Thats infact how its in pakistan, 200 million people and half million soldiers. The policemen, rangers etc are called reserves and can be called in times of trouble. Usa has a population of 300 million and a military of 3 million soldiers, thats 1 in 100, 4 times than normal.

Note that level of industralization do not effect this ratio because if productivity per worker increase due to industralization then need of industrial goods by military also increase proportionally (and may be more).

Note that I have made a system in which salaries of govt servants comes from rent and rent is always 25% of production. Infact rent would be a fixed amount and do not vary year on year as production varies because govts needs stability. When production fall to 15p at a farm, factory then govt let go the rent.

To pay for actual expenses of govt, like for office expenses, weapons, ammunition, making of buildings etc there is a separate 25% tax on production. This do vary according to level of production year on year.

If the total income of govt (25% by rent, 25% by tax) sounds too much then please note that this is what for almost all the time of civilization people are paying their govts. In usa today federal govt takes a 28% income tax, then state and district govts have their own taxes (for example property tax). Then govt print money / do quantative easing etc so almost half of income of american workers and businessmen go to american govt. In mughal india there was a straight 25% khiraj on farms and in addition there was lots of other taxes including on imports, exports, toll taxes etc.

We are beyond enough when we have a foreign policy to control oil through war.

The statement "Iraq will soon be the number one oil producer" illustrates the point of why we engage in the war there.

In the realm of addiction there is no such thing as "enough".

I suppose it comes down to whom you love the most: Yourself or your fellow man?

If you become convinced that he—not to mention all the other creatures with whom we share the planet—have just as much a God-given right to be as yourself, then you will naturally begin to live your life to be in harmony with that conviction.

You cannot change the world. But you can be scrupulous—consciously and determinedly scrupulous—in the use of her resources. It is not meet that one grows fat while another starves. You will thus be frugal with nature's bounty. To not eat too much, to bear some of the summer's heat, to suffer some of winter's cold, to not squander the riches you are given, but to husband them, to preserve them, to pass them on—this is how a virtuous man lives.

If we practice virtue—and shun its antithesis—we need not fear harm.

LOL! The fact that we are here on the internet with a computer means that we are not in any way qualified to say how much is enough. Grossly ironic, kinda like one of the banksters telling one of our tent city people how they should hold their fork while eating. I'm outta here! Have a nice day.

Question for TODers. I'm currently heating with an old Vermont Castings Vigilant wood heater and am considering getting a more up to date catalytic stove. I wonder if anyone has had experience doing this and what kind of efficiency gain might be expected. I figure the old stove is probably ~50% efficient and the newer ones advertise 70% or higher, but I'm always skeptical of these kinds of figures in terms of how much less wood I might actually burn.

I'm a long time wood burner, so I know my way around wood for fuel in terms of varieties, seasoning and so on, I just need some real-world examples to go by.

Thanks for any input.

Or would a fancier stove be too much?:-(

What is enough? Here is another way to look at it. What is enough for those who make and harvest the goods we use. What is enough for a strawberry picker in California? Obviously the wages and the conditions in which those wages are earned are enough since if they weren't enough no one would cross the border to do that work. What is enough for a Copper Miner in Chile? Since people still mine copper in Chile what they earn must be enough (at least to keep them alive to age 45 the average age for those doing that kind of work). What is enough for the people who make our Nike's and keyboards, etc. Since they are able to do the work and we get our products obviously the wages they earn and the life they are able to live on those wages is enough.

The question is of course unanswerable without qualifiers. What is enough to keep a person alive? What is enough to allow them to reproduce? What is enough for them to feel safe and secure? What is enough to allow them to feel well off? What is enough for a person to feel like they are keeping up with or beating out the Joneses? Unless by "enough" you mean bare minimum for survival, "what is enough?" is a pretty wide open question.

After several moves with my ex husband that involved moving far more things that I thought were worth moving, I was watching a news program. It was at the end of US involvement in Vietnam and many Vietnamese were fleeing - I saw a family fording a river with everything that they could manage to take in bundles on their heads. That appeared like it was going to have to be enough....

Sociologists note that "keeping up with the Joneses" has taken a darker twist in contemporary society. When the phrase first came into use, it meant roughly keeping up with the family doing the best on your block. Given the realities of housing policies at that time, it meant that you were competing, if you will, with people who were in the same general social class -- rich, middle-class, working, poor, etc.

With the widespread adoption of television, the Joneses became a family on TV. This led to a variety of distortions. Depicted living space was unnaturally large in order to accommodate the needs for staging. Costuming tended to reflect the producer's budget, not the character's. Product placement often meant that the characters "owned" new things, with all the options. Over a season, a character might own several expensive items in order to facilitate several story lines. Any one of the items might have fit within the character's budget for a year, but not all of them.

Many people's take on "what's enough" is badly skewed by the fictional depictions they see on TV every day.

The question of enough is also a question of how much is not enough. Allowing folks within our society to not have enough may subconsciously afflict those in power with the realization that some folks have way too much. As Americans we permit some folks to not have enough food, not have adequate clothing, not having any housing at all, not having the ability to go to where the jobs might be, and not having access to adequate health care. Even with our current economic hardships there are folks not far away who go hungry for part of the month even as Congress voted to cut food stamps. Empty houses are all around but still we have the homeless and then send in the cops to clear them from their encampments. Where there are job openings they are mostly a few miles from the nearest bus stop. We have the most advanced health care methods ever but it is too expensive to use. The biggest factor in determining life span is poverty. Not having enough means dying decades before your neighbors who have way too much. Out of sight is out of mind and our obsession with stuff means we are truly out of our minds.

Rather than keeping up with the Jones's, I'd like to take a different tack, and that is keeping enough food on the table.
How much is enough.... food?

A study of wheat prices over the past 800 years (prior to 1900) shows the average price of 100 kilos of grain was about 100 grams of pure silver. It went as high as 225 during wars and revolutions, and as low as 50 grams of silver in times of plenty.

At 100 grams this works out to one ounce of silver per bushel, or $18 per bushel today, and wheat is now trading at $6 per bushel. So you could say, well, a triple in wheat prices ... not too bad... to bring us back to historical norms.

Except the value of one ounce of silver today is not historically normal.
John Williams at shadowstats.com shows that historically, silver was trading at about $100 in todays dollars.

So for wheat to get back to "normal" it would have to increase 20X.

How wheat got so cheap has been shown in other TOD posts, and the effects of cheap food on population has also been shown.

An interesting tidbit is that both the French and Russian Revolutions peaked - almost to the day - at the same time as the highest price in bread in Paris/Moscow

There is a Swedish word Lagom, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagom

Its a word that, perhaps should have an English translation or maybe "lagom" should be adopted.

During the 1950's the highest tax bracket was over 90%. Did these high taxes slow down the US economy? No, it encouraged a sharing of the wealth. As taxes on the very wealthy have gone down, so has the US economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_...

I want more! I want a big buffer, toys, a new car and power to get things done.

I also wanted more room in my home and I recetly got that and has for some months been
sorting thru my old books and leftover projects. Another room would be nice but I dont rely need it now.

And I got a small economical buffer and I also live in a rich society.

Got a new tool and toy a few days ago, a fairly cheap Android phone, need to learn more abut Android and start migrating my Palm pilot stuff to it. This will take some time and then I will buy a better one when I know more about what features I need.

If I won a few millions on the Lotto it would not change my life much, but it would give me an opportunity to directly invest in things I am sure will be good or worth a try. It would be very nice and consuming some more would also feel good, I could then have a two or even three course restaurant meal each week with my fiance, that would be nice.

But my main need is to get some realy critical personal projects moving instead of being depressed about these hard global issues I have some partial solutions for. I need more time and I need to actually meet more people to share thoughts in a way that gives me more energy.

I got enough of on line time sinks, they are fun, stimulate new thougths and give fast gratification but I got too much of a good thing.

