Population Control - Cash Payment For Childless Women At Menopause?

Over 100 years (between 1950 and 2050), the world’s population will have nearly quadrupled (from 2.5 billion to around 9.5 billion). How do we diffuse this population bomb? Or do we really need to?

When I was growing up there was a thing called the "Population Explosion". These days we don't hear too much about overpopulation, I assume because capitalist bosses want as many babies as can be cranked out. More consumers! 

It is not good for business to discourage the births of yet more victims, so full speed ahead. And don't forget, governments love having more tax slaves.

While some have encouraged voluntary efforts to cut family size, others have proposed more coercive methods, like China's One Child Policy (changed to a 2 child policy in 2016). 

Cutting subsidies for having more children is another proposed way to reduce population growth. Another idea is paying childless women a bonus when they reach menopause. A one time payment of $50,000 dollars has been proposed by some researchers.

Now I see that Hungary is going the other direction - they are paying Hungarian women to have more babies, ostensibly in order to outpace Third World immigration. 

Any Hungarian mom that has 4 or more children will be exempted from paying income tax. For life. 

They can also apply for a $35,000 dollar loan which will be forgiven if the woman has more children. Interest-free loans will also be available for the family to buy a house and car. It seems outrageous, but it is possible that it may not work anyway.

Birth rates are already dropping in many countries. In parts of Europe and Asia, birth rates are below replacement levels. Germany, Japan, Russia, and Taiwan are a few examples of countries not having enough babies to keep the population stable, whether there is a "cash for babies" program or not.

Canada also has a "baby bonus", but it is intended to reduce child poverty, not stimulate birth rates.

So is there a population explosion, or not? Will we level off at around 8 billion, or will we see an increase, in a worst case scenario, all the way up to 26 billion? 

Some say it doesn't really matter, because we don't have a population problem - we have an overconsumption problem.

The more people on Earth, the less each of us has as our fair share of the resources available. That means as population goes up, all of us will need to live more and more simply.

When it comes down to it, neither big business nor governments will solve this issue. The power to do that lies with one group, and one group only - the women of the world. 

Women ultimately decide how many babies are born, because women are not simply "hosts", and they are not birthing pods. Increasingly, they are choosing to have fewer babies.

The rest of us can do our part by consuming less so that each baby born has enough for a good life, regardless of where it comes into the world.

Actually, we might be better off if we offered incentives to consume less. Imagine that happening!

All Wound Up About Christmas?

How to Have A Buy Nothing Christmas

Step 1: Take a risk - don’t conform to those in the spending spree.

Step 2: The best gifts come in no packages. The Christmas story is all about flipping the system on its lid.

Step 3: Image is everything? Well, don’t get pegged as a mindless consumer - be a rebel this Christmas, and buy nothing.

From: buynothingchristmas.org

75 Good Years

After age 75, no more tests or treatments.

Most modern "health care" systems go to extreme lengths to extend life. Since a lot of that is private, for profit health care, I hypothesize that the reason for that is because in business one of the golden rules is "Don't kill your customers", or in this case, "Don't let your customers die, ever, if you can make a buck by extending their lives.

Rarely mentioned in the high tech life extension at any cost debate is the issue of quality of life. We might be getting quantity, but what about the quality? Should we really be led kicking and screaming all the way to the grave? Wouldn't it be better to go out on your own terms?

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel agrees, and says that 75 is a good age for him to die. In fact, he believes we would be doing society and loved ones a favour by doing the same.

“A good life is not just about stacking up the years and living as long as possible. People need to focus on quality of life. Setting an actual date for a good time to die helps you focus on what is important in your life. 

What I am trying to do is delineate my views for a good life and make my friends and others think about how they want to live as they grow older. 

We avoid constantly thinking about the purpose of our lives and the mark we will leave. Is making money, chasing the dream, all worth it? 

Indeed, most of us have found a way to live our lives comfortably without acknowledging, much less answering, these big questions on a regular basis. We have gotten into a productive routine that helps us ignore them. 

The deadline also forces each of us to ask whether our consumption is worth our contribution."

The doctor opposes physician-assisted suicide, and instead is a proponent of simply allowing the body to age naturally. He says when he reaches 75 he will refuse all tests and treatments, including the blood pressure medication he takes now.

“I’m not suggesting people kill themselves at 75 but, rather, let nature take its course.”

While some propose extreme life extension, what the world doesn't need right now is a bunch of 300 year olds. We do need to leave something for our children and future generations that will inhabit this crowed planet. Perhaps 75 years of consumption is enough.

It would also simplify things to know when you intend to tell the medical establishment to leave you alone so you can age and die peacefully as nature intended.

I think I would like 75 good years. We will see how I feel if I make it to 74 years of age.

Welcome To NBA And The Post-Consumer Age

This isn't a blog - its an on-line support group for people who have broke free from the clutches of the Cult of Consumerism, and those who have been affected by this cult bent on ecocide for fun and profit.

