| > asking people to live worse lives just seems to me to be a political
non starter I agree that if you ask people to live a "worse" life for the sake of
future generations most people are too selfish and insecure to
cooperate. My disagreement is that it is necessarily worse. If you factor out agriculture, essential goods transport and building
maintenance, which admittedly are big factors, then a period of zero
growth, a life with less gratuitous material goods, helicopters,
jet-skis, and a tenth gold iPhone is a hardly undesirable except to a
few, A life where I can walk to work, shop and meet people in my local
community, take vacations within 200 miles by public transport, eat
locally grown food, and where we all spend much less screen time
plugged into the Matrix is a much better life as far as I can see. Mostly, I think it will be worse for all the people who want to sell
things that nobody really needs. If this is to succeed, through choice and markets, without some sort of
communist World Economic Forum telling us we'll have to "own nothing"
then the most important thing we can sell is a mature vision of a
better life. Therefore we ought to stop equating reduction of
consumption with a "worse" life. |
Don’t forget about the energy required to modify all our current systems. To fight against the current system and overcome the inertia to change it.
Also - that’s your vision of Utopia. Maybe others want to colonise the solar system ? Which is not possible by reducing our energy consumption.
Why are you so motivated to make sacrifices that don’t need to be made ?
The article talks about someone generating more electricity from solar panels, than they can use. What does it matter if they increase consumption of energy with respect to harming the climate by burning fossil fuels ??