Posts
I saw this sign in Target:
Upon first glance, I thought to myself, "That's a good mantra to live by". After a few steps I turned back for further inspection. It struck me that this reminder to live simply is a fancied up piece of department store art that costs $15. It seems to me that buying this reminder to 'live simply' violates that same tenet.
This brings up something that has been frustrating me more and more recently. It feels good to fill our lives with things that remind us of phrases like 'Live simply'. We feel like better, maybe even deeper people by surrounding ourselves with such pearls of wisdom and maybe people that visit our homes will think we are interesting after seeing it. Unfortunately, most of the time it's a facade. Some company has taken an idea that is powerful and important and mass produced it with some computer art. It's so frustrating to me that corporations have figured out how to play all of us. They know that some of us appreciate the sentiment, but don't embrace enough to resist spending $15 to have a decoration that states it. We are supposed to put this reminder on our walls and feel like we are good people for doing so and we don't have to change anything about our lives. It makes us feel good and takes almost no effort on our parts. I'm tired of being coddled like this, I want real change. I don't want my life to be an overpriced department store version of the change I want to see in the world.
Since I'm sick of corporations hijacking things that were once meaningful (see greenwashing), I made a DIY version of the sign:
It's made out of a piece of cardboard that was on its way to the recycling bin. I wrote the words with sharpee and tacked it to the wall in my bedroom. So, now I have a reminder that fits the "live simply" way of life.
I agree with what you are saying, although I wonder where the line is between living simply and living in excess. They both seem like relative ideas to me. We were talking about my starting to participate in ultrarunning. This will, as we discussed, lead me to purchase more specialty clothing which I wouldn't need if I did not participate in ultrarunning. So living by the "living simply" mantra seems good, and I agree with it, but where does living simply become living in excess?
ReplyDeleteThey're most certainly relative, in my opinion. I think on a case by case basis, it would be easy to say that some people are living in excess. Drawing an exact line, I would wager, is impossible.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should get hung up on the line. I don't want to give out 'living simply' certificates. I think people should think about their purchases and determine which are necessary and which are luxuries. Then, maybe cut back on some of the luxuries. I think we should weigh the impact of the purchase. Buying some clothing will have some environmental impact, but it's pretty small. Buying a private jet and cruising around the world, is on shaky ground, though.
Ultrarunning is a hobby for you and is something that occupies your time and brings you happiness. It's hard to say that the equipment needed for it is an excessive luxury. I think there is a difference between living simply and not really living. Do things that you love, but do them responsibly.
This isn't a good suggestion for special running clothes, but I'm trying to get into buying used. The environmental impact of a used product is already realized and its purchase doesn't translate into increased demand. There is a lot of excess in our society, so it shouldn't be hard to choose used from time to time.
I was thinking along the same lines, but I just felt that your post left me hanging. This is a good addition, however.
ReplyDeleteSince I brought up the idea of purchasing specialty running clothes, I will add one more thing. If we put this on the side of excessive living, could this be offset by my living simply in other ways? Sort of like carbon credits but I'm the only actor in this scenario.
I think the idea offset idea is interesting. It assumes that there is a minimum that must be reached to be living simply, though. A lifestyle like Gandhi's, would not allow for this. I think that lifestyle would shun all kinds of luxury purchases. If you can live without it, then do so. However, Gandhi was a pretty extraordinary person and we're not all going to live up to that. There's a line that we cross that would alienate us from society.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a catch 22 here, I want to live simply and by doing so, show other people that they can, as well. If I am so extreme that I give up all worldly goods, people will just think I'm crazy and won't want to live like I do.
I think the offset is a good idea to keep in mind. If you make a decision that is some form of luxury, try to make a few that are more responsible. I don't think you have a lot to worry about, Josh. It would difficult to accuse you of living in excess.
It is an interesting topic: how far do we need to recede from the world to actually live simply.
ReplyDeleteSome might say that writing this phrase on corrugated cardboard with a sharpie is also a contradictory sentiment. I feel that this could very easily be a "label" for people who want to look cool. The idea itself cannot be expressed in 2 words, but there needs to be a good way to sum it up. Unfortunately, that sum can be hijacked by less-than-savory folk. Fortunately, this won't stop people who really care about the idea itself.
I have seriously considered several times lately the idea of becoming a mountain man. Not depending on the world for much of anything. It's an interesting thought, but I am not sure how "necessary" it is. I actually have a draft post already started about what progress really means.
I agree that there is a difference between being a consumer whore and being a person who takes advantage of the technology available today. I think a hard line is impossible to draw, but could we draw a fuzzy line? If so, what does that even mean? So many more questions arise!