You will not be shamed, belittled, or put down here for longing for, and living, a post-consumer existence. What you will find is support for your quest to live a simpler life with less stuff, and more living.

"Welcome. Please come in, sit down, state your name, and if you are comfortable, share your post-consumer story/ideas with us. You are in a safe space here."

On this blog can be found a group of post-consumers learning to de-materialize. Call it de-programming, or in this case deconsumerizing. We are supporting each other through the process of unlearning being a passive vessel for corporations to fill with superfluous goods, services and entertainments.

Generally, NBA readers/support group members are activating their own agenda rather than the oppressive and limiting "work-buy-repeat-die" script laid out for us at birth. We are reclaiming our freedom to choose simple lives that are easier on us and the Earth.

Together we are helping create Charles Eisenstein’s “world where our human gifts go toward the benefit of all, and where our daily activities contribute to the healing of the biosphere and the well-being of other people.”

How did we get to our current state of consumer madness? How did the cult attract so many devotees to its dark halls? A piece I found in the Adbuster web site chronicles our brief trajectory that has brought us to the brink of global collapse:

“We were high on the thrill of early capitalism. We loved the cars, the airplanes, the endless aisles of mega marts teeming with mass-produced goodies. We loved the validation that each new purchase brought. 

And then came the technology: the flat screens, MacBooks, iPhones and XBoxes. Every technological breakthrough made us feel more connected, more human, and more whole. 

But then the economy collapsed and we began to tumble… suddenly we weren’t so sure anymore. The line between necessity and luxury - once blurred beyond distinction - came into sudden, violent focus. 

What pleasure is there in a 50-inch plasma TV if you don’t have a wall to hang it on? What joy does a brand new automobile bring if climate change looms large on the horizon? 

The wisdom of credit, and the attendant practice of living well beyond our means, suddenly hit home. 

And now, as belts tighten and paradigms crumble, we are beginning to hear the first whispers of a post-consumer era… the dawning of a post-materialist age.”

We are certainly hearing the whispers (and yells, shouts, pleads, and rants) of a post-consumer era on this blog over the past (almost) 10 years.  I like to think of NBA as a partial record of the dawning of the post-consumer age that we all know must come soon. Or sooner.

Together we are forging ahead, supporting each other, and creating "the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible".

Join our support group for ex-members of the Cult of Consumerism, or those affected by consumerism. Come on it, there is room for everyone.

Welcome to NBA, and the post-consumer age.

How Many Scientists Does It Take?

How many scientists does it take to screw in a light bulb? One to screw it in, and another 14,999 to convince us it is actually screwed in.

Like a scientist, the way I can tell if my light bulb is screwed in properly is to look at the results. When I flick the switch, does it  light up? If yes, screwed in. If no, not screwed in.

Speaking of screwed, look at capitalism. Or consumerism. Or the patriarchy. Or war. Democracy, extractive resource industries... the list goes on and on. Look at the results.

Do we like the world we have created? Are things functioning smoothly? How is the health of the atmosphere? The oceans? Is there an absence of poverty, homelessness, and war?

Are global citizens happy and mentally robust? Is there income equity and equality? Is racism increasing, or decreasing? Are we getting smarter? Are we evolving into the best we can be?

Do we respect life? All life? Is it precious, and if so, is that reflected in our behaviour? Do we live in healthy, loving and compassionate communities?

It only takes one person to see that things are not going as well as they could. The results of business as usual are grim to say the least. So scientists are again warning us of the consequences of keeping on doing what we have been doing. Is anybody listening?

If so, are they changing their behaviour in order to move from being the problem to being the solution?

Essentially, the 15,000 scientist said (again):

Dear Human Family,  

Our current ways of doing things have been hurtling us toward the brink for decades. There have been warnings for hundreds of years. In 1992 we issued our own warning. 

Since then humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in solving environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting worse. 

Now, in addition to deforestation, pollution, habitat loss, overpopulation and overconsumption, climate mayhem threatens our very existence. 

If we don't act soon there'll be catastrophic biodiversity loss and untold amounts of human misery. Our planet may develop conditions that are not conducive to life, including humanity.

Time is running out. 

We are still here, and we are still warning you of the dangers of your ways, and the dangerous denial you are immersed in. Join us. Help us. Help yourselves.

Signed, 

15,000 Concerned Scientists 

P.S. Please heed our waring this time, and adopt new, more Earth friendly ways of living.  For example, use less fossil fuel transportation, enjoy a plant based diet, adopt 100% organic methods of agriculture, protect our last remaining wild places, consume less, have fewer children, and help build a more equitable, stable, and sustainable planet. Also, please end the infinite economic growth model - it's killing everything.

Or die. 

Thank you for listening. This time. Please don't make us do this again. 

The 0.14%

Never mind the 1% - we are the 0.14%. But unlike them, anyone can join us.