I have had fantastic opportunities for influencing things and have used some of them and let most of them slip thru my fingers. I need to pick up what I can in a way that lasts for manny years, I can do very little of this here on ToD, to little feedback and the wrong audience.

I got enough Oil Drum and needs to cut the hours here way down. It should have been obvious earlier but that is in the past and I can only change tomorrow. I will peek in sometimes and be back when I have prepaired something substantial to add. I hope I dont miss a nice Aspo meating or so due to this.

And I think I will sell my spare summer bike to a student and buy a new cheap one of medium quality, and buy some clothes since most has been worn out and buy a new car since my old one soon needs to get an owner who can weld. I got a buffer even if it is small, I better use some of it for substantial stuff that I use right now and 2-10 years into the future.

Yes I can use a car, 2x or 3x higher fuel prices is not a problem with a small car and little driving, other demand will be destroid before mine. ;-) But it is a pity I can not afford nor calculate a profit in buying a biogas car or even a diesel. This will probably have changed in 2020, then might even EV:s be a lot cheaper and I ought to be able to earn more money.

Bye and see you later! And it is very easy to find my email adress if anybody wants to contact me.

Two years ago, someone at the farmers market I sell honey at gave me a bottle of mead.

I've been keeping it for a special occasion - today was just a beautiful day and I decided to open it.

1. I have new respect for the Vikings
2. One bottle is enough

Best of all, I have the recipe....

A bumper sticker I own that resides on someone's car somewhere:

"Live simply so that others may simply live."

What the Cubans have, i.e. the same life expectancy as the USA without all the material goods:
Life After Oil: Cuba Can Teach Us How to Live Without Our Dirty Fossil Fuel Addiction
By Jill Richardson, AlterNet
Posted on June 18, 2010, Printed on June 26, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/147256/

As oil pours into the Gulf of Mexico, providing a painful reminder of the cost society pays beyond the gas station pump for fossil fuel energy, it's hard to even begin to imagine what a post-carbon future would look like. If you can't picture it, try looking about 90 miles south of Florida.

Cuba, which enjoyed plentiful oil during much of the latter half of the 20th century, entered a crisis when the Soviet Union and the Socialist Bloc disintegrated. In late 1989, Cuba saw its access to oil, food imports and chemicals used in industrial agriculture whisked away practically overnight. A few years later, in 1992, scarcity increased further when the U.S. tightened its blockade of Cuba. After 20 years of painful transition, Cuba is now a living example of how a society can flourish while treating oil like the scarce, filthy and increasingly risky-to-procure energy source it is.
etc

Hello gang.

I will not get into the "philosophy" of this debate, I have been around this wheel all my life.

Everyone talks about "stuff" and wealth. No one talks about security and freedom.

Quick test:
1. Can you tell your boss "no" if he or she asks you to do something, and be able to survive with the consequences?
2. Can you change what you are doing without fear of being homeless, sick and starving?
3. Can you wake up in the morning feeling sick, and actually not HAVE to be somewhere?
4, If you are really sick, can you hope for some attention and assistance from someone?
5. Is there a spot on earth you can hang out with friends without paying a fee or buying something, which you have to do at restaurants and such just to have a space to be social?
6. At your level of existance, can you have hope of friends and or prospective mates?
7. Can you survive your climate in relative safety and maybe even comfort?
8. Do you live without real fear of hunger?

If you can answer yes to the above questions, you probably have enough. You also have much more than most of the humans on the planet.

RC

Here is an example of needing more stuff in order to keep using the stuff we have:

http://www.economist.com/node/16789834?story_id=16789834&fsrc=rss

Sometimes complexity breeds complexity (and using more stuff)...sometimes that is necessary...unless you can live with less stuff (or you like fouling your own nest).

First off you assume that we all like to keep up with the joneses, when that is not always the case.

I (humor here) don't know any joneses, so why would I want to keep up with someone I don't know.

But seriously, I have never balanced my life on what other people have had, learned early on that I could not get away with doing things that other people were doing in school or elsewhere, when I tried to use the excuse for doing something by what others were doing with my parents. They always taught that you don't care what other people are doing, you do what you want, for the reasons that you know what is right and good, and because you want to do them, not someone else's excuses for doing them.

