Need Less

giftThe essence of radical simplicity, of the gift/generosity economy, of natural community, and of natural entrepreneurship, I think, is needing less. Needing less makes us, as individuals, members of enterprises, communities and societies, more self-sufficient, and more resilient, and allows us to give more with the ‘excess’ time, energy and money that we have by virtue of needing less. Meanwhile, the industrial economy is utterly dependent on consumers needing (or thinking they need) more and more. Need creates scarcity, and scarcity increases neediness. Without ever-increasing need there can be no growth, and without continuous growth, the industrial economy collapses. By contrast, the natural economy is sustainable indefinitely requiring only generosity, resilience and innovation.

It is increasingly obvious that our world can no longer afford the industrial economy, and the manufactured needs that perpetuate it. As co-dependents of the ruinous corpocracy desolating the Earth to fill these needs, we have become addicts to the endless satisfaction of these needs — by virtue of how we work and what we work at, our helplessness, and our boredom, borne from poverty of imagination.

In order to need less, we do not have to become ascetics or martyrs, nor do we have to sacrifice. What we do have to do:

  1. Rethink where and how we work: Of course face-to-face meetings and working in constant physical proximity with co-workers and customers is preferable. It is also, today, an extravagance. The resources we squander simply to be physically closer together are obscene. We must quickly and dramatically simplify and improve the technologies for Simple Virtual Presence, and then make them ubiquitous and mandatory. We should then make commuting a social sin, unless you job actually requires you to touch ‘hard’ products — products that cannot be captured in bits and transmitted electronically. I would guess that that would reduce the need for (a) office buildings, (b) cars and airplanes, (c) gasoline, (d) business attire and travel accessories, and (e) high salaries and long work-hours to pay for these things, and would save a ton of time that in turn would reduce other needs that are currently a direct result of spending most of our waking hours either in cars or away from home.
  2. Think and buy longer-term, and learn to make, do and fix things ourselves: Much of what we ‘need’ to buy is replacements for the shoddy crap that clogs the malls and supermarkets, and fills our sloppily-constructed homes. We should make the manufacturers of everything take back and recycle, reuse or (if necessary) pay for disposal of everything we buy when it breaks or wears out, at their cost. Then the cost of poor quality, throw-away junk will be pushed back to the manufacturers, driving most of them out of business. What will be left will be durable, well-made and, yes, more expensive. It will also mostly be locally-made, because Chinese manufacturers will have to pay to take back the crap they sell us, and they won’t be able to afford to. We can help by learning to make and do and fix things ourselves, as a hobby, and also as a means of self-liberation from dependency on others who, usually, can’t be depended on.
  3. Learn to entertain ourselves, in community: A huge amount of money is spent on so-called entertainment and recreation ‘products’, mostly junky, overpriced, and dominated by oligopolies. This industry of schlockmeisters preys on our imaginative poverty, our isolation from others (even in our own physical communities), and on our exhaustion (much of it from energy-wasting commuting, shopping and other avoidable activities). If we did (1) and (2) above, and got together with others in our communities, we would be able to create our own music, theatre, films, games and other entertainments. This would exercise our creativity and imaginations, be more satisfying, and re-engage us socially with people other than family and work colleagues, all of which have benefits that extend far beyond just reducing our needs.
  4. Do things together: Reintegration into physical communities would also allow us to realize the benefits of collaboration, reducing the need for us to hire outsiders to do things for us, and the need to buy stuff ‘self-ishly’ just for our household, even though it is rarely used and all our neighbours have the same stuff sitting rarely-used in their houses. We could also learn new skills from this collaboration, further reducing our need to buy goods and services from others. 

So much for most of our financial and physical needs. What about our emotional neediness — the need for the other stuff in Maslow’s hierarchy — security, love and attention and appreciation, self-esteem and meaning and self-actualization? I would argue that (3) and (4) above would also increase the amount of security and attention and appreciation we get, and (2) and (4) above would increase our self-esteem, by increasing our competencies and self-sufficiency.

But how else can we reduce our emotional neediness? I think one way is through generosity — by looking out for others, loving them, paying attention to them, appreciating them, genuinely complimenting them, showing and teaching and helping them, we reduce their emotional neediness. We turn scarcity of love, attention, appreciation and self-esteem into abundance. How do we know this generosity will be repaid in kind? We don’t. But it might. And it doesn’t cost us anything, except a bit of time and effort (which (1)-(4) above can give us more of) to begenerous with these gifts.

Give more… Need less.

Category: Let-Self-Change
This entry was posted in Collapse Watch. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Need Less

  1. Justin Davey says:

    Very true, very true! I would replace “need” with “want” though. Our materialistic culture is based purely on wants. Needs are very basic.

  2. You point to the current business model (invented with the advent of cheap oil I believe) of setting things up so people buy cheap, buy often and have nothing left at the end of it. (So they need to repeat buy). The sustainable way of thinking – buy once, use a hundred years – or a similar model – buy and share a hundred years – is far more inherently environmentally sustainable. I have thought about this quite a lot – why is this not prevelant and easily available? Concöusion – in the context of modern society it does not work. We can’t make it work because we have not developed (or have forgotten)the skills of working together. The alternative is always slightly more difficult. And less lucrateive to offer. I could join a grow it yourself local food cooperative, but going down the corner shop is easier. I could get together with others to buy a big house to share, but havng my own is easier. It is cheap energy based economy that allows it to be this way. For the time being. And prevailing attitudes would put a negative on sharing – “I mean that is cooperation, cooperative sounds like we are on the way to communism and we know what happens with that don’t we?”

  3. DeLayne says:

    A group of us are developing a mens retirement community and very interested in living in harmony, sharing the joy of old age and managing our resources the best we can (see the web site listed). But I caution you to avoid the temptation of thinking of life in isolation (e.g. growing our own food, fixing things, avoiding diversity). If you take the relatively simplistic notion of the systems and energy needed just to stay cool and warm, you realize that even a wood lot takes energy to cut and harvest, a furnace needs to be cast from iron and transported to our domicile, etc. I encouage you instead to realize that a good life requires interlocking systems where the “quality of life” is seen where each sub-system can contribute in a positive, lean and productive way to the higher order values of life and love. And, that given the opportunity those outside our immediate system still need to produce and learn useful skills and to be part of our economy and of a good life.

  4. Mariella says:

    There are some non modern etnias in the amazonian rainforest that do not know the concept of “reciprocity” but they do know the concept of “solidarity”… they give without expecting any kind of retribution…. they relate with people in the same way they relate to nature, to the forest. The forest gives what it has to give… be it food or floods, life or death… and never “cares” about receiving anything back…

Comments are closed.