A lifestyle based on having enough is one that I live. I simply cannot understand a need for constantly striving to have more.
I do not own a car. I use public transportation. I see big pickup trucks and SUVs with only one person, the driver, in the vehicle all the time. Greed, a need for status, and willful blindness to the folly of such is one explanation for that, I guess. How big of a vehicle is truly necessary?
I have two vehicles. One gets nearly 60 mpg. The other can haul over a tonne of stuff. Either can run on biodiesel, which I used to make, but I drive so little it isn't worth making any more. Between them, I drive under 2,000 miles a year.
Rural people still need vehicles. I'm picking up a truckload of sheep manure next week. And I drive the Jetta to town (25 miles round trip) less than once a week. But we don't need them much!
Over and over again, I see folks that are willing to Otherize those that don't share the same lifestyles but especially political outlooks - and I just don't understand why. Can you explain it to me, please?
>> "...How big of a vehicle is truly necessary?.."
And the flip side - who is going to decide when "you have enough" for material goods? It's seems apparent that if you had the Power, you'd take that truck/SUV away from them, right? Or as Lloyd has said often, he'd ban them as they are unneeded except for a very few. It comes down to "life by utility" as decided by others for an individual.
Thank you for this piece! I haven’t read Abundance (yet) but I wonder if it’s vision stems from a different understanding of political reality (like, the kinds of valuable policies you outline are political nonstarters in the U.S.)? I’m new to your writing and appreciate your thoughtful perspective. I’m also intrigued by how few vegetables you have for a week! Curious to know how many folks those feed.
We eat a lot more than just that; I was pointing out the relatively unusual root vegetables. We also have potatoes, rice, mushrooms, and more. There are also only two of us and my wife Kelly eats like a bird.
I am wondering what your thoughts of the “Culdesac Tempe” (culdesac.com) car-free neighborhood are in terms of how it fares sufficiency-wise where housing is concerned.
I have not looked at it closely, but love the idea. I worry that Tempe is not the place to be doing this; I once went for a walk in the daytime in summer in Scottsdale not far away and people stopped to asked if I was OK.
I had family that lived there once. So, I get where you’re coming from.
It just so happens that the “PBS News Hour” (pbs.org/newshour) had a segment on the Culdesac Tempe development yesterday, in fact, which is why I thought of mentioning it here. At the end of the segment, “News Hour” correspondent Stephanie Sy concluded her report in effect suggesting that the Culdesac Tempe concept is a model that could be replicated elsewhere. The question is: Will it be?
Really, Lloyd? Did you try the computation of 8.2 billion people, each given 0.5 acres of land, to see what the actual percentage of land mass would be required?
You may wish to reconsider that supposition. And obviously, the actual percentage would vary/your mileage would vary with with increased housing density.
And never forget the power of human ingenuity. You do know that $8.4 billion of rare earths were just "found" in the US with little mining needed, right (to pick on another supposition. Is that sufficient to service ALL uses? Course not. But chemistry advances! And I could go through a lot of your points but that would be rather boring.
But there's a point that you posited that you think is paramount: "Klein and Thompson don’t see these limits or the problems." There are a lot of constraints, restrictions, and problems that have caught your eye over the years. Certain Carbon Upfront is foremost. The problem is that for most people, it isn't that they don't see your issues, they just don't assign to them the same overwhelming priority that you and others here do.
Once again, I circle back to my ever-present question - how will you persuade them to agree with you? After 50 years since Earth Day, the percentage of the world's population that does agree is rather miniscule (I'll leave out those grifters that populate any movement that see that they can reap beaucoup bucks from someone on this for their time). How is that needle to be moved? Until then success will always be 20 or more years away.
And of course, the parallel question to that, for which NO ONE here dares to answer:
>> "What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today.”
Lloyd, you certainly agree with both of those points - but you never answer my simple question of "how will you do that?". The societal demand goes back to "how will you persuade them?" that is answerless thus far.
And the parallel question is "...a radically different system of governance to what is in place today.”
Again, no one dares to tell the truth - they'll hint about it like Simon Michaux just did - they refuse to go into details KNOWING that the majority of those that have Choice will refuse it out of hand, and some will fight it vociferously.
