Discussion about this post

User's avatar
p.j. melton's avatar

Lloyd, I 100% agree with you that we need to conserve resources rather than building more crap McMansions and destructive car infrastructure. But I think the underlying idea behind boosting “abundance” has very little to do with our persistent creation of extraneous shit.

I take it to mean that Earth has abundant resources, but they are inequitably claimed and incoherently destroyed by the rich and are therefore unavailable to the poor, who must live in a world of strategically imposed scarcity.

We absolutely DO need more homes! Millions, possibly billions, of people have what you might (euphemistically) call “insufficient” housing. Most people on Earth would love the chance to have “sufficient” resources. So I guess where I depart from you is in the definition of “we.”

If “we” means rich and middle-class humans who have too much already, then we should absolutely be focused on sufficiency. But if “we” means most of humanity, we do not have enough food, clean water, transportation, decent work, or (yes) housing. Most of our species is scrambling for meager crumbs left by the sickeningly wasteful lifestyles that are common here in the Global North—though millions of us, even here, are food and housing insecure too.

My sufficiency is another person’s abundance.

How we begin as humans to offer sufficient resources to everyone is an important conversation, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept that there’s plenty to go around (abundance). What’s wrong is that the abundant resources get hogged and compromised by the rich. If we can all learn to share, though, everyone can have enough (sufficiency). Sufficiency and abundance are not really at odds.

Expand full comment
Steve Hanley's avatar

Good morning. :Lloyd. I am a faithful reader and often use the ideas you present to spark articles of my own for CleanTechnica. I did so yesterday and found the comments revealing, as many demonstrated differences of opinion about where the line between sufficiency and abundance should be.

I read Abundance earlier this year and found its explanation of how progressive policies inhibit many of the ideas progressive's champion thought provoking. Thank you for continuing to express yourself clearly and forcefully.

Here is a link to my article, should you care to see what my readers have had to say about the ongoing tension between abundance and sufficiency. Personally, I tend more toward the sufficiency side of things.

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/06/02/abundance-or-sufficiency-charting-a-path-to-the-future/#comment-6715971471

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts