Simple Living, High Thinking, Non-Violence

Gandhi's home. He was influenced by the writings of Henry David Thoreau,
and the two men lived in similar simple surroundings, undistracted by unnecessary stuff.

Today, the 148th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi's birth is being celebrated around the world. It should be - he was an amazing man, as close to a true hero as one can get.

Gandhi emphasized simple living, high thinking, and non-violent resistance, all things that we desperately need in today's world if we are to slow our slide into dark decades of dystopia.

Call it utopian if you want, I don't think of that as an insult, but Gandhi's philosophy on non-violence went far beyond simply the absence of violence. He also advocated radical democracy and self-rule, and extended participation to all segments of society.

Inequality and hierarchical structures (political and religious), are institutionalized violence. Authority over others always ends badly. Just ask the Catalonians, or any of us that suffer the violence of the state in its capitalist corporate economic prison.

I celebrate Gandhi's birth today - he was a model human of the most gentle kind. He lived what he proposed, and had solutions. Right now, we badly need solutions, and soon.

Simple living, rational thinking, and non-violent resistance are tried and true, proven solutions, and I thank this amazing man for bravely bringing them forward. The sooner they are adopted, the better off we will be in the end.

We can break the bars that hem us in to narrow lives of drudgery and perpetual shopping. We can all be heroes. To this, I think, Gandhi would agree.

For Whom Does Your Government Work?

I don't know if I am right, but it seems to me that a country that has a government that works for the people (like they are suppose to in theory), would have a lower incidence of poverty. One would also think that rich nations would have less poverty.

This is not the case, so I wonder - for whom do these governments really work?

The chart above reveals the priorities of various governments in OECD countries, which are among the most "highly developed". If these countries can't eliminate poverty, in spite of being the richest on the planet, how can any other country get rid of this scourge?

How about less war, and more help for people? We have everything we need to provide every citizen with a dignified, satisfying simple life. Could it be that our governments are the problem and not the solution?

For whom does your government work?

Why Isn't There A Maximum Income?

22K Gold Toilet Paper - $1.3M a roll

There is a lot of talk about providing workers with a minimum income. You know, an income that a person can actually live on. But why isn't there any talk about a maximum income?

Because it would kill innovation and motivation? Wrong. Curious people with their integrity intact would continue on as if money didn't even exist. Science started with an attitude of inquiry and a desire to improve life. Not patents or profit.

People rarely use large profits for good. Money should be seen as a curse beyond a certain point. Too little is not good. Too much is even worse because invariably it will be used in ways not conducive to planetary health.

“Do the very rich suffer from maladjusted conditions that lead them to accumulate more than they could ever need, or are they just greedy and selfish?”    

- Ontario Coalition Against Poverty leaflet

Look at the evidence. The rich over consume to the point of ridiculosity. Does one really need gold plated anything?  The conspicuous consumption and greed of the money hoarders infects everything, leading to social strife and environmental degradation.

Therefore, why not a maximum income?

It would most definitely enable a minimum income for all workers and their families, and avoid the corrosive effects of income inequality, and the struggles of the working poor.

What would be fair at the top end of the wealth spectrum? 1 million/year? 1 Billion/year? A trillion?
How much would be enough?

Research shows that somewhere between $50,000 and $75,000 is the income sweet spot. Any less and life might be a struggle, any more and the extra fails to increase happiness.

That sounds about right, although from personal experience I know that one can get by on much less and be happy and content.

Morbid Inequality

Morbid Inequality: 6 men now pathologically hoarding as much cash as owned by half the planet's population.

Consuming as little as possible gives me immense personal benefits, such as being free from what appears to be a ubiquitous lust for more. I am content with very little, and want for nothing. But there are other benefits, such as not supporting a system that encourages this lust.

There are people (more specifically, male people), that have become immensely wealthy promoting infinite economic growth and infinite want fulfillment. I'm not buying anything from them. I am not into making millionaires, or helping build billionaires.

And I am certainly not interested in transforming them into trillionaires, a extreme wealth milestone that we are predicted to pass in the near future. Maybe I am strange, but this scenario seems completely irrational to me. Why is this seen as a good thing, rather than a money-hoarding mental illness?