Right now, we have, primarily, democracies and dictatorships. The latter only depends on an authoritarian leader to force his will upon his serfs. The former has citizens who have freedom of choice in almost every aspect of their lives in how they and their families will live - they can vote for the government they want. A dictatorship rips that choice, and other lesser ones, away from them
With dictatorships, you already have the perfect governance to FORCE what Michaux is demanding - nothing radical is needed. As in all fascist/socialist/communist governments, ONLY the State is important - the human role is only to serve the State - there is only the Group as there are no Individuals (except for the nomenklatura that rise to hold Power over others). Thus, they can force Nchaux's "different social contract" onto the unwilling and force the reduction of living standards that Micheaux and Lloyd believe to be necessary upon the populace.
There is no thought, or need, of persuasion - there is only "you will bend your knee".
And no, he has not demanding a "radically different system of governance" - it has always existed, in one form or another throughout history.
My question to you all, if what Michaux is demanding comes true, is that the life that you really would want? Or your children and grandchildren?
Remember, when the State is totally in charge (again, review your history), your Freedom has been taken from you. Does that not count for anything?
Economists are infamous for stating that there are no true answers - only tradeoffs. Certainly Micheaux and I demand far different tradeoffs. While I desire that people are always able to make such choices on their own, Micheaux makes it clear that his tradeoff takes it away.
Which is correct? And can there be any middle ground?
Great response. Maybe I’m naive, but I didn’t read ‘Abundance’ as being against these principles of even efficiency or sufficiency. I think many of the hypotheticals they open with (desalination etc) and problems they rail against (zoning laws and so on) are selected as examples to highlight potential solutions to existing problems, but ultimately abundance wants governance that focuses on outcomes rather than processes — not “deregulation always” or “no government spending on housing.” So if redistributing water works better than desalination, I can’t imagine them pushing tech fixes for the sake of it. (Idk, maybe I’m wrong.) I still see a fair bit of synergy here though.
"105 year old seven time American President" *gulps*
A lifestyle based on having enough is one that I live. I simply cannot understand a need for constantly striving to have more.
I do not own a car. I use public transportation. I see big pickup trucks and SUVs with only one person, the driver, in the vehicle all the time. Greed, a need for status, and willful blindness to the folly of such is one explanation for that, I guess. How big of a vehicle is truly necessary?
I have two vehicles. One gets nearly 60 mpg. The other can haul over a tonne of stuff. Either can run on biodiesel, which I used to make, but I drive so little it isn't worth making any more. Between them, I drive under 2,000 miles a year.
Rural people still need vehicles. I'm picking up a truckload of sheep manure next week. And I drive the Jetta to town (25 miles round trip) less than once a week. But we don't need them much!
>>"...Greed..."
Over and over again, I see folks that are willing to Otherize those that don't share the same lifestyles but especially political outlooks - and I just don't understand why. Can you explain it to me, please?
>> "...How big of a vehicle is truly necessary?.."
And the flip side - who is going to decide when "you have enough" for material goods? It's seems apparent that if you had the Power, you'd take that truck/SUV away from them, right? Or as Lloyd has said often, he'd ban them as they are unneeded except for a very few. It comes down to "life by utility" as decided by others for an individual.
Why don't you ask the person.
Thank you for this piece! I haven’t read Abundance (yet) but I wonder if it’s vision stems from a different understanding of political reality (like, the kinds of valuable policies you outline are political nonstarters in the U.S.)? I’m new to your writing and appreciate your thoughtful perspective. I’m also intrigued by how few vegetables you have for a week! Curious to know how many folks those feed.
We eat a lot more than just that; I was pointing out the relatively unusual root vegetables. We also have potatoes, rice, mushrooms, and more. There are also only two of us and my wife Kelly eats like a bird.
I am wondering what your thoughts of the “Culdesac Tempe” (culdesac.com) car-free neighborhood are in terms of how it fares sufficiency-wise where housing is concerned.
I have not looked at it closely, but love the idea. I worry that Tempe is not the place to be doing this; I once went for a walk in the daytime in summer in Scottsdale not far away and people stopped to asked if I was OK.