I have found that in a recent newspaper article that I am one of those rare people in Arkansas that saves his water usage, and collects rainwater, and is very frugal with water use, in a state that is normally wet with water supplies. They were talking about the need to reduce water usage in the state because of the energy costs, and the costs on where they are going to have to go after more water if they don't slow the growth.

But the water issues aside, I also don't do many things like other people do in my neighborhood. There are too many green grass lawn (freaks) for my taste, I'd plant it all in edible plants and get it over with, but my dad doesn't want the front yard gone that route yet. I'd get rid of some of the city codes about that sort of thing if I were in power. But seeing all the problems with city and state government lately I really don't want to stir that pot anytime soon either.

What's enough?

Just having everyone with a little piece of land to call their own. Being able to pay the taxes on it, and being able to live off of it as best you can, without someone ranting about how many trees or gardens you have planted on it, or not on it. ( guess that makes me a bit of a hypocrite for ranting about all the lawn freaks around here).

Of course do we have a country where we could hand out bits of land like we once did ages ago? No, not unless you do a lot of juggling the laws and land issues that have cropped up in the last 50 to 100 years. It'd be nice if we could start fresh and try this all again with a bit more foresight, but that is just wishful thinking.

If I had the money to buy up failed farms, and failed properties, I'd try to do some of that re-juggling of land to people that are willing to use it for themselves and for their children, but just don't have the funds handy to do it all themselves right now.

All that aside, how much is enough for me is the only issue I can really speak on, as everyone else is another story, one that I can't really write without it being just another work of fiction.

I'd barely get by on my $8,600 a year. I'd be able to do it, I'd need to change a few things about our I live now, as I don't live as frugally as I could, if I were forced too do so. (right now I live with my parents and have the benifit of some of their income for expenses, but I'd use a lot less just living by myself here.)

But those changes would not be to much of a shock, as it is not like I am living that high on the hog as it is. Even with the changes coming in the weather, I figure I could still grow about 25% of my food on my little lot in town. I'd still go out food gathering.

I know that a few people on TOD have bare bones living arrangements, but not everyone lives like that. Some people as in a recent Yahoo news article said they couldn't live off anything less than several thousand dollars a month, even one claiming that 300,000 a year would be the lowest they'd want to go if they could have it. Guess that might strain the " what is enough " budget a bit.

What is enough, should be low impact on the environment around you, as we all have to live with any changes that do occur over time, as we are finding out these days in ways that most people wish had been viewed in a better caring manner in the past. Can't just trash the planet and expect it to bounce back trashing after trashing and still support us all without us doing more care and maintaince on the systems we have all taken for granted.

53 more years and I will be 100, and the world will be so much different in 5 years I might not know where I am if I were to fall asleep and wake up just 5 years in the future, let alone 25 or 50. Not going to be an easy road whatever happens, I am just glad I have enough to get by with right now. It might not be the case next year, or next month.

Thoughts from the edge of nowhere, hugs.

Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed and housed world.

Fear, the great motivator, is the tool that the architects of American society now use to sensitize optimal behavior among the American population. Most times, our government uses fear to advance its agenda.

Employers use fear to motivate and control the workforce. In the final analysis, it is fear that sells cars and big houses. This goes along with belonging to the highest social class one can manage; this is now generally perceived to maximize the future prospect for survival.

Buying the right car may lead to a mate that might advance continue propagation of your particular gene pool.

During the dark ages it was the fear of eternal damnation that motivated and controlled the populace.

Coming out of the depression, those that survived that trauma were loathed to spend their money because they were fearful of returning to the horror and the stigma of destitution; but no more.

The consumption economy requires profligate consumer spending to function well and it’s the old standby motivator: fear that still does the job.

You are being manipulated from all corners like a puppet on strings. Think about it.

Not happy with the statement that "All of us like to keep up with the Jones's."
I for one don't feel the need.

How about this?