How many people know our planet is in peril? Of those, how many use that knowledge to change the way they live? Surely there must be many of us. No?

Dave Cohen at the Decline of the Empire website writes:

"There are roughly 7.2 billion humans on Earth, and, roughly speaking, about 10 million of them are painfully aware that Homo sapiens is destroying the biosphere, slowly on human time scales, but in no time at all on the geological time scale. (10 million is a very generous estimate.) 

Some of those exceptional people, a goodly portion of whom are working scientists, are actively opposing the ongoing destruction, though many are not. Rounding up, those 10 million souls represent approximately 0.14% of the entire human population. 

The other 99.86% are either actively destroying the biosphere, or indifferent to that lamentable trend (i.e., they are merely current or would-be "consumers" who are thus acquiescing in and contributing to the trend indirectly)."

What? 10 million on the entire globe? Wow. I hope he is widely underestimating. How can we fix something if we are not aware that this is a problem of our own making?

Are you part of the 0.14%? Have you changed your personal consumption habits according to your knowledge?

What is My Fair Share of the Planet's Resources?

Some of us are taking more than our fair share.

Take the number of people on the planet. Divide that ever-increasing number into the finite number of acres that represents Earth's total resources. We end up with the number of acres per person, which is about 4 acres, and that doesn't leave anything for all the other non-human planetary inhabitants.

"It is only since the industrial revolution that resource use and consumption has skyrocketed. The US was built on foundations of frugality, yet today, North Americans are the world's greatest consumers. 

If the world's people consumed as North Americans, we would need five Earths. The link between consumer habits and global warming, war, species extinction, and social injustice are often lost amidst fast paced advertising and a throw-away consciousness." 

- Jim Merkel

Human population

- 7.4 billion


Acres per person available today

- 4.5 acres/person


If we leave 75% wild for the 25 million other species on Earth

- 1 acre/ person


Average acres/person used by humans 

Global average - 5.8 acres

United States - 24 acres

Canada - 22 acres

United Kingdom - 13 acres

Russia - 11 acres

Afghanistan - 0.75 acres


It is not a big stretch to conclude that ecological overshoot can not go on forever, and  that the sooner we do something about it, the better.

If not everyone can live a modern consumer lifestyle, how do we decide who can and who can't? Can anyone, if it leads to ecological overshoot and collapse?

Eco-Footprint Overshoot

In my lifetime, human consumption of resources has exceeded the productive capacity of our planet.

Everyone has an ecological footprint. We all need to use the earth’s resources to survive. But some of us are wearing ridiculously large, floppy clown shoes while others have existed forever in tiny slippers.

One average Canadian footprint is the same as that of 12 average Ethiopians. How big a footprint is too big? How much is too much? 

Since the 1980s we have been living unsustainably by draining stocks of "natural capital" faster than nature can replenish them. It is a fatal mistake to think we can take more resources than the earth can provide, and do so indefinitely. We have been doing so for about 3 decades now, and the rate of overshoot is getting faster with each passing year.

The size of a person’s eco-footprint depends on many factors. Do you grow your own food? Do you walk or drive to places? Do you use renewable or non-renewable energy sources? Is that a rice and bean dish I see on your plate? What kind of climate do you live in?

These factors, and so many more, make a difference in the amount of resources required to sustain our lifestyle, and therefore the size of our footprint.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AROUND THE WORLD


Average number of productive acres the Earth provides per person (each human's eco-footprint "fair share"), not leaving anything left over for other living things - 4.5 acres

Average amount per person if we include the needs of other living things - 1 acre 

Average global footprint per person  - 5.6 acres

FOOTPRINT BY COUNTRY

In an age of ecological overshoot, having a smaller footprint is more desirable, so I have listed countries starting with those with the smallest footprint.


Afghanistan - 0.75 acres

Bangladesh - 1 acre

India - 2 acres

Ethiopia - 2.4 acres

Iraq - 3 acres

China - 4 acres

Mexico - 6 acres

Turkey - 6.7 acres

Russia - 11 acres

New Zealand - 12 acres

France - 12 acres

Germany - 12.5 acres

United Kingdom - 13 acres

Spain - 13.4 acres

Netherlands - 15 acres

Australia - 17 acres

Canada - 22 acres

United States - 24 acres

We need to reduce our lifestyle shoe size in so-called "developed" societies. Ecological overshoot can not go on forever without degrading the environment to the point of mass extinctions. Either we need to reduce our population, or reduce our ecological footprints. Preferably both.

Of the two, reducing our consumption of Earth's resources is probably the more attainable solution. If resource depletion is the problem, reducing our demands on those resources is the answer. I think this can be done while positively affecting one's overall quality of life.

It makes me wonder. Does the size of a person's ecological footprint transmit to happiness and contentment in life? Are humans in North America happier than humans in countries with a smaller average eco-footprint? Or does a larger footprint just mean a larger amount of waste and useless excess?

