
Are you sick of hearing me talk about the 100-Mile Diet yet? How about if I change the subject? I've had this little dilemma gnawing at me these last couple of weeks. It all started when I picked up the book Affluenza by John De Graaf et al. at the library. You see, while it does offer up many thought-provoking ideas about the sustainability of our consumer behaviors, it paints quite a grim picture of today's society, and makes me wonder about, well, the sustainability of sustainability.
A few side notes for those of you not familiar with the book: It is based on the premise that today's society is afflicted with a "disease" (called, you guessed it, Affluenza, a play on words using the word influenza) which sees us consuming vast amounts of goods, resources, all in a bid to satisfy an inner yearning which can never be fulfilled by material goods, and which is self-perpetuating. It first describes the symptoms, explains the causes and goes on to propose some treatments.
While reading the book, I've found myself alternately nodding my head in complete agreement, and shaking my head in complete denial. Yes, yes, this society is way too geared towards consumption, and the costs (less literally than figuratively) are astronomical (think ecology). Reading this book has made me pause, reflect and re-evaluate many of my "needs". It's also re-affirmed my philosophy towards material goods. That is, give me just enough. Not so little that I feel deprived, not too much that I can't figure out what to do with. Just enough. But reading this book has also made me aware of the sustainability conundrum. This passage at the end (p.232) nailed to the point home for me: "Spiritual leader Joanna Macy urges our civilization to take a deep breath, admit we have a major problem, and collectively go cold turkey".
Which is fine if you're a "cold turkey" kind of person, but I am willing to bet that most of us aren't. Is quitting all consumption realistic? And if you make that dramatic lifestyle decision and come at it from a deprivation standpoint, doesn't it defeat the whole purpose? After all, how long can you deprive yourself before feelings of resentment and entitlement start to set in? It reminds me of the dieter who starts a strict diet based on limiting the calories/ types of foods/ portions etc. and who deprives himself to lose weight until one day he decides he just can't starve anymore and poof he's off the bandwagon, binging, and back at square one.
So tell me, is depriving ourselves dramatically over the long term really sustainable? Or are we better off continuing to find ways to gradually reduce needless consumptions, while educating ourselves, making wiser decisions, but also discovering ways to produce the products we do need in cleaner, more energy efficient ways?
A few side notes for those of you not familiar with the book: It is based on the premise that today's society is afflicted with a "disease" (called, you guessed it, Affluenza, a play on words using the word influenza) which sees us consuming vast amounts of goods, resources, all in a bid to satisfy an inner yearning which can never be fulfilled by material goods, and which is self-perpetuating. It first describes the symptoms, explains the causes and goes on to propose some treatments.
While reading the book, I've found myself alternately nodding my head in complete agreement, and shaking my head in complete denial. Yes, yes, this society is way too geared towards consumption, and the costs (less literally than figuratively) are astronomical (think ecology). Reading this book has made me pause, reflect and re-evaluate many of my "needs". It's also re-affirmed my philosophy towards material goods. That is, give me just enough. Not so little that I feel deprived, not too much that I can't figure out what to do with. Just enough. But reading this book has also made me aware of the sustainability conundrum. This passage at the end (p.232) nailed to the point home for me: "Spiritual leader Joanna Macy urges our civilization to take a deep breath, admit we have a major problem, and collectively go cold turkey".
Which is fine if you're a "cold turkey" kind of person, but I am willing to bet that most of us aren't. Is quitting all consumption realistic? And if you make that dramatic lifestyle decision and come at it from a deprivation standpoint, doesn't it defeat the whole purpose? After all, how long can you deprive yourself before feelings of resentment and entitlement start to set in? It reminds me of the dieter who starts a strict diet based on limiting the calories/ types of foods/ portions etc. and who deprives himself to lose weight until one day he decides he just can't starve anymore and poof he's off the bandwagon, binging, and back at square one.
So tell me, is depriving ourselves dramatically over the long term really sustainable? Or are we better off continuing to find ways to gradually reduce needless consumptions, while educating ourselves, making wiser decisions, but also discovering ways to produce the products we do need in cleaner, more energy efficient ways?