Ask yourself, does my family and do I go to bed hungry? If the answer is, 'no,' ask, do we throw away food that has spoiled because we prepared too much? If the answer is yes, that is enough.

As the same question about clothing: Are we clean, and kept warm by our clothing? Do we have clothing that we do not wear?

And, about housing: Are we kept warm/cool and dry? Do we have sufficient space for basic needs? Do we have rooms that are seldom used (think a formal living room, only in use when teacher or preacher stops by)?

Do I earn enough to pay for necessary items, like food, clothing, shelter, education for my children, tools of my trade, etc.? That would be enough. Am I making so much that I spend money on frivolity? Do I make so much that I now worry about being taxed too high, or my investments failing? That would be too much. Do I want more from need, or from greed?

And, finally, again, introspectively consider your state of being, and whether it is sustainable. If so, take that final step and be satisfied.

Enjoy the finale... there won't be a replay.

Craig

China just passed Japan and now has the World's second-largest economy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38717767/ns/business-the_new_york_times/

If their growth were to continue unabated at their current pace, China may eclipse the U.S. economy for the number one spot as early as 2030.

How much Chinese growth is enough?

I imagine the answer is not less than achieving the status of largest economy in the World.

We can't complain...our leaders for decades have been preaching the foreign policy of spreading the American way around the World (chasing the almighty World reserve currency unit) and building and having the most stuff.

I have my doubts that the World's sources and sinks are going to allow all this growth to come to pass though...

Приветствую всех жителей блога. Позвольте к вам присоединиться. Хорошего блога должно быть много, поэтому, народ, активнее .. Комментируем...

My family of 4 went to a small green(ish) festival this weekend. It was 70 miles and we drove there in our 5/7 seat car. The car is larger than we really need, (we rarely carry more than 5 people in it) so we loaded up the space we had with an extra small tent, and a few luxuries like pillows. We met my friends, a family of 4 who arrived by train and folding bikes, from 20 miles away. Their journey took longer than ours, and carrying their minimal kit and two tiny tents was a burden on the trains.

We offered to squeeze their luggage and tents into our car for the return trip, as we were driving close to their house on the way home. This we did - all their bags were old and tatty (not that they lack money) and we left them at their back door to await their return.

Unfortunately I failed to drop one bag which got lost in the piles of our own stuff. Now, one of us must make a round trip of 100 miles to return some low (monetary) value items of clothing or spend more than the bag is worth to have it posted back.

It will probably be a larger use of resources than the entire family consumed during their visit to the festival.

Sometimes it is hard not to consume.

'What is the value of solitude, peace and quiet, the ability to be free from overstimulation?' I wondered this morning as I walked to my favorite coffee spot with the intention of preparing to sell some refined version of myself to some new corporate overlord, as the noise of cars and trucks and buses reverberated through my cranium. No, I don't particularly care about making bank, nor climbing the corporate ladder, but for seeming lack of any other options, that is what I am doing. Or trying, anyway, admittedly half-heartedly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/technology/16brain.html?pagewanted=1&r...

Each new gadget, each new material fetish, comes with a price tag much larger than what the Apple Store (over-)charges you for it. The price is sanity, and now that we've (most) all bought into it, insanity appears sane and those who seek a simpler existence strike us as the strange ones. The idea that a more plugged-in life doesn't actually make you happier is somehow news. Well, maybe not to most TOD readers, but you know what I mean: look at the hyper-specialized, hyper-connected world we've built. We're living in the age of Information Overload, and it shows no signs of slowing down. Most of it is just noise, but we start to crave it when it becomes the only stimulation we get. The man without a BlackBerry is now some odd relic of an age gone by. Maybe this is why most of the corporate drones and overlords can't read the signs in the world around them. Looks like Jay Hanson had it right, the corporation has, like some kind of patchwork monster, grown beyond the control of those who created it. We serve it, it serves itself and doesn't particularly care if it isn't sustainable.

Forget keeping up with the Joneses. These days it's all about keeping up with the Jones-bots. And yes, we're going to need covers on ALL those TPS reports.