Live softly, and leave a small footprint. That would be the best holiday gift possible if you are considering getting something for Mother Earth this season, and year round.

S'less Please

"S'less please."

The sickly sweet, over-the-top campfire confection known as a S'more is a perfect symbol for overconsumption. Sweet, glorious consumption. Extreme treats for extreme living.

Take a simple base (graham cracker), add some more (chocolate bar), then even more (roasted marshmallow), mash it all together in one dripping destructive mass and consume. Why stop? It feels good. Have some more. Go ahead, and forget about the consequences. YOLO!

But does it really feel good? These things make my teeth hurt just thinking about them. And it isn't just painful dental bills to be concerned about.

"Eating too much sugar raises your risk for gaining weight and the health problems that are associated with being overweight. You are more likely to suffer diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer and many other health conditions when you indulge your sweet tooth too often."  - from Livestrong.com

I propose an alternative I call a S'less. Like with a S'more, you start with a graham cracker.

The next simple step is: eat it.

Nothing further needs to be done, because a graham cracker is enough. More than enough, actually, as the cracker alone contains one gram of sugar. So when you enjoy a S'less, you just have one.

If you are used to the S'more lifestyle, that probably sounds boring, or plain. But I have found that the healthier I eat, the less I crave for things, including sugar. In the same way, the more simply I live, the less I crave consumption, the sugar of modern lifestyles.

S'mores are said to have been named after everyone asked for "some more" after eating one. Because we are trained to want more. More S'mores, more everything. "More", as the lie goes, "is always better."

This is a good summer to make a switch from craving S'more to being satisfied with S'less. Around the campfire, and everywhere else. It is the healthier alternative.

Turtle Troubles Part Of Larger Problem

There goes the neighbourhood - many creatures called this home before resource extraction happened here.

There are many reasons not to engage in the planet-destroying excesses of consumer society. One of the most important for me is the preservation of non-human species. They are nice to behold, and we can learn valuable lessons from them. Most importantly, we can not exist without them.

We already know that life for this planet's human infestation, I mean 'population', is bound to be rough without the likes of ocean phytoplankton which produces 50% of the oxygen in the atmosphere.

Einstein knew a lot about the nature of things, including the importance of our enormously stressed bees. He said, "“If the bee disappeared off the face of the Earth, humans would only have four years left to live.”

It is not so much about "saving the whales", or the bees, or saving this or that, or even "saving the environment". What it really is, when you get right down to it, is "saving ourselves". We are inextricably linked to everything else. If consuming too much is the problem, then cutting consumption is the solution.

The overconsumption of the past few decades has decimated wilderness and wildlife. Habitat loss is occurring just about everywhere as we extract resources at an ever-increasing rate.

Snapping turtle surveying what has happened to her home.

Every other living thing we share this planet with deserves to live just as much as we do. They deserve any and all efforts to reduce our impact on conditions around us so that they may live. That includes the snapping turtle here in Nova Scotia, which were listed as "a species at risk" in 2013. I found this out doing research after meeting a snapping turtle while I was biking in the woods.

Snapping turtles are the province's largest fresh water turtle, reaching a size of up to 50cm (almost 2 ft). While they spend most of the year in water, towards the end of June and into July these creatures leave the water to lay their eggs in soft soil or sand.

Looking amidst the logging debris and destruction for somewhere to lay her eggs.

These prehistoric-looking amphibians can live to be over 100 years old. The one I saw looked 1000 years old, or older. Its wrinkly wrinkledness had to have been a million years old. I don't know how old it was, but it looked older than time itself. Turtles in other parts of the world can live to be hundreds of years old... if they are lucky and avoid contact with their main predator - us.

Resource extraction and increased access to the deep woods means that many snapping turtles are run over on roads, leading to a precarious drop in numbers. How exciting to see one for myself - it was an encounter I will never forget.

Could she be crying? Or are you of the opinion that non-human animals don't have feelings?

When Gandhi said, "Live simply so that others may simply live", I am sure he wasn't just talking about other humans. The planet is so much more than that. There is a need for us all to live simply so that everything else may simply live. Everything. Trees, turtles, phytoplankton, bees. Everything.

If we continue to show such blatant disregard for other species, it won't be long before we are headed for extinction ourselves.

Or are we already headed in that direction? I am not sure, but I can say that it was an amazing encounter when I got lost looking into the deep, dark, teary eyes of my neighbour the snapping turtle. I am glad we met, and I hope that future generations will have this same opportunity, perhaps with this exact same turtle.

I happily cut my personal consumption to make sure that everything can live. No sacrifice is too much to handle if it means snapping turtles and other living things may thrive together along with us on our beautiful, shared planet.

Reduce Waste In One Easy Step

The results of our cultural addiction to buying more than we need can be found in trucks like these.