I had family that lived there once. So, I get where you’re coming from.
It just so happens that the “PBS News Hour” (pbs.org/newshour) had a segment on the Culdesac Tempe development yesterday, in fact, which is why I thought of mentioning it here. At the end of the segment, “News Hour” correspondent Stephanie Sy concluded her report in effect suggesting that the Culdesac Tempe concept is a model that could be replicated elsewhere. The question is: Will it be?
>> ...There is not enough land,..."
Really, Lloyd? Did you try the computation of 8.2 billion people, each given 0.5 acres of land, to see what the actual percentage of land mass would be required?
You may wish to reconsider that supposition. And obviously, the actual percentage would vary/your mileage would vary with with increased housing density.
And never forget the power of human ingenuity. You do know that $8.4 billion of rare earths were just "found" in the US with little mining needed, right (to pick on another supposition. Is that sufficient to service ALL uses? Course not. But chemistry advances! And I could go through a lot of your points but that would be rather boring.
But there's a point that you posited that you think is paramount: "Klein and Thompson don’t see these limits or the problems." There are a lot of constraints, restrictions, and problems that have caught your eye over the years. Certain Carbon Upfront is foremost. The problem is that for most people, it isn't that they don't see your issues, they just don't assign to them the same overwhelming priority that you and others here do.
Once again, I circle back to my ever-present question - how will you persuade them to agree with you? After 50 years since Earth Day, the percentage of the world's population that does agree is rather miniscule (I'll leave out those grifters that populate any movement that see that they can reap beaucoup bucks from someone on this for their time). How is that needle to be moved? Until then success will always be 20 or more years away.
And of course, the parallel question to that, for which NO ONE here dares to answer:
>> "What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today.”
Lloyd, you certainly agree with both of those points - but you never answer my simple question of "how will you do that?". The societal demand goes back to "how will you persuade them?" that is answerless thus far.
And the parallel question is "...a radically different system of governance to what is in place today.”
Again, no one dares to tell the truth - they'll hint about it like Simon Michaux just did - they refuse to go into details KNOWING that the majority of those that have Choice will refuse it out of hand, and some will fight it vociferously.
Right now, we have, primarily, democracies and dictatorships. The latter only depends on an authoritarian leader to force his will upon his serfs. The former has citizens who have freedom of choice in almost every aspect of their lives in how they and their families will live - they can vote for the government they want. A dictatorship rips that choice, and other lesser ones, away from them
With dictatorships, you already have the perfect governance to FORCE what Michaux is demanding - nothing radical is needed. As in all fascist/socialist/communist governments, ONLY the State is important - the human role is only to serve the State - there is only the Group as there are no Individuals (except for the nomenklatura that rise to hold Power over others). Thus, they can force Nchaux's "different social contract" onto the unwilling and force the reduction of living standards that Micheaux and Lloyd believe to be necessary upon the populace.
There is no thought, or need, of persuasion - there is only "you will bend your knee".
And no, he has not demanding a "radically different system of governance" - it has always existed, in one form or another throughout history.
My question to you all, if what Michaux is demanding comes true, is that the life that you really would want? Or your children and grandchildren?
Remember, when the State is totally in charge (again, review your history), your Freedom has been taken from you. Does that not count for anything?
Economists are infamous for stating that there are no true answers - only tradeoffs. Certainly Micheaux and I demand far different tradeoffs. While I desire that people are always able to make such choices on their own, Micheaux makes it clear that his tradeoff takes it away.
Which is correct? And can there be any middle ground?
I posit that there isn't, simply by definition.
Great response. Maybe I’m naive, but I didn’t read ‘Abundance’ as being against these principles of even efficiency or sufficiency. I think many of the hypotheticals they open with (desalination etc) and problems they rail against (zoning laws and so on) are selected as examples to highlight potential solutions to existing problems, but ultimately abundance wants governance that focuses on outcomes rather than processes — not “deregulation always” or “no government spending on housing.” So if redistributing water works better than desalination, I can’t imagine them pushing tech fixes for the sake of it. (Idk, maybe I’m wrong.) I still see a fair bit of synergy here though.