Looking for a way out? That's fine, the modern world can accommodate you. It needs its outsiders, its critics, and its oddball novelty simple living freaks to legitimize and replicate itself. Just look at those dirty hippies - wouldn't want to live like them, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkCR-w3AYOE&p=D530ADE80B475DC2&playnext=1...

I have noticed that buying something usually means buying several other things. It also gives you a reason to buy other stuff. You buy a car, then you need insurance, and also you want an air freshener because now you are suddenly transporting more everyone and the dog. It also gives responsibility. Suddenly you are opted in automatically to be a designated driver. That is what people need to factor in before they buy. The hidden charges, demands and responsibilities that come with purchases.
The demand to have fun on holiday at all times, so no cooking yourself, over-priced excursions and cheap tat so the people at home don't feel forgotten for instance.

I know very few people that "keep up wth the Joneses". What I do see are a lot of people getting large items on credit because then they can have it now. People buying stuff they need because other stuff needs it, or buying stuff because it was cheap and they like to hoard.

My personal experience is that the majority of the people I have been socializing with are quite reasonable when it comes to purchasing items. However, NONE are preparing in any way for the time of diminishing resources - most believe everything will be solved by the government in a way that will maintain BAU or nearly BAU. A very few can see it coming, but resign to a state of apathy.

There has also been a few who seems to be spending all their income on traveling, expensive cars and likewise. Most of them have been caught off-guard by the financial decline and are now dirt-poor. They still have their oversized house and expensive car, but everything else has been cut away - and it is just a matter of losing a job or a new decline or even a prolonged status quo and they are bankrupted. Unlike in the states, there are no jingle mail or "re-play" option here. If you fuck up - the only way back is paying the debts.

But i can see that the people who has lead a reasonable life within the means and paying off debts (or even saving up) as fast as possible are now in a very good position to scale up on housing and a few are doing it.

I have been one of the most extreme - living on 40m2 for the past 15 years with my wife with no vacations abroad. Now I am scaling up - having purchased a house - I mean, ruin in the country and are now renovating it completely myself. In that process I have purchased enough solarpanels to cover the entire roof and expect to produce enough electricity to cover my heating, rent and, of course, my electricity consumption.

Right now - Im speculating wether I should also invest in a battery park - so that i am not dependent on the electricity company in the winter - where I purchase the electricity that I sold during the summer, but it is very expensive and not very durable. I hope for better battery solutions to come in a hurry !!

I am going for the self-sufficient lifestyle with all the speed possible. I cannot see it being a bad disposition in any possible future scenario - in some scenarios it becomes irrelevant, but a liability it only becomes if things go so bad that my house gets destroyed or confiscated - in that case - i believe nothing really can do a difference to the good side. I do not consider a hole in the ground with 10 years of food storage a real option, but maybe I should reconsider...?

Therefore - I think it is useless to prepare for a complete collapse for normal people - since in those cases the enemy will be in the millions and you will be hopelessly outgunned or your wealth destroyed - crops ruined/stolen - house ruined/burned down.

If things go really wrong with a collapse in production and therefore forces a collapse in population - then I believe this scenario will play out during many years. With groups warring on each others continuously until a stability has been attained. This level is so low compared to the current level because of several reasons: We have an overshoot situation where the natural resources has been eroded - so it is not possible to maintain a pre-industrialized population size. Also large amount of the population are useless because of their illnesses and lack of knowledge to live as before.

But hiding in a hole until everybody up there has killed each others off - without discovering your hole seems to me to be unlikely to succeed in.

ᾧ ὀλίγον οὐχ ἱκανόν, ἀλλὰ τούτῳ γε οὐδὲν ἱκανόν.
Nothing satisfies the man who is not satisfied with a little. -- Epicurus

I want as much land as possible because I know I will take better care of it than 99% of other people out there and upon my death I would likely donate most of it to become a park.

Lots of interesting vewpoints.

Observation: Is there a paradox in that folks who advocate a simpler, sparser lifestyle appear to be in need of much communication - i.e. highly technical manuals on pastoral life, long and often bitter reparte from a self-describel rural recluse, very verbose descriptions of low-impact activities, etc.