What are the easiest ways to reduce waste? I asked my search engine that question to see what kinds of things would be suggested. I can think of one very easy way, perhaps even the best way. But it was missing from most of the information that I checked out.

There were definitely some very good suggestions. The following were some of the ways that were suggested to reduce waste on the sites I looked at:

• Buy items made of recycled content, and use and reuse them as much as you can.
• Buy in bulk.
• Buy things with less packaging.
• Buy rechargeable batteries.
• Buy a hybrid car.
• Buy for durability, not disposability.
• Buy used.

You can see what these all have in common. Buying, buying, buying. What if we dramatically reduced how much we buy?

Altering our buying habits can help, but reducing how much we buy is a more effective strategy. Preventing waste production, rather than reduction through the production and purchasing of slightly different, "greener" things is the way to go.

Taking the prevention route has many advantages.

• Reduces the need for procuring new raw materials. Mining and resource extraction to meet consumer demand is degrading ecosystems everywhere.
• Saves energy, and therefore reduces green house gases.
• Helps save the environment for future generations. Our kids and grandkids are going to have to live somewhere. 
• Reduces the amount of money you have to spend. Maybe you can work less. Or save more.
• Cuts the amount of waste recycled or sent to landfills and incinerators.
• Ensures that the things you do have will be used to their fullest extent.

Waste reduction in one easy step. Stop buying so much stuff. How hard can that be?

Best Ways To Reduce Consumption Also Most Controversial

Although they are good things, the planet needs more than changing to efficient light bulbs and
lowering the thermostat in the winter.

According to the UN, "today’s consumption is undermining the environmental resource base. It is exacerbating inequalities. And the dynamics of the consumption-poverty-inequality-environment nexus are accelerating." That sounds dire indeed. But wait, there is more.

"If the trends continue without change — not redistributing from high-income to low-income consumers, not shifting from polluting to cleaner goods and production technologies, not shifting priority from consumption for conspicuous display to meeting basic needs — today’s problems of consumption and human development will worsen."

Can individual action alone reverse the trend of increasing consumption? The answer to that question seems to be "no", although we can have great effect by voluntarily adopting simpler ways of living.

The idea of changing our lifestyles to sustainable levels of consumption is considered unthinkable right across the political spectrum. A most inconvenient situation that presently is best met by taking individual action. There are other important areas that need to be addressed as well.

One is the notion of infinite economic growth. As long as that is a societal goal, consumption will continue to increase regardless of how simply some may choose to live.

Another problem that has been lurking quietly in the shadows for decades, is population growth. As long as our population continues to grow, overall consumption will increase.

Over the weekend I visited a site that dealt specifically with consumption growth, notably, exponential growth. It is a concept that is impacting our world right now, and it must be addressed to avert disaster down the road.

Consumption Growth 101 recommends the following as actions that individuals can take that "will have a real impact":

1. Find and support a charity dedicated to preventing unwanted pregnancies throughout the world.

2. If you are young, decide to have one less child than you would otherwise like. Encourage others concerned about consumption to do the same.

"It's that simple," the site says, "and the impact on consumption reduction will literally be immeasurable."

We have been ignoring population growth partly because it is such a controversial topic. It is not the only one.

We will also need a radical restructuring of the global economy in order to operate without the expectation that growth can be infinite in a finite system. It is unlikely to resemble anything currently in existence, although early free market thinkers predicted it would have to happen eventually.

Unfortunately, none of these problems is going to be addressed any time in the near future. It probably won't happen in time to avert major global hardship. Such hardship, if you look around you, has already begun. And it is getting worse.

If all we can do right now is take individual actions to reduce our own consumption, then by all means we should be doing so. Yet another illustration of how any movement worth the change it asks for, has always formed from the bottom up. It is up to those of us at the bottom. We can be the leaders.

We can be the change. Live the change. Share the change. That is the only immediately doable solution to reducing consumption to a sustainable level starting right now. And since that will not be enough, we can work on attaining the other necessary parts as soon as possible.

COP21: A Global Wake Up Call For Simpler Lifestyles

Wake Up! Time to simplify for the planet, for the kids, for all living things that love this Earth.

Finally, a global call for simpler lifestyles has been issued. I knew it would come sooner or later, but thought it would be later. Much later. But it is here now - it is time to simplify our lives and save the planet from catastrophic climate change.

That is the takeaway from the COP21 climate talks that concluded recently in Paris. Although you won't see the call to simplicity in plain language, it is woven throughout the recommendations. Experts are even saying that it is time for all citizens to "make changes in their day to day lives".

Looking at the changes recommended for the masses, we can see that they are one and the same as those being called for by simple living advocates.  Both see lower consumption/lower waste, reduced carbon ways of living as the answer to many of our problems, including climate change.

So what does an ideal post COP21 lifestyle look like?

