Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
I don't see why everyone can't live in a reasonable way

'Reasonable' is culturally determined. Therefore it would in principle be possible to live in a reasonable way at widely different standards of living. You propose what is reasonable to you given what you know and the culture you live in.

However, because humans are bastards they tend to create unequal social organizations. While some societies are relatively egalitarian, the historical evidence is that it is possible for a culture to survive for a long time even if a substantial number of people have an 'unreasonably low' standard of living. Then there's both ex-post-facto cultural justifications for some people's misery, as well as individual adaptation to their living conditions.

Recall

Easy credit prevented things coming to a head earlier, but they would have and for the same reason - people will consume the culturally-determined "necessaries of life" whether or not this entails living above their means

Project Gutenberg: Wealth of Nations

Consumable commodities are either necessaries or luxuries.

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.

Paraphrasing, you could argue "easy energy prevented things from coming to a head earlier, but they would have and for the same reason - people will consume the culturaly-determined "necessaries of life" whether or not this entails living above their environmental means.

The necessary change is cultural as well as political.


En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 at 03:10:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed, but with the advent and mass distribution of mass media, people in poor nations have been informed about the immense quality of life in the developed world, and hence their preferences have already changed. History shows that any solution based on creating a new kind of people always fail. People do change their behaviour, but not because poiticians tell them to but because the world around them change. Banking on changing peoples preferences instead of changing the world is just another way of stating surrender.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 03:11:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I recall being absolutely appalled when travelling in Mozambique, where for the first time I saw the characteristic swollen bellies of kids with Kwashiorkor - starvation.

One night I went to a pub owned by a South African.  I saw a group of guys drinking whiskey and marvelled (to the owner) at how people could afford Whisky.  "It's not only that", he said.  "It has to be an expensive brand of whisky that they have seen advertised and associated with an affluent western lifestyle.  I have cases of cheaper Bell's whisky in the storeroom I can't shift.  They want the Johnny Walker.  It's the same with motorbikes or other branded goods.  It has to be the expensive European/US brand rather than local produce. Branded Coca-Cola sells for three times the price of local fizz."

So yes, the greater the deprivation, the greater the captivation by the symbols of affluence and an affluent lifestyle.  The problem is that I see this as both unattainable and unsustainable for the planet as a whole, and the people who have the most often don't seem to become any less greedy for more as a consequence.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 08:31:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
People do change their behaviour, but not because poiticians tell them to but because the world around them change.

Recent history shows that massive, unrelenting propaganda works.

At the moment, we have an entire advertising industry whose entire raison d'etre is creating and disseminating massive, unrelenting propaganda in favour of expanding consumption. On the other side, we have a few NGOs and a couple of activists who run anti-consumption propaganda on a shoestring budget. It hardly seems improbable that a properly funded, properly engineered anti-consumption propaganda campaign could meet with success.

It has been done before: During the serious shooting wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, governments would actively encourage thrift in order to conserve productive capacity for the war effort. I will leave it to historians to judge the effectiveness of those campaigns, but the precedent for government(-sponsored) anti-consumption propaganda is there.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 02:26:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series