Just sayin'...

`What difference does it make how much is laid away in a man`s safe or in his barns, how many head of stock he grazes or how much capital he puts out at interest, if he is always after what is another`s and only counts what he has yet to get, never what he has already ? You ask what is the proper limit to a man`s wealth ? First having what is essential, and second, having what is enough`. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-AD65

And IMO enough is plenty.

Someone who, here in the U.S., did live on $100 a month (or less) for years, to make a point ...

http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2006/07/13/coverstory.html

The world we inhabit appears to be "suffering" from a disease. Some call it "The Big C", which is spreading like a wildfire, destroying the integrity of Earth, and threatening to irreversibly degrade its ecology in our time. But before human beings with feet of clay can do anything to sensibly change the current unsustainable circumstances to sustainable alternatives of a sustainable planetary home fit for future human habitation, we have to become willing to widely share an understanding of what ails humanity, I suppose.

A lot's been said on this thread and what are we to come away with? For one thing, I've learned that I have too much stuff. But now that I have that stuff, what am I supposed to do with it? The stuff exists, I have it, the damage is done. It wouldn't make sense to just put it in the trash, now would it?

I'm surprised that no one mentioned Freecycle in this thread. It's a network of people who give stuff away to keep stuff out of landfills. Check it out: Freecycle.org

Any time you can acquire something used instead of buying new, or give something away instead of trashing it, you are making a difference. I hold on to some of the stuff I have because I know that someday, someone will be able to use it, and then I can give it to them.

I am hindered by an immediate family who values consumerism, having stuff, having nice stuff, and having new stuff. Do I run for my life or stay engaged and try to make a difference? Just a couple weeks ago, my wife came home with a huge TV. I mean this thing makes the lights flicker when you turn it on. I don't need a huge TV. There's few things worth watching on a small TV. Does a big TV make the shows better? The only good thing is that her sister gave her the TV because she got a new one. But it'll make it harder to ignore the ghost hunter shows she likes.

That brings me to my last point: How do you get people to change? Some people will change through education or example when they realize that there's a better way. Most people though won't change until they're forced to, or when the reward for changing out weighs the cost of changing. People really aren't stupid, they do what seems to work for them. Despite the apparent differences of opinion on this thread, I'd say that for the most part, the participants are "preaching to the choir." So how do you get people to change - the ones that need to change (at least in our supposedly enlightened opinion)? The answer is, you don't. People have to make up their own mind. All some people need is a slight nudge, like increasing energy costs. Others will need a catastrophe of biblical proportions before they get it. And even then, some will be trying to find someone to blame.

While our participation in this thread allows us to compare notes, vent, and even debate, it's seems like just so much talk. On the other hand, I look at life as a series of many little choices, instead of few big choices. If the thread helps us make some better choices, that might be the best we can do. We could die at any time, after that we're pretty much irrelevant. Somehow the world will continue to muddle along.

Uuuh, I think, after reading nearly all 313 comments to date, my answer to the question is enough to meet basic needs, and to live in freedom with dignity.

Buy 3 pay for 2 : CCTV Camera/ Iphone 4G/ 3Gs/ BBBOLD2/ Nokia N8 : Free shipping : A+ MOBILE LIMITED
Registered No. 03756711
VAT NO:087627814
Incorporation Date: 1999

Email :aplusmobileltdbonanza@hotmail.com
IM US :aplusmobileltd@gmail.com
Y7 CHAT: aplusmobileltd@y7mail.com

Address : CANDLEFORD, 58 OVER LANE, ALMONDSBURY, SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE, BS32 4BW.
Branch office : 19629 S. McCord Rd.Oregon City, OR 97045 (USA).
Branch office : 1724 W Gardner,Spokane, WA 99201. +1-509-362-226. (USA).
Branch office: Arena Plaza Kerepesi út 22,1087 Budapest 1087, (HUNGARY).

For more product information call us on: +447031744718 OR VOICE CHAT on:aplusmobileltdcustomercare@hotmail.com OR aplusmobileltd@y7mail.com & speak to a representative directly.