"Two generations ahead, future extrapolation of current wealth growth rates yields almost a billion millionaires, equivalent to 20% of the total adult population. If this scenario unfolds, then billionaires will be commonplace, and there is likely to be a few trillionaires too -- eleven according to our best estimate." 

- Credit Suisse's 2013 Global Wealth Report

It was recently reported that now 6 men own as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the planet's population (about 3.6 billion people). I'm not buying into any part of a system that encourages, enables and celebrates such morbid inequality.

The capitalists say not to worry because "we are all getting richer". But if someone making a dollar a day is "lucky" enough to see their wage increase by 100%, they are still only making 2 dollars a day, buying them a slightly better form of poverty. Not good enough.

Who will be the world's first trillionaire? Who cares? I would be happy if there was never such a grotesque entity to ever stalk the Earth. In a just world, there wouldn't be any such thing. I am not buying their crap, and I am not buying their ideology that allows such insanity to exist on a planet imperilled by the infinite lust for more.

Not Buying Anything does not support Morbid Inequality. Luckily there are more of us than them. There is a way out of this.

Riches Don't Count - Happiness Does

In past decades per-capita GDP growth of developed nations has increased dramatically.

I say, "So what?"

During this time average incomes rose as well (although they have been stagnating for most of us since the 1980s).

Again I ask, "So what?"

Happiness surveys generally show that above $60,000 to $75,000 of income per year we essentially get no more bang for our bucks. That makes aspiring to become a millionaire or billionaire terribly misguided because it can't yield an improved overall life satisfaction. For that we don't need loads of cash.

Why can't we buy more happiness with our riches?  Because our money suffers from the effects of diminishing returns. The more money we make or get or steal, the less effective it is in increasing our satisfaction level.

Going from $0 dollars to $100 dollars yields a very large effect on our well being. But going from $100,000 dollars to $100,100 dollars makes hardly any difference at all. In both cases we are talking about the exact same amount of money.

So our countries have been more productive, and our salaries have gone up. But we have made no gains what-so-ever on our overall happiness scores.

So what is all the struggle for riches and stuff for if it is not leading to an increased satisfaction with life? For me the answer was to quit struggling, and start enjoying.

I am happier living in retirement on $20,000 a year than when making $60,000+ a year as a full time teacher. Because of this experience, I don't care if you make 400 times more than the average person.

I say, "So what?"

 I want to know if you are 400 times happier. 

Competitive Spending Monday

20% of the world population are engaging in competitive spending while consuming
80% of the earth's natural resources.

The 1998 Human Development Report investigated the 20th century's growth in consumption, unprecedented in its scale and diversity.

Competitive spending and conspicuous consumption are turning the affluence of some into the social exclusion of many.

And the pressures for competitive spending continue to mount. Keeping up with the Joneses has shifted from striving to match the consumption of a next-door neighbour to pursuing the life styles of the rich and famous depicted in movies and television shows.

Inequalities in consumption are stark. Globally, the 20% of the world's people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures - the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%.

More specifically, the richest fifth:

• Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%.
• Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%.
• Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5%.
• Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%.
• Own 87% of the world's vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%.

Runaway growth in consumption in the past 50 years is putting strains on the environment never before seen.

- From:  Human Development Report 1998 Overview, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Average Income And Happiness

Average Income and Happiness in The US, 1957-2002

“In recent years, psychologists studying measures of life satisfaction have largely confirmed the old adage that money can’t buy happiness—at least not for people who are already affluent.” - WorldWatch Institute

2011 was a record year for billionaires. The total number of listees on the Billionaires List was a new record at 1,210, and their combined wealth of $4.5 trillion was a record as well. But did this massive accumulation of wealth help contribute to making last year a record year for happiness?

The World Health Organization doesn't think so, and reports that depression is among the leading causes of disability worldwide.

What I see is that wealth is going up, and well-being is going down. That is also what the WorldWatch Institute is reporting.

"Societies focused on well-being involve more interaction with family, friends, and neighbors, a more direct experience of nature, and more attention to finding fulfillment and creative expression than in accumulating goods.