• reduced travel
• eating lower on the food chain to minimize/eliminate consumption of high emission meat products
• changing transportation patterns that favour biking, walking, and public transportation, as well as relying on train and bus travel for longer trips
• smaller more energy efficient homes that use less energy and emit less green house gases
• reduced consumption overall means focusing on meeting needs and eliminating wants
• growing your own food, and buying locally grown food when needed
• increased investments in residential renewable energy solutions so the people can make their own clean power
• reduced work week 
• increased cooperation on all levels
• de-clawing capitalism and industry through regulation and reduced citizen demand
• embracing childlessness and reducing global population

We will only meet our goal of a carbon-neutral world by 2050 if there is a massive buy-in from citizens. The call has been issued - the richest 50% of the population responsible for 90% of carbon emissions are being invited to adopt simpler lifestyles and shift from being part of the problem to being part of the solution. I wonder how they will respond. 

If you have already evolved into a simpler, low consumption/low-carbon lifestyle, congratulations for being ahead of the curve. You will be providing a valuable role model for those who will follow, whether eagerly or reluctantly, because the need for simpler, lower emission lives has become undeniable.

Time to wake up citizens - simplify now and save the earth, or go on consuming wildly and hope that humanity makes it to a new planet before this one fails entirely. 

Good People Everywhere

"There sure are good people commenting on NBA".

So says Linda, my partner in simple living, and contributor/editor of this blog. Not only has she actively participated in creating the NBA blog, she has also been a co-architect of our NBA lifestyle. She also reads every comment that is posted here, and she likes what she sees.

After Linda pointed out the awesome crowd that has been drawn to our little effort on the Internet, I decided to take a closer look at where all the good people come from.

Seeing as we are residing in a part of what is known as North America, it makes sense that most of our visitors are from this geographical area. And since the USA is so much larger than Canada or Mexico, I am not surprised that so many NBA visitors are from there.

I find it ironic that the country that perfected consumerism logs the most visits on our non-consumer oriented blog. Perhaps together we will perfect ecologically appropriate post-consumer lifestyles.

Happily, support for this blog and low waste/low consumption lifestyles is widespread. NBA has welcomed visitors from almost every country in the world. Many of the countries that have not visited have lifestyles that make our low consumption look high-consumption in comparison.

May they see, if they do visit here, a precautionary warning against joining the consumer frenzy in the first place. They could teach us a thing or two about getting by on a minimal amount of resources.

Two-thirds of our visits come from the top 10 countries, the rest divided between all the others.

Top 10 Countries With Most Visitors to NBA

1. United States
2. Canada
3. United Kingdom
4. Australia
5. India
6. Netherlands
7. Germany
8. France
9. Philippines
10. New Zealand

In this crazy world we may sometimes wonder where all the good people have gone. They are where they have always been  - everywhere, including here on NBA.

So here is to the good people that have visited here and supported our blogging and lifestyle efforts through repeated visits and the sharing of such good ideas and feedback in comments. Here is to good people everywhere that are reducing their consumption and increasing their enjoyment of life. Thank you.

About The Book Cover Above

(From: Goodreads)

Good People Everywhere

by Lynea Gillen, Kristina Swarner (Illustrations)

Winner of Mom's Choice Award, Teacher's Choice and Moonbeam Children's Book Awards

A colorful picture book that will warm the hearts of children and adults alike, each of its pages contain endearing examples and vibrant illustrations to inspire children to grow into grateful, caring, and giving people. It provides a wonderful way to calm children before sleep, ease their fears, and help them develop an appreciation for good work. Also included are activity pages to help children practice skills for creating gratitude, compassion, and beauty in daily life.

Hardcover, 32 pages

Published August 1st 2012 by Three Pebble Press, LLC

ISBN 0979928982 (ISBN13: 9780979928987)

Rule #1: Do No Harm

Living simply is, well, simple. It requires little more than cultivating a conscious effort to do no harm. Or at least as little harm as possible. All the rest follows from that effort.

It is hard to spend money these days and NOT do harm. Therefore, deciding to reduce the harm one does also means saving money. And any time we harm anything else we are actually harming ourselves in the end. But we can stop.

Think of all the things you would quit doing if you were trying to do no harm. You would eat less meat, fly less often (or not at all), and divest from all investments in fossil fuels, nuclear, weapons, and tobacco.

War and violence would be totally out of the question and would be relegated to the dust bin of history. These would be replaced with love, and we would become creators rather than destroyers.

Reducing the amount of harm one does leads to doing as much for yourself as possible rather than relying on corporations to provide for us. It would lead to things like cooking for yourself rather than eating fast and prepared foods. Self-reliance and building a supportive, loving community become priorities.

There are many, many other things that would help in becoming less harmful to the environment and all the things living in it. The possibilities are only limited by our imagination. The quest becomes even more exciting because there are always additional things one can do to reach a state of harmlessness, or at least as close as one can get.