INQUIRY: +447031744718 OR +44703174991 - 773 Ext.

Fueled by consistently strong growths in personal and portable electronics devices and an ever increasing demand for the highest quality,A+ Ltd has maintained its mission that responds both to its own change and to new developments in world demand for electronics since its inception in 1999. As one of the major consumer electronic retail and wholesale companies around the globe, A+ltd offers a wide range of name branded products.
WHY BUY FROM US:We will beat any genuine internet price! Finance Available to over 18s, Fast Shipping Guaranteed, Safety and Security Assured.

Aplus Mobile Inc home.
BUY 3 PAY FOR 2 NOW!!!.( WE HAVE ALL BRAND OF MOBILE PHONES/LAPTOPS/DIGITAL CAMERA / CAMCODER & DJ EQUP. IN STOCK ).

Couriers:UPS,TNT,FedEx & DHL ONLY.
Delivery Days :( 38HRS FedEx Express). 42HRS-DHL /UPS/TNT.
Product list:

Apple iphone 4G. @
Apple Ipad 64Gb / 32Gb @
Apple iphone 3G S 32GB @
Apple iphone 3G S 16GB @
Apple iphone 3G 32GB @
Apple iphone 3G 16GB @

NOKIA PHONES:
=============
Nokia X6 / X3 / X2/ N8 @
Nokia C5 / X5 - 01 @
Nokia N97 Mini @
Nokia N900 @
Nokia E97 @
Nokia N97 32GB @
Nokia 6303i classic @

BLACK BERRY PHONES:
===================
Blackberry Curve 3G 9300 @
Blackberry Pearl 3G 9100 & 9105 @
Blackberry Bold 9650 @
Blackberry Bold2 9700 @
BlackBerry Storm2 9520 @
Blackberry 9630 TOUR @

HTC PHONES:
===========
HTC DESIRE @
Google Nexus one @
HTC PURE @
HTC SNAP @
HTC IMAGIO @
HTC Hero @
HTC Touch HD Mini/HD2 @
HTC PRO 2 @

CCTV CAMERA :
============: CCTV item--Embeded DVR, DVR card, IR CCD camera, IP CCD camera, dome CCD camera, bullet CCD camera, high speed CCD camera, waterproof CCD camera, vandal CCD camera,Box camera with ABF function,intelligent keyboard & moderate speed dome,Vari-focal sync.focus camera waterproof IR 60M, Anti-theft alarm system , video doorphone system, intelligent remote control switch & lots more.

With our attention to detail, we serve our clients before, during and after a sale. Our incredible selection of consumer electronics and accessories from every major brand will enable you to choose the right mix of product for any situation. Our 24 hours staffed customer service team can help you with any question you might have during your selection process:

Whether you are purchasing from use on a retail basis or in bulk,A+LTD can help with a wide variety of products. We have warehouses in both the North America and Asia to ensure prompt delivery of your order. We have always offered competitive pricing on retail and volume orders.

In summary, A+ LTD is here to provide our customer the latest gadgets and accessories out there in the market. Besides our wide variety of consumer electronic products, we are also strived to bring the latest industrial news to our customer.

Terms & Conditions:
Please when making inquiry via e-mail, kindly provide a valid contact TELEPHONE NUMBER, this is to reduce online crime as signed under the agreement of the NEW SCOTLAND YARD*/(UK INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES).Police Home Office, UK Central Authority. A+ LTD reserves the right to control the quantity of any items offered for sale.
Mr. Nicolas M. Greg,
Marketing Executive,
aplusmobileltdbonanza@hotmail.com
A+ Ltd| Copyright 2010|. All right reserved.®

People have got to speak out loudly, clearly and often about what desperately needs to be said regarding whatsoever is occurring in our planetary home these days that no talking head, thought leader or opinion maker in the mass media is ready, willing or able to articulate. Much more needs to be said that is equitable, authentic, sustainable and real......and much less that is self-serving, clever, patently unsustainable and unnatural.