I won't apologize for breaking my promise of weekly publishings, but I'm not above giving excuses. I've never been this busy!!! And it truly feels great. I'm two weeks into my cleanse, and haven't touched dairy, or gluten. I've lost 10 pounds this time, but I've continued to work out, almost daily, and I've reincorporated weight lifting back into my routine. And while my body hasn't changed drastically, I feel slimmer, and healthier-and sticking to this routine, and exercising has giving me a sense of confidence that turns lights on.
In my basic economic course (which I'm taking for a general requirement), we discussed how, generally, economics is about scarcity, or meeting unlimited needs with limited resources, and also continuous sustainable growth. This accepted definition of what a society demands for proper economic success is, in my opinion, scary, and impossible to sustain. The very definition itself is an oxymoron: trying to meet
unlimited wants/needs with
limited resources?
Sustainable growth, with
limited resources? But it seems that this is such an entrenched ideal, it would be like trying to debate the validity of religon in determining social policy with religous fundamentals. It's just accepted as truth. But this foundation is one of the reasons why our economy is bound to a sinking rock.
My argument is that you cannot have sustained growth. I mean you can, for several generations, but what this doesn't take into account are the intagibles of human nature. Once the society, as a whole, reaches a certain level of affluence, priorities shift. Desires and 'needs' alter and change. TV's aren't necessities (although I'm sure people would argue that point, but for survival they aren't necessities), cars aren't necessities...these are examples of things that have assumed the title necessities, because they aid in the ease of daily life. And I'm not discrediting that, but they aren't, in the true sense of the word survival
necessities. So, you add a car, and a tv to what consumers consider a necessary item, this is growth, correct? But in doing so you are using more of the limited resources in order to supply the people with what they 'need'.
The next variable to add is population growth. So, removing all emotion from the definition, an increasing population, means an increasing work force, which most economists feel is a good thing. That work force is also the consumer, which means production of even more of the 'needs' which pulls even more of the limited resources. According to the National Geographic, the world population has grown from 1 billion people in 1800 to 6.6 billion today, and is projected to reach 9billion people by 2050, before the growth slows substantially. How is that sustainable? With the genetic modification of food, destruction of natural land, and the explosion of rural areas-sure, there are ways to do it. But what are we giving up, and, I guess the better question is WHY? WHY are people deciding to pop more and more children out? And what does this mean for the current American way of life? It's completely unsustainable.
What we are creating is a generation of entitled youth, who see people like the kardashians, and (*gag*) Jersey Shore who have money dripping out their ears, and are rewarded for being imbiciles. Showing what wealthy people do with their time and money is obviously enticing to people who are sponges, and have yet to firm up in their vision of self. Youth. They are becoming entitled in the sense that they think this wealth is attainable-they all think that. And they are told that 'you can do anything you put your mind to'. But what they are not told is that real life takes work, balance, decision making skills, responsibility, mundane routine. The bulk of real life is kind of boring. And getting the fun in life, for most of us, takes a lot of sacrifice.
I would much rather give up my TV, my car, and other luxaries, then have to walk in littered, and fenced in forest, or swim and kayak in toxic waters.
When Kassi died, I was in Chicago. An overpopulated area to be sure. A great city, if you have disposable income, and even if you don't, there is a lot to do. But it's extremely dense. When she died, I sought reflection, isolation from noise. Where the
f#@% in the city of Chicago are you supposed to find a place that offers that? I found a few bandages in the Morton Arboretum, and the Garfield Conservatory. But that very rarely offered true isolation. There is something very healing about not hearing any motors, and even in Madison I have a 30 min.
drive to get to those places.
I realize that this is stating opinion and not offering direct solutions. I guess the solution to the problem is multi-faceted: individuals making decisions about what they 'need', people being happy with the things they do have influence over, the Kardashians, and Jersey Shore and other shows like it that give credibility to imbecile rich people being pulled off the air. And finally, the worth of the natural world has to be raised in the minds of many, many people.
Ok, enough ranting. I want to go on a vacation...
