Part Five – What ways can we become more nonmaterialistic?

1. Withdrawing

The philosopher, Epicurus, has become the patron saint of “Epicureanism”, and “Epicureanism” has become a by-word for hedonism, narcissism and bacchanalianism. 

 But, in spite of the spin put on his ideas, Epicurus actually advocated a simple life of simple pleasures. He said, ‘Of the desires, some are natural and necessary. Others natural but unnecessary. And there are desires that are neither natural nor necessary

What is essential for happiness? Friends, freedom and reflection are natural and necessary.  A large palatial house, lavish food and drink , and a retinue of servants are natural but unnecessary. While fame,  power and wealth are neither natural nor necessary.  [1]

 Epicurus says that we need three things to be happy – friendship, freedom and reflection. He says ‘Wealth is unlikely to make anyone miserable, but if we have money without friends, freedom or reflection, we will never be truly happy. And if we have them, but are missing the fortune, we will never be unhappy.’[2]

On Friendship: Epicurus says, ‘Before you eat or drink anything, consider carefully who you eat or drink with, rather than what you eat or drink’. ‘Of all the things that wis-dom provides to help one live one’s entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is friendship.’[3]

On Freedom: ‘Epicurus and his friends removed themselves from employment in the com-mercial world of Athens, and began what could best have been described as a commune – accepting a simpler way of life in exchange for independence.’ [4]

 On Reflection: In about AD 120 a colonnade was erected in the central market of a town in Asia Minor called Oinoanda. It was inscribed with Epicurean slogans begging shoppers   to rethink their priorities. One slogan said ‘One must regard wealth beyond what is natural as of no more use than water to a container that is full to overflowing.’ [5]

2. Nonconforming.

 Alternative lifestyles are often called ‘bohemian’ – the word traditionally used to refer to gypsies who were mistakenly thought to have originated in central Europe.’ [6]

 ‘Arthur Ransome, in Bohemia in London (1907) remarked “Bohemia can be any-where: it is not a place but an attitude.’[7] 

 Two famous influential ‘bohemians’ were John Ruskin in the UK and Henry Thoreau in the USA.

 John Ruskin ‘excoriated nineteenth-century Britons for being wealth-obsessed’. He said to them, ‘You are a parcel of thieves.’ In Unto This Last he called on them to seek to be wealthy in terms of virtue, not in terms of riches – ‘to be wealthy in kindness, curiosity, sensitivity, humility, godliness and intelligence’. He said  ’That country is the richest which nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings; that man is the richest, who has also the widest helpful influence over others.’ [8]    

 ‘In 1906, Britain’s first twenty-seven Labour MPs were asked what single book had most powerfully influenced them to pursue social justice through politics. Seventeen cited Ruskin’s Unto This Last.’ [9]And a certain Mahatma Gandhi said the same!

 ‘In July 1845, one of the most renowned bohemians of nineteenth-century America,          Henry Thoreau, moved into a log cabin he had built with his own hands on the north shoe of Walden Pond, near Concord, Massachusetts. His goal was to see if he could lead an outwardly plain but inwardly rich existence and in the process demonstrate to the bourgeoisie that it was possible to combine a life of material scarcity with psychological fulfilment.’[10] ‘Instead of using the word “poverty” to describe his condition, Thoreau preferred the word “simplicity”.[11] He concluded that ‘Man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can do without.’[12] ‘money is not required to buy one necessary of the soul.’ [13] 

 Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his essay on Self-Reliance (1840) ‘Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.’p294

 3. Downshifting.

 In recent years it seems that a growing number of ordinary people have found a way to overcome their fears and to make very significant changes in their lifestyles.

 Clive Hamilton says ‘already in society today there are large numbers of people who have decided to devote themselves to activities other than market-based ones aimed at more income and consumption. Armies of talented people work for the Red Cross and Greenpeace. These people are forerunners of the post-growth society.’[14]

 These forerunners are ‘downshifters’. Downshifters, as the name implies, are not upwardly mobile, but downwardly mobile, as Juliet Schor says, ‘opting out of excessive consumption to have more balance in their schedules, a slower pace  of life, and daily lives that line up squarely with their deepest values.’ [15]

 ‘Radical in its implications as it might be, the transition to a post-growth society, is by no means far-fetched or utopian. Many people in rich countries have already made a decision to reduce their work, incomes and consumption.’[16]

 Who are downshifting?

 ‘A remarkable 19% of the American adult population declared that in the pre-vious 5 years they had voluntarily decided to make a change in their lives that resulted in making less money.’[17]

 ‘A similar survey in Australia found that 23% of 30-60 year olds had down-shifted citing as their reasons a desire for more balance and control in their lives, more time with their families and more personal fulfilment.’[18]

 ‘Evidence suggests that among the downshifters are people from a broad range of social classes and income groups; they are not merely stressed out yuppies.’[19]

‘Most are ordinary people who have decided it is in their interests to step off the materialist treadmill and take up a more balanced and rewarding life.’[20]

 How Aussies are downshifting.

 People downshift by reducing working hours (28%), choosing lower paying jobs (23%) changing their career (18%) or stopping paid work altogether (18%). [21]

Why Aussies are downshifting.

 ‘Downshifters are motivated above all by the desire to bring the daily reality of their lives into harmony with their deeply held values. To make the transition, they take a crucial but simple psychological leap: they decide that they will no longer judge their own worth by the amount they earn and consume.’[22]

 People downshift because they want to spend more time with their families (35%), to have a healthier lifestyle (23%), to acquire more balance (15%) and more fulfilment (15%). High-income downshifters tend to emphasise the need for more fulfilment. Low-income downshifters tend to emphasise the need for a healthier lifestyle.[23]

 What Aussies feel about downshifting.

 ‘Downshifters are overwhelmingly happy with their decisions.’(92%!) 16% of down-shifters (with young families) are happy, though they feel the loss of in-come acutely. While 34% of downshifters are happy – and say they don’t miss the money at all.[24]

 What are the political implications of downshifting? 

 a. Downshifting shows that personal change is possible.

‘Radical in its implications as it might be, the transition to a post-growth soc-iety, is by no means far-fetched or utopian. Many people in rich countries have already made a decision to reduce their work, incomes and consumption.’ [25]

b. Personal change makes political change possible.

 ‘The reason we have been unable to make the changes that are needed (thus far) is the preoccupation of most of the population (the so-called “aspirational voters”) with their income, a preoccupation reinforced every time a political party declares that its first priority is more growth.’[26]

 ‘The research reported in this paper uncovers a large and, until now, invis-ible class of citizens who consciously reject consumerism and the pre-occupations of the “aspirational voter”. These voters, who comprise at least a quarter of the adult population, might be called “anti-aspirational voters”. They reject the unquestioned assumptions of Australian politics that voters respond first and foremost to the “hip-pocket nerve”; for them the hip-pocket nerve has been cauterised.’[27]

 In 1995 the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Atti-tudes (PIPA) did a survey of Americans on US spending on foreign aid. And they discovered that though the majority felt too much money was being spent on foreign aid, most of them thought 15% of the GNP was being spent on foreign aid! When asked what they thought an appropriate amount of foreign aid should be, the median response was 5% – 50 times more than was actually being spent! [28]

 A few months later the Washington Post did their own survey to check these results. And they discovered that though the majority felt too much money was being spent on foreign aid, most of them thought 20% of the GNP was being spent on foreign aid! When asked what they thought an appropriate amount of foreign aid should be, the median response was 10% – 100 times more than was being spent! [29]

 These results suggest that people would be prepared to give more to foreign aid.

 And the research in Australia supports the idea that a growing number of people would be willing to give more to support healthy policy choices that would ensure the welfare of other people and the future of the planet itself.

Though the level of government aid is falling slowly, but surely and remorselessly  the level of non-government foreign aid has doubled in the past six years. [30]

c. ‘Nothing is inevitable and no power is invincible!’[31]

 Thomas Aquinas says “Whatever a man (sic) has in superabundance is owed, of a natural right, to the poor for their sustenance.”[32]

 We could pay what we owe; and ameliorate, if not eliminate, global poverty! 

 Every day 30,000 children die of poverty related diseases. Peter Unger, a New York philosopher, did some research to assess how much it would cost to save their lives. He came up with a figure of US$200 per child. .[33]

 To achieve the Millennium goals – to combat major diseases, reduce child mortality by two-thirds, halve the number of people living in poverty, with-out access to safe drinking water, and ensure all people have a primary education by 2015 – would cost an additional US$ 60 billion in aid.[34]

 Which sounds a lot, but is $29 billion less than the latest increase in the US military budget.  It could be paid for by giving just 0.4% of our income. [35]

 But why give .4% of our income to ameliorate global poverty, when just 1.0% of our personal and national income might eliminate global poverty altogether? ‘One per cent would be a more useful symbolic figure.’[36] 

 If we all were willing to give 1% of our income, we could change the world!

Some countries – like Norway, Sweden and Denmark – are already giving 1% of their national income to fund the U.N. Millennium Development Goals.

 And there is no reason why a country, like Australia, couldn’t do the same! 

 However, given the fact it is unlikely everyone will give 1% of their income, in the meantime some of us will need to give much more. How much more?

 The controversial Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, says ‘the formula is simple: whatever money that you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away. How does (that) break down into dollars and cents? According to the Conference Board, a non-profit economic research organ-isation, a … household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world’s poor should be as closes as possible to $20,000. A household making $100,000 could write a cheque for $70,000.’[1]

 Knowing what we could be doing -  is the first step towards doing it!

---

[1] p60 Alain de Botton The Consolations Of Philosophy Pantheon New York 2000 

[2] p59 Alain de Botton The Consolations Of Philosophy

[3] p57 Alain de Botton The Consolations Of Philosophy

[4] p58 Alain de Botton The Consolations Of Philosophy

[5] p67 Alain de Botton The Consolations Of Philosophy

[6] p277 Alain de Botton Status Anxiety

[7] p277 Alain de Botton Status Anxiety

[8] p209-210 Alain de Botton Status Anxiety

[9] p209-210 Alain de Botton Status Anxiety

[10] p285 Alain de Botton Status Anxiety

[11] p285 Alain de Botton Status Anxiety

[12] p285 Alain de Botton Status Anxiety

[13] p287 Alain de Botton Status Anxiety

[14] p230 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[15] p205 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[16] p205 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[17] p206 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[18] p206 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[19] p205 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[20] p206 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[21] p10 Clive Hamilton & Elizabeth Mail Downshifting in Australia The Australia Institue 2003

[22] p207 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[23] p10 Clive Hamilton & Elizabeth Mail Downshifting in Australia

[24] p10 Clive Hamilton & Elizabeth Mail Downshifting in Australia

[25] p205 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[26] p234 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[27] p11 Clive Hamilton & Elizabeth Mail Downshifting in Australia

[28] p200 Peter Singer One World The Text Publishing Co., Melbourne, 2002.

[29] p200 Peter Singer One World .

[30] Kenneth Davidson ‘A Popgun War On Poverty’ The Age Tuesday March 26, 2002

[31] p240 Clive Hamilton Growth Fetish                      

[32] p200 Peter Singer One World

[33] p205 Peter Singer One World

[34] p211 Peter Singer One World

[35] p211 Peter Singer One World

[36] p212 Peter Singer One World