They emphasize lifestyles that avoid abusing your own health, other people, or the natural world. In short, they yield a deeper sense of satisfaction with life than many people report experiencing today.

What provides for a satisfying life? In recent years, psychologists studying measures of life satisfaction have largely confirmed the old adage that money can’t buy happiness—at least not for people who are already affluent.

The disconnection between money and happiness in wealthy countries is perhaps most clearly illustrated when growth in income in industrial countries is plotted against levels of happiness.

In the United States, for example, the average person’s income more than doubled between 1957 and 2002, yet the share of people reporting themselves to be “very happy” over that period remained static."

If incomes doubled since 1957, why didn't happiness? Because happiness, beyond a minimal level of wealth, does not improve with each additional dollar earned over and above the level of 'enough'. Rather, each additional dollar earned suffers from diminishing returns - less bang per buck.

While business magazines raucously ring in the arrival of each newly-minted billionaire, they fail to recognize the insidious grief caused by the unbelievable inequality.

Our increasing wealth has had little effect on happiness and well-being. It is time to start demanding changes to the way we run our countries and economies so that the well-being of all becomes our focus, rather than how many billionaires a country has, or how much its GDP has grown.

No Taking From The Poor And Giving To The Rich Monday

In the US, the Congressional Budget Office released a major report recently, showing that average household income for the top 1 percent of earners increased 275% from 1979 to 2007 while increasing just 18% for the bottom 20 percent of earners. - source

Massive income inequality has a corrosive effect. However, the methods used to build and maintain income inequality among a population are damaging to more than the social fabric of a nation.

The methods used by the top 1% exploit workers and the environment to the point of exhaustion. It is not sustainable.

It is even worse when the people we vote to represent us take the side of the exploiters, creating a near-impenetrable wall of power and influence. But it can not go on for ever.

Our economies, along with the exploitation by the top 1%, depend on infinite growth within a finite system. It has become obvious that the people and the environment, being finite and only able to take so much, have reached their functional limits.

The nefarious ways of the One Percent are doomed to failure, and will end eventually.

Fortunately, for the benefit of the planet and the majority of its inhabitants, it is looking like that will be sooner rather than later.

'No More Ignoring The 99%' Monday

Should this man be maced and arrested?

The non-violent social movement developing at ground zero of the global financial system may not be getting much mainstream press, but they do have perfectly legitimate points. Unregulated greed and profiteering is tearing our social and environmental fabric to shreds.

The top 1% of income earners globally owned a whopping 40% of the wealth in the year 2000. The inequality gap widened even further as the effects of the Great Recession took hold in 2009. The rest of us were hit much harder than the wealthiest 1%, and we continue to suffer the effects of the unchecked greed and corruption of both our business and political leaders. And it is not getting any better.

Have you seen the financial news as the Wall Street Occupation continues? The 1% must be nervous, for several good reasons. Their empire is crumbling around them, and it looks like the system might be too broke to save them this time.

We will restore democracy, exert the power of the 99%, and create a better system after this one crashes. One that works for 100% of us.

Is that too much to ask?

"#OCCUPYWALLSTREET is a people powered movement for democracy that began in America on September 17 with an encampment in the financial district of New York City. Inspired by the Egyptian Tahrir Square uprising and the Spanish acampadas, we vow to end the monied corruption of our democracy … join us! We're now in DAY 9." - Adbusters

Check occupywallst.org for more information.

Inequality and Poverty in Canada

An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.
— Plutarch (46-120 AD)  

Vast income inequality is not a good thing in the attainment of a happy, balanced society. That "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" has been observed often enough to make it a cliche. But just because something is cliche doesn't mean it isn't true.

Unfortunately the saying is as true today as it ever was, in Canada and many other parts of the world. To highlight this, I share the following Hennessy's Index, a monthly listing of numbers researched by the CCPA's Trish Hennessy. 

Inequality and Poverty in Canada - By The Numbers

$6.6 million
The average compensation of Canada’s best-paid 100 CEOs in 2009.

$42,988
The average wage for Canadians working full-time, year-round.

155 times
How much the best-paid 100 CEOs earn more than average wage. 