Unbelievers like to point out things like, "Carrots feel pain when you pull them out of the ground", and they may be making a valid point - it is unlikely we can ever eliminate harm entirely (sorry carrots). But that does not mean we can't reduce it to an acceptable level.

Perhaps what simple living detractors are really saying is that consumerism is fun, and convenient and easy. Who would want to give all that up? And how exactly does one show their placement in a certain social class if we can't do harm?

The higher we go up the social ladder the more we tend to do harm. This is because we show our wealth by waste and destruction. The more we use and waste, the richer we appear.

If we can reduce the amount of harm we do in our short period on this troubled planet, why wouldn't we choose to do so?

It is simple.

Just cultivate a conscious effort to do no harm. The rest follows naturally.

Simple Living In History

“This book highlights how rethinking our attitudes and behaviour toward consumption can be a fruitful pathway to social and ecological harmony.”  - David Holmgren

  

Simplicity has always been practiced by humanity. For 99% of our existence it has been the preferred mode of living on our finite planet.

It has only been the last few decades that extreme materialism has been touted as the best way to achieve happiness. This in spite of knowing for thousands of years the appropriateness of living simply.

The accumulated knowledge of appropriate living on Earth was recognized recently when The Simplicity Institute published a book called Simple Living In History: Pioneers of The Deep Future.

After receiving an email from the Institute I previewed the book. The Table of Contents sent me immediately to our public library website to see if it was in the collection. Unfortunately it wasn't, so I will be recommending it to their book buyers.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface by the Editors, Samuel Alexander and Amanda McLeod

FOREWORD
by David Shi


1. BUDDHA - Peter Doran

2. DIOGENES - William Desmond

3. ARISTOTLE - Jerome Segal

4. EPICURUS - Michael Augustin

5. THE STOICS - Dirk Baltzly

6. JESUS - Simon Ussher

7. WESTERN MONASTICISM - William Fahey

8. THE QUAKERS - Mark Burch

9. THE AMISH - Steven Nolt

10. HENRY THOREAU - Samuel Alexander

11. JOHN RUSKIN - David Craig

12. WILLIAM MORRIS - Sara Wills

13. GANDHI - Whitney Sanford

14. DITCHLING VILLAGE - William Fahey

15. THE AGRARIANS - Allan Carlson

16. THE NEARINGS - Amanda McLeod

17. IVAN ILLICH - Marius de Geus

18. JOHN SEYMOUR - Amanda McLeod

19. VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY - Mary Grigsby

20. RADICAL HOMEMAKING - Shannon Hayes

21. INTENTIONAL COMMUNITIES - Bill Metcalf

22. PERMACULTURE - Albert Bates

23. TRANSITION TOWNS - Samuel Alexander and Esther Alloun

24. DEGROWTH - Serge Latouche

25. THE SIMPLER WAY - Ted Trainer

26. MINDFULNESS - Mark Burch


Each chapter of Simple Living In History is an essay about the person or movement indicated. It reflects the recent history (the past couple thousand years) of right living on our fragile planet even though our experience of living simply goes back hundreds of thousands of years to our origins.

Talk about a simple living study list - the Table of Contents alone gets me going. Awesome for future research, but I am going to see if I can get my frugal hands on a volume of this book.

Simplicity has been the way of the past, and will be the way of the future. Therefore a book like Simple Living In History becomes an important collection of applied knowledge to guide us into our sustainable future.

“Simple Living in History challenges the mentality of waste and extravagance that defines modern industrial lifestyles, reminding us that the answers we need have been here all along, waiting for us to notice them.”   

- John Michael Greer

All Mining Is Dangerous

Art by the Taring Padi Artist Collective, Indonesia

I don't think that it is an exaggeration to say that all mining is dangerous and with harmful outcomes. The recent Mount Polley gold and copper mine tailings pond breach in British Columbia is only one on a long list of examples of what we have done to our fair sister in our pursuit of the consumer lifestyle that mining brings.

With consumerism, and the extractive industries that make it possible firmly entrenched already by the 1960s, poet Jim Morrison could see what we were doing to the Earth:

ravaged and plundered

and ripped her and bit her. 

Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn, 

and tied her with fences 

and dragged, her, down.

What are the consequences of all this ravaging and plundering for profit? Imperial Metals, the owners of the 5 billion liters of waste water and 3 million cubic feet of toxic sludge that released into surrounding forests, waterways and lakes in northern BC, might be fined one million dollars.

Or the company could take the course that is common in the mining world - go bankrupt and walk away from all responsibility for their catastrophic failure of engineering and common sense. That means the taxpayer becomes responsible for the damages and cleanup (if cleaning up is possible).

The Canadian government has a $3.5-billion Federal Contaminated Site fund to clean up the 21,000 sites, some of which are abandoned toxic mining messes. That is a $3.5 billion dollar subsidy to the industry for which we all pay. Our grandkids grandkids will still be paying for mitigating the effects of the mining and consumption of the past 50 years.

