By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensibly necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person, of either sex, would be ashamed to appear in public without them. In Scotland, custom has rendered them a necessary of life to the lowest order of men; but not to the same order of women, who may, without any discredit, walk about barefooted. In France, they are necessaries neither to men nor to women; the lowest rank of both sexes appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes, and sometimes barefooted. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend, not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people. All other things I call luxuries, without meaning, by this appellation, to throw the smallest degree of reproach upon the temperate use of them. Beer and ale, for example, in Great Britain, and wine, even in the wine countries, I call luxuries. A man of any rank may, without any reproach, abstain totally from tasting such liquors. Nature does not render them necessary for the support of life; and custom nowhere renders it indecent to live without them.
and wine, even in the wine countries, I call luxuries. A man of any rank may, without any reproach, abstain totally from tasting such liquors. Nature does not render them necessary for the support of life; and custom nowhere renders it indecent to live without them.
I would consider indecent to live without wine! "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
Like Oscar Wilde, I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best... "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
Although I guess I could start referring to the domestic product as "wine," making those little quote marks with my fingers every time I say it. Or I could say "so-called wine," with or without the little finger-quotes.
You clearly don't live in Egypt.
NO, but you can find excellent wines in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Lebanon, let alone Turkey... "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
I travel often enough that I am able to keep a relatively good supply of decent wine on hand, either through duty-free purchases or flat-out smuggling. I have honed the concealment of wine & whiskey bottles in my luggage into an art form -- out of necessity, of course. ;-) (Would it be crass to take pleasure in the very act of smuggling?)
So, clearly, what constitutes a "decent" standard of living is partly a cultural construct.
Well, decent is usually taken to mean a first derivative of constant improvement and enhanced life opportunities.
A contraction of opportunities is considered unacceptable whether or not it's sustainable.
Aside from a few eco-pioneers, there is nowhere in the developed world which doesn't take this as a given.
So I think if you want to define sustainable you have to start with a cultural redefinition before you can get to a practical one.
This isn't just theory. In practice people only put up with work because they're distracted by a constant stream of shiny new toys every year. If that stream stops, you either have totalitarianism - to keep the proles in place - or revolution.
At that point physical sustainability will probably come out in the wash anyway.
I haven't see anyone writing about cultural sustainability as a concept - it's implied in Maslow, but it doesn't seem to be talked about explicitly.
If you create a sustainable world where everyone spends 12 hours a day growing food, you no longer have the same culture that you have today. So although you've 'saved' something, you haven't actually saved your civilisation.
This might not be a bad thing - some people would love a culture where there's nothing to do except grow food, and people like Bookchin argue that this is how it should be, and people who grow stuff are more important than people who think about stuff.
But converting a culture back to subsistence will have a huge effect on people's emotional and cultural horizons. What defines our civilisation is accumulation of insight and information. We could probably work out sustainable ways to support that, but only if we start from the premise that accumulation of insight and information isn't a bad thing and should continue in some form.
The challenge to sustainability isn't just about growing food and producing energy, but maintaining enlightenment values of curiosity and cultural development. I think by default if you have steady-state physical and economic sustainability you'll most likely get steady-state art and science too - which may mean there won't be a whole of it.
How about 6 hours per day, six days per week, for agricultural work for all who are adult and physically capable? That leaves a fair amount of time to build wind turbines and to write sonnets.
I wasn't there, but some observers of working class' life from the last two centuries in the U.S. claim that some loggers and cowboys knew Shakespeare well enough to shout the lines out when the plays were presented at the local dancehall. Then there's the down-home musicians, of whom I have known many, who also put in a full (U.S. terms) workweek. paul spencer
great comment, but i beg to disagree...
high tech can facilitate innovation and technical genius, but just because it has accelerated exponentially these last 100 years is no reason to think that we won't continue to grow scientifically in a plateau of 80's portugese peasant level life.
many great inventions we still use today were born without the huge advantages computing gives us now.
we have gone to the edge, and if we pull back now, we will have learned the lessons from gazing into the abyss, and will have to be more responsible from now on...
we have the tools... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Balance - moderation - concepts that have been proven to serve us all very well, but somehow dynamism has the cachet. paul spencer
even cavemen didn't live in a 'static' environment, but tbg was inferring that if we go back to 1800 style life we may not have any more great scientific breakthrough, or many less.
my guess is the proportion we lose because of less ubiquitous access to tech will be more than repaid by the healthier living conditions ensuing from not spewing so much damn sulphur, carbon, mercury, benzene and strontium, to name but few, into our environments.
just guessing tho'... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
And the assumption of "less ubiquitous access to tech" is justified because? Or that spewing pollution is a necessary pre-condition to electronic technology, which is what I assume you mean by "tech". Or are you expecting to forget how to school a horse?
no, i think we _could
i mean compared to running 18-wheelers back and forth carrying california oranges to florida and vice versa etc, natch...
a little hit on the ET crackpipe after cutting grass for the rabbits and other chores... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i do silly, yes, but i was pulling that number out of you know where...
i personally believe we'll get to keep the high tech communications, the dvds, torrents whatever, because without them there might be the kind of social unrest characteristic also of those times..
maybe there'll be less pcs, we may have to share more, but i do think without the mass entertainment people have become addicted to, there'd be chaos.
what we probably won't have is so many techy gadgets like electric nosehair clippers, leafblowers etc...
we'll be raking those leaves for compost anyway...
and what's horse training got to do with tech?
i'm not arguing with you. lol! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Restricting the term to just mean the most recent products of "high" technology is plain wrong. Horse schooling to produce a rideable or bidable horse is a technology: applied knowledge.
in my ignorance i was willing to concede you that lunge lines qualified!
now i see even my brain's effluvia is a form of tech!
i feel suddenly more equipped.... no equine quip intended... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
you know the drill...
trust you to show up, your ruthless and immoderate use of puns is infectious ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
thanks for enlightening me, mustard man...
i like it on (potato) pancakes
<dux>
i meant it affectionately, but you knew that... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
People just don't satisfy their need for food before they start worrying about status or morality or affiliation: we don't work that way. We're capable of starving ourselves to death in pursuit of "higher levels" of need.
Those "higher levels" of need are essential to any definition of decency that considers people as more than economic machines.
