On Sat, 10 Jul 1999, Brad McCormick wrote:
> > > I am generally as suspicious of "virtue" as I am of vice.
> >
> > This is basically a wise attitude, but it shouldn't turn into paranoia. ;-)
>
> It is not paranoia to be afraid in a threatening situation (-:
The question is what is threatening for you from people who choose a
(materially) simple lifestyle for themselves. As for those who may want
to convert others, I believe no sane simple-lifers will deny you the right
to wear glasses if you need them. Simple life is about abolishing the
things we _don't_ need, not the things we need. It seems that the
overconsumers are the most threatening group for all of us.
> > There are surely many shades/facets/flavors/etc. of "simple living", but
> > I'm not sure what your point is here. The basic idea of s.l. seems to be
> > to minimize unnecessary/harmful consumption of resources, and I wonder
>
> What is unnecessary? What is harmful?
Let's say at least 50% of the present consumerism. Let's abolish these
50% first and then discuss the details of the rest. ;-)
> When a physician excises a
> melanoma from a person's body, the physician is doing harm to
> the melanoma --> the physician is killing the cancer! Clearly,
> to do this is not *necessary*.
Removing the cancer _is_ clearly necessary for the patient to survive.
But the superfluous overconsumption is clearly not necessary for people
to survive -- quite on the contrary ! (both re. environment and diet)
Rather, this overconsumption can be described as a cancer whose removal
is necessary for survival -- not only the survival of other creatures
but also of the overconsumers themselves: Remember that the top killers
(heart disease, cancers, car accidents etc.) are caused by overconsumption.
> > Aren't you confusing "simple life" with "simple minds" ? Or in other words:
> > Confusing material simplicity with mental simplicity ?
>
> A non-trivial question is what level of material base is required
> to permit the development of a particular level of superstructure
> (a.k.a. "culture").
The point is that the present industry focuses on the superfluous gadgets,
and in the result this is pretty counter-productive for culture. The
industry isn't interested in culture at all, only in profits. (Ask REH
if you don't believe me ;-}) The U$ are the prime example where this
leads to -- quite the contrary of culture in the literal sense.
> The aim of technology (in my opinion) should be to
> transform to the greatest extent possible all that which
> merely happens to exist, into caring responsiveness to each
> person's (and, insofar as they participate in awareness, each
> animal's, ghosts's, diety's, etc.) hopes and needs.
Yes, but the present technology has quite different aims.
> > > We know that some of the simple livers
> > > believe that [...] it is not
> > > OK for humans to -- exist.
> >
> > Have you personally met such a person, or is this a prejudice from the NYT ?
>
> I've known a couple fairly militant vegetarians (with rich
> parents...).
I know a whole lot of them (also on international lists), but not one of
them believes that it is not OK for humans to *exist* (probably because
those who believe this have already committed suicide?). Again, we should
distinguish between right to exist and right to behave in a certain way.
> But what level of "right to exist" should I grant
> to a mole on my chest which is bleeding and pieces breaking off of it?
I bet the Earth is asking itself this for a long time now. ;-/
BTW, a mole isn't a creature. As for cancers, see above.
> P.S.: Is the computer you use to
> engage in this discourse part of the simple life?-:)
This question had to pop up in this context, of course. Yes, my computer
represents the "simple life" philosophy quite well, because it is very
efficient in terms of benefits per resources used: For me, it replaces
the TV set and various books and newspapers (your NYT edition kills more
trees than my computer), and I also use it to make a living, so I need no
other means of production and no car either, and no airplanes to meet
interesting folks abroad. And because it's a Macintosh, it can be used
for many years without replacing/upgrading the hardware every few months
(as is necessary with Wintel garbage). ;-)
An old version of simple life was: "My rifle, my pony, and me" (Dean Martin),
the modern version is "My education, my computer, and me". :-D
Chris