0
The number of women among the best-paid 100 CEOs in Canada in 2009.

20^th
Canada ranks 20th, behind the U.S., in a global ranking of women’s equality.

Canada’s richest 1%
Doubled their income share between the late-1970s and 2007. 

Canada’s richest 0.01%
Quintupled their share of income during that same period.

Shrinking middle
The share of income for the bottom 80% of Canadian families with children is smaller today than it was a generation ago. 

Teetering
6 out of 10 Canadians could be in trouble if their paycheque gets delayed.

Debt nation
Canadian consumer debt to financial assets ratio worst of 20 OECD nations. 

$1.41 trillion
Canadian household debt. 

17^th
Canada ranks 17 out of 24 OECD nations on children’s material well-being.

1 in 10
Canadian children live in poverty. 1 in 4 Aboriginal children live in poverty.

A solution
Shifting 1% of Canadians’ collective after-tax income to the 1 in 10 Canadians living in low income would eliminate poverty in Canada. 

We can eliminate poverty in Canada and across the world. We have the wealth, and the knowledge to ensure everyone has enough. To learn more about poverty issues in Canada see here.

No Violence, Not At All, No Where Monday

Gandhi stickers -‘No Violence / Not At All / No Where'

Gandhi spoke about using the anvil of truth, and hammer of nonviolence, to assess things. Those things that fell between anvil and hammer and failed the test were to be discarded. 

When my nephew, Sam, was 10 he decided to discard violent entertainment. For him it failed the test. If someone was watching a violent movie he would leave the room.

I admired how he took a stand on what would, and would not, enter his still-developing brain. It made me wonder, "Why does anyone wish to view violence?" It makes perfect sense to discard such negativity.

There is enough real violence in the world. Domestic violence, economic violence, class violence, sports violence, and violence against nature are all part of our daily existence. Do we really need to see fake violence in our entertainment pastimes?

I am with Samdhi - violence has no place in my life. That is one reason I have committed to living a small-footprint, sustainable lifestyle - I am trying to do the least amount of harm, the least amount of violence.

Peace.

The Stockholm Memorandum - It Is Time To Simplify

It looks like the NBA blog is in good company, although you don't need to be a genius to know that the planet is in trouble and needs our help, pronto. But some of our greatest minds did put their heads together recently, and came up with a few recommendations for saving the world.

The 3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability took place this May, and brought together more than twenty Nobel Laureates, leading policy makers, and some of the world's most renowned thinkers and experts on global sustainability. Participants agreed that the basic analysis is beyond question - environmental stresses are reaching a breaking point, and the time for action is now.

The Stockholm Memorandum: Tipping The Scales Towards Sustainability, states in part:

"Humans are now the most significant driver of global change, propelling the planet into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. We can no longer exclude the possibility that our collective actions will trigger tipping points, risking abrupt and irreversible consequences for human communities and ecological systems. We cannot continue on our current path. The time for procrastination is over. We cannot afford the luxury of denial."

The symposium recommends urgent and far-reaching actions for decision makers and societies to become active stewards of the planet for future generations.

• Environment and development must go hand in hand.
• Develop new welfare indicators that address the shortcomings of GDP. 
• Keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius
• Environmental sustainability is a precondition for poverty eradication, and social justice.
• With almost a third of the world living on less than $2 per day, we must, as a priority, achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
• Foster a new agricultural revolution where more food is produced in a sustainable way on current agricultural land.
• Inspire and encourage scientific literacy especially among the young.

After putting their heads together, the concerned participants concluded that human pressures are challenging the resilience of the planet, while inequalities remain high. They maintain that the only way to move towards fair and lasting prosperity for present and future generations is along a pathway of environmental sustainability.

One thing I notice in the Stockholm Memorandum is that they are describing, without naming, voluntary simplicity as a solution to our most pressing problems. If high-consumption nations took up this call for action, and adopted voluntary simplicity as a solution, many problems concerning environmental degradation and inequality would be addressed.

You don't need to be a genius to see that we are destroying the only planet that we have, and that in order to turn things around we will require different models for living. Voluntary simplicity is such a model, and one that this forum is not the first to allude to. Gandhi knew decades ago that we can provide for every one's need, but NOT everyone's greed.

Let's not wait. This is not the time for continued denial and procrastination. This is the time for action. We would be wise to adopt the motto of H.D. Thoreau, "Simplify, simplify, simplify", as soon as possible.

Time For A Consumer Counter-Revolution

"I want to talk to the fucking person that did this to me."

In an interview The Sex Pistols Sid Vicious said, "In the end I was the only one that had any anarchy left in him". More than likely, everyone else wandered off to go shopping, leaving Mr. Vicious a lone banner waver in the middle of an empty square. And now he ends up as an 'ultra-detailed', plastic imprisoned action figure mass marketed by unscrupulous opportunists for which nothing is sacred.

How could anyone do this to the rebellious soul that famously said, "Undermine their pompous authority, reject their moral standards, make anarchy and disorder your trademarks. Cause as much chaos and disruption as possible but don`t let them take you ALIVE"? He must be spitting in his grave.

Rampant commercialization aside, Vicious would be happy with other developments in the world today. Citizens are rising up to throw off the shackles of repressive conditions, and are expressing their yearning to be free. They have got the mean and greedy on the run, and are exerting the will of the people in a way that will not be ignored.

Sid would support us in taking our lives back from those that would exploit us for their own gain. He would be into doing away with debt slavery, and the concomitant wage slavery that the majority now see as "normal life".

For a long time we didn't know better - we were ignorant of the big picture. Or at least that used to be the case before the information age began. Now we do know better.

Now we know our flawed system funnels 24% of the wealth to the top 1%. We know that 20% of the population consumes 80% of the resources. We know that thousands of poor die every day from the lack of basic necessities. We know we are killing our planet.

Now that we know, how can this awareness not lead to change in how we live our lives? How can we continue to support this economic regime knowing that those above us are oppressing us as we oppress those below? Why aren't we "undermining their pompous authority and rejecting their moral standards" now that we know better? Whose side, exactly, are we on?

As the Sid-approved developments in the Middle East are showing us, it is time to shake up any system that preys on the many for the benefit of the few. This can be done peacefully by exerting our power, and living the lives and dreams we want to live. Not some scripted life as presented by the media, and as brought to you by faceless corporate entities.

Imagine the chaos and disruption that would happen if we all decided to live simple, satisfying lives that were cooperative in nature and did not entirely depend on the capitalist agenda of selfishness, greed, and infinite growth and desire. Collectively, our individual actions will change the world.

"Simplicity, clarity, singleness: these are the attributes that give our lives power and vividness and joy."

- Richard Halloway 

We Can Do Better Than This

As I was reading the newspaper the other day I noticed two images similar to the ones above side by side in a features section. Were they intended to be juxtaposed in order to jolt our reality chip, or was it just a sick mistake? It reminded me that the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.

If we were starting from scratch, is this really the kind of world we would design for ourselves? One in which a few have multiple homes including hundred-room mansions on acres of park-like gated property, while millions live in mud and squalor?

"Unlit highways run past canyons of smouldering garbage before giving way to dirt streets weaving through 200 slums, their sewers running with raw waste. So much of the city is a mystery. No one even knows for sure the size of the population – officially it is 6 million, but most experts estimate it at 10 million – let alone the number of murders each year [or] the rate of HIV infection.

Lagos, moreover, is simply the biggest node in the shantytown corridor of 70 million people that stretches from Abidjan to Ibadan, probably the biggest continuous footprint of urban poverty on earth." http://www.ranadasgupta.com/notes.asp?note_id=31

And the problem is not getting any better in spite of developed nations paying plenty of lip service to the elimination of poverty in recent years. The "State of the World's Cities - 2010/2011" report by the Nairobi-based UN-HABITAT shows that the number of slum dwellers has been increasing due to unequal access to peace and prosperity for an increasing number of the world's citizens.

Number of slum dwellers skyrockets By Bradley Brooks, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SAO PAULO, Brazil - The number of people living in slum conditions increased by 51 million during the past 10 years, despite global efforts to halt poverty, according to a United Nations' report released Friday.

The report by the Nairobi-based U.N.-Habitat said that the number of slum dwellers rose to 828 million in 2010, while also noting that about 227 million people were able to escape such conditions in the past decade - double as many forecast in the U.N. Millennium Goals set in 2000.

"Success is highly skewed toward the more advanced emerging economies, while poorer countries have not done as well," said Habitat executive director Anna Tibaijuka. "For this reason, there is no room for complacency." http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/03/19/13295831-ap.htm

The following statistics on Poverty and Inequality highlight a system that is not working for a majority of humanity.

"While global GNP grew 40 percent between 1970 and 1985 (suggesting widening prosperity), the number of poor grew by 17 percent.

UNDP reported in 1996 that 100 countries were worse off than 15 years ago.

In 1998, that 20 percent of the world's people living in the highest-income countries accounted for 86 percent of total private consumption expenditures while the poorest 20 percent accounted for only 1.3 percent. That's down from 2.3 percent three decades ago.

These related phenomena led UN development experts to observe that the world is heading toward "grotesque inequalities," concluding: "Development that perpetuates today's inequalities is neither sustainable nor worth sustaining."

UNDP calculates that an annual 4 percent levy on the world's 225 most well-to-do people (average 1998 wealth: $4.5 billion) would suffice to provide the following essentials for all those in developing countries: adequate food, safe water and sanitation, basic education, basic health care and reproductive health care. At present, 160 of those individuals live in OECD countries; 60 reside in the United States.

The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest people." http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/218/46377.html



We created this unjust and unequal system and we can create a new one which is more equitable and inclusive. The lives of billions depend on us doing the right thing. Will we disappoint them yet again, or is now the time we are going to take actions to start living right on this planet?

A Few Have Too Much, Many Have Too Little - You Can Help

"There can be no peace as long as there is grinding poverty, social injustice, inequality, oppression, environmental degradation, and as long as the weak and small continue to be trodden by the mighty and powerful."

- 14th Dalai Lama

Some countries have too much money. Some countries don't have enough. Both are detrimental. The current gap between the rich and the poor is a bubble about to pop. How long can the richest 20% of the planet's people consume 76.6% of the world's resources while the poorest 20% consume a meagre 1.5%? This situation spawns poverty, despair, and terrorism.

The good news is that this was an improvement over 1995 when the richest 20% consumed 88% of the world's resources. Some one must pay for the rich lifestyles we live in industrialized, wasteful, consumer-oriented countries. Currently, the poor and the environment are paying our way, but this is likely to change soon. We are reaching several critical points, peak oil and climate change being two. More importantly, people are beginning to hop off the money train after finding it was not all it was cracked up to be.

You may wonder how one could have too much money. Our cultural credo is you can't have too much money, or fame, or thinness, or toys. It is wrong. Witness the Toilet Paper Abundance Syndrome, which I will use to illustrate my point.

When you have a closet full of toilet paper, a TP glut if you will, your tendency will be to use say, 7 to 25 or more squares. But make that the last roll of TP in the house and you will find that 3 to 5 squares may suffice.

When we have too much money we indulge in senseless waste, often as a way to feel and show our wealth. It is an evolutionary thing, so understandable, but now we know better. I would like to think our higher-order brain is in charge, not our emotions and base instincts. No, the conspicuous consumption beast is dead (2008 RIP), and you can help put the final nails in the lid the coffin.

How? By how you live. Waste not, want not. Don't make the environment and the poor pay for your extravagant lifestyle. Consume less. Save money. Share some of it. Use resources carefully - they are precious. Make demands of your politicians, and tell them you want a more equitable, sustainable community, and world.

Civil rights came about because the people demanded it. Universal suffrage happened because the people demanded it. When the people band together to right wrongs amazing things can happen. A better world is evolving, but ongoing improvement must continue to come from the people. We have the power.

A few have too much, and many have too little. You can help. Let us live simple, sustainable lives so that others may live at all. Let us mourn the consumeristic, planet-killing beast and move on. We already know what to do, and we have more than enough money. All we need is the will, and that begins within each one of us.