In northern Canada there resides yet another mining tragedy. The Faro project in the Yukon Territory was the world's largest lead/zinc mine until it closed in 1998.

"It will take 45 years to seal Faro’s toxic tailings off from the rest of the world, making it one of the most expensive mine remediation projects in Canadian history. 

Closing Faro’s tomb will cost over $450 million and require constant maintenance for at least 500 years. 

Not a cent will come from the companies that operated the Faro mine for over 30 years. The mine went through several closures throughout its lifetime. The last one was in 1998, when the Anvil Range Mining Corporation went bankrupt."

If the public did not pay for messes like at Mount Polley, or the Faro mine, or the multi-billion dollar Lapindo Mudflow Disaster in Indonesia that resulted from "blatant human errors", the companies would cease to be profitable. Therefore cease to be.

If all mining is dangerous, then all consumerism is as well. Every single thing we buy causes some sort of harm. Because of that it seems wise to consume consciously, take care of the things you do buy, and live as simply as possible.

"A 2009 UN report found that a third of the profits of the world’s biggest 3,000 companies would be wiped out if firms were forced to pay for the use, loss and damage to the environment they cause.  In other words, truly effective environmental regulation would render capitalism impossible."  

- author David Cromwell 

Containers Provide Housing Alternatives

Shipping containers can be used to build low-cost, creative homes like this one
 in Georgia, USA.

There is a good chance that a lot of what you own came to you via a shipping container. It is estimated that 90% of the world's trade goods travel by container, and since it costs less to make new containers in places like China than to transport empty ones back, there is a glut of them.

There are a total of about 17 million containers in the world, many of which will remain at their destination never to  be filled and put to sea again. Fortunately, instead of seeing them as a disposal problem, people are seeing how they can help provide low-cost, and often funky, alternative homes.

When we first moved to the west coast we considered buying a piece of land and building a simple, affordable container home. The idea was appealing since we live in an area where there are thousands and thousands of containers are available for purchase due to our proximity to local ports.

In 2013 almost 3 million shipping containers passed through the Port of Vancouver, BC, and eight million through the Port of Los Angeles, USA. Any major city that is a shipping hub will have used containers for sale, including delivery.

Our container home plan was put on hold when one acre of Pacific rainforest increased in price during a local bubble to $150,000 dollars or more, putting it over our budget.

Now that we are headed to an area of the country where an acre of land can be purchased for as low as $5000 dollars, we are looking into container home designs once again. Almost half a million shipping containers of consumer goods come into the port of Halifax every year.

Nice open space.

A 40 ft used container on the east coast costs about $3,000 dollars, and if we did some of the work ourselves, we could have an affordable home suited to our purposes and new location.

Using used containers as a building resource can be quick, simple, and affordable. It also helps to re-purpose some of the hundreds of thousands of forgotten containers stacked in storage on shipping grounds around the world.

Not Wasting Anything

REDUCE is the best method for eliminating waste.

The long version of the name of our blog could be: Not Buying Anything, Not Wasting Anything. The two are inescapably linked in a cycle of buying and disposing, buying and disposing...

Therefore, one of the best ways to reduce the amount of waste produced is to reduce consumption. However, this is not something that you will ever see promoted in the mainstream.

The consumer world is a wasteful world. Why? Because there is profit in waste, from selling disposable crap, to collecting and burying it when it is unwanted or unusable. Indeed, most of what we buy becomes waste within six weeks of purchase.

Breakdown of average household waste.

Even after cutting consumption and addressing the problem of waste at its origin, we can still do more to eliminate waste from our lives.

Living more gently upon this planet means getting as close to zero waste as possible. Any system that expects less, like conspicuous consumerism, violates the general laws of nature and is doomed to fail.

Waste is death. That is why there is no waste in nature, and that is why I am reducing consumption, and trying my best to not waste anything of what I do buy. My Junk Drawer is alive and well and saves me from time to time with valuable, re-usable resources that can be put to re-use in creative ways.

A great deal of food waste occurs in the home.

Ways to Not Waste Anything (or at least waste less)

1. Cut your consumption. Reduce, reduce, reduce.
2. Say no to disposable, single use items, and anything plastic.
3. Use it up, wear it out, or do without.
4. Compost kitchen scraps.
5. Say no to products with excessive packaging (processed foods, fast food, consumer products, etc.). Ask Customer Service if you can leave packaging in the store after purchase. If you can't, leave without buying.
6. Cook with whole foods (that usually have minimal packaging).
7. Use food more efficiently - eat what needs to be eaten first to prevent spoilage.
8. Buy what you need to get the job done, and no more. 
9. Avoid "luxury" anything.
10. Make a game of living harmoniously within the cycles of nature - leave the linear and wasteful ways of "buy and throw away" consumerism behind, because there is no "away".

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)