I just finished reading the book, Radical Simplicity, by Jim Merkel. I don’t make it a habit of critiquing the books I read, and these comments are not meant to be a review of the book. However, I find the subject very interesting, both theoretically and practically, and the book raised issues that my mind is still processing.
The basic problem is generally understood and accepted – that the resources of our earth are limited, and that our present rate of consumption of those resources is unsustainable.
Merkel explains the problem and his proposed solution by quantifying resource availability and usage in terms of ecological footprint (EF). Accordingly, all local, regional and global energy systems (food, fuel, housing, consumer goods, etc) can be described by their EF. For example, the EF of a head lettuce would be the amount of