The very premise behind the conservation movement is grossly flawed. Society has been trying to force restraint and discipline over our lives since abundance first arrived on our horizon, but as a whole we’re very resistant to that sort of manipulation. We wouldn’t have to push such restrictions on ourselves through religions or laws or social mores if we were already predestined toward moderation. We tend to very easily forget that conservation today most likely equals surpluses tomorrow.
So why on earth would the conservation movement make its platform, well, conservation? It was doomed from the beginning. We no longer think of the word conservation as synonymous with protection and preservation, we view it closer to quotas, controls, restrictions. The conservation movement may not have caused such connotations, but it sure ain’t helping. Rationing means war, at least it once did, and now not even for war and recession have we been proven that willing to conserve.
We are a species who has survived and thrived because we are drawn to abundance, not preprogrammed to conserve. During periods of lean times we have been forced to learn the hard way, repeatedly, but it never really sticks. The next year, or decade, or generation we have completely forgotten about that hardship again, and we are once again absorbed in our visions of abundance.
In society we honor and reward the man who earns so much he can’t possibly ever spend it all, over the man who may work equally hard but at a fraction of the wages, even if we know the rich man to be a total douche. Why is that?  We always reward abundance-abundance in beauty, skill, achievement, talent, used to be even in obesity, back when that was a sign of material abundance, now that obesity is usually a sign of malnutrition, we don’t value it anymore. In this country an abundance of garbage doesn’t bother us at all, because it’s still an abundance. So until there is a lack of space that makes the abundance of garbage excessively unpleasant, we are very unlikely to do anything about it.
When reality has stepped in and shown us a real truth about human nature — an unpleasant sort of truth along the lines of prostitutes, abortions, and drugs will always exist, until the end of time, no matter what we do to try to change that – you sometimes wish folks would start working with human nature instead of against it. So here is another unpleasant truth: We will never embrace conservation as a concept, because it’s just not attractive. As Bryan Welch writes in his recent article for Mother Earth News, Creating a Sustainable Society: Four Questions We Should Ask, “Austerity is a drag. Most people know that - and resist it.”
There is a very simple formula to change all this. I’ll bet you can guess it. Try right now in the comments section and I’ll tell ya if you’re right next week.
Comments are closed or deactivated
To quote the old tune from WWI, “How You Gonna Keep’em Down on the Farm After They’ve Seen Gay Paree?”
Mishelle. Not sure what you are looking for but it probably won’t come from this avowed spendthrift hedonist. My only constant comment on the subject is that I reject the usual definition of economics - the science of allocating scarce resources. We now know that resources are boundless and only limited by technology, i.e new technology unvails new resources. My lifetime goal is to change the definition of economics to, “satisfying the perceived needs of the people.” The key word is “perceived,” since I do not get involved in discussion of what is “adequate” or “just” or “merited” or “necessary” or “prudent” or suitable ” or some other Neo-Calvinist concept. I just look at how to fulfill the desires of the people.
Footnote to comment: I say, “new technology unvails new resources,” can best be seen today in the entire computer world - information technology, internet, communications, and more - which is built on sand, literally. Silicon from sand is the stuff that makes it all work. I don’t need to remind you of our abundance of sand. And this is not a new resource, but a new use for an old resource.
Very interesting Leo. i like what you are saying about economics and i wonder if you aren’t much closer to “my answer” than you think, hehe! Since you bring up technology, excellent example, do you have any thoughts on the abundance of information, these days clearly tipping into overkill, and how it might have a ripple effect on world economy? I ask considering the precarious state of media and publishing in the US, which in turn eventually influences just about everything i can think of!
I wish I could disagree with your pessimism regarding people’s ability to change for the better, even with regard to consumption. After all one of the earliest ‘truisms’ I learned in my advertising career went as follows: “You can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”
Still, I think the youngest generation ( I forget what name we have given them; is it the millenialists?) may have absorbed something the older generations haven’t. Many of them seem to have more sensible ideas about equity, resources, broad-based acceptance of others, and a bunch of similar stuff.
So, the thing that is needed (and I doubt this is what you have in mind) is for all the older folks to simply leave the scene and take their bad old values with them. Hmmmm, maybe I’m not in favor of that solution. What’s yours?
Mishelle. I am not sure what you mean by saying, “the precarious state of media and publishing in the US, which in turn influences just about everything I can think of.” Do you mean that the media and publishing per se affect everything or their feared demise?
I gave a speech in 1982 to a large gathering of businessmen in Helsinki, Finland in which I noted that the economy had been driven (pun) for most of the 20th Century by transportation, e.g. the largest companies were car makers and fuel providers. I predicted that the main engine for economic growth from that point on would be communications. Enter the internet, cell phones, face book, twitter, blogs, music downloads, cable and satellite television, and more, all aimed at communicating ideas, information, art, data, news and more.
Seated in the audience was a large contingent of senior staff and officials from Nokia who I knew very well. I either confirmed what they had indendently identifiied or they took my message to heart. Subsequently they became the largest cell phone maker in the world while they sold off their auto tire business.
There is no question that the wealth of information and news circulating the planet via our highly developed communication systems is changing the way the economy will develop and its direction.
Hi Leo,
what i was thinking specifically was the delivery of the message, news along with entertainment–i am trying to guess how the cross-section of the “cult of the amateur” and the “personality branding” will play out, especially economically. i expect it has global reach and trickles through everything not only for the obvious reason of internet as vehicle, but especially because we are at once glorifying the subjective while devaluing “authority” , and creating this bridge between hyper-locality and world audience. But show me the money in this virtual world! Who is making the money next?
of course communication and information will continue to change and influence everything, but in what ways?
i agree about the youngest generation, whatever they’re called! But I think this has been happening gradually every generation and now it’s finally markedly obvious. And i think when we listen to them more they respect us more, and maybe we have an era when we become less rigid in our roles as life’s “teachers” and “students”.
Mishelle. I find that many people in business, do not know what business they are in. When I gave my speech in 1982 everyone insisted that the main force driving the economy was Information Technology. I replied no, the growth business was communications and that IT was simply one way to facilitate this business. I believe I was correct since it has been the internet, cell phones, skype, twitter and face book that define the trend, not computers and data manipulation per se that lead the way. I must confess that I do not undersand all that you ask but “who is making the money next” is clear to answer. The best short term investment, either with funds or time, i.e. job maket, is the rebirth of the securitized debt market The “Great Recession” has been a hiccup for this major “industry.” We will go back to supplying the greatest amount of credit from this source since nothing else can replace it.
The “Great Recession” will put a damper on transportation so commuinications will continue to be the more important spur to economic growth. I expect visual communications to become the order of the day so look for jobs here and put your money in this develoopment. We already see what has happened with face book and skype.
No matter what happens to the health care reform plan, health care will continue to enlarge its share of the economy. Since the government has opted to continue to pay for health care from insurance plans, you will be well advised to invest in these companies. Careers in health care will only become even more attractive. Of course a major development here will be communications applied to health care. The most important new development will be putting all available information on personal heath records into a centralized data bank and providing instant access to this by medical practioners anywhere.
Leisure will continue to be a major growth industry. Among the various sub-sections will be reading and writing which figure large in this online journal. But the writing will be “communicated” to the reader electronically, not on paper, e.g. this journal.
Believe it or not that most ancient of economic activities, agriculture, is due for a major change, if not renaissance. Food production will follow two major, if not contradictory, trends: even larger factory farms and food produced closer to the consumer, e.g. your project.
wow thanks for the expertise Leo! As for the media/publishing crisis, just came across this fabulously entertaining article you might like about Twitter: http://www.alternet.org/story/127623/twitter_nation_has_arrived%3A_how_scared_should_we_be/
MIshelle. Frankly I see a much larger role to be played by skype than by twitter. I jokingly called last year’s “revolution” in Iran as the “Twitter” revolution. The wealthy class there actually thought they could mold international opinion with “bon mots.”
When I did my turn in the State Department’s central processing operation, essentially the group that monitored reporting from the field and other information to keep senior officials current on events, there were a few rules for your writing. First, no matter how long the report, or reports, or how voluminous the information, you had to convey the matter in one paragraph. Second, the title had to reach out and grab the reader by the neck with the strength of your hold reinforced by your opening sentence. Third, your “twitter” was designed to encourge the reader to go to the full report. Believe me, I learned how to reduce a 30 page carefully crafted report into one paragraph and grab the reader’s attention.
1 Pingback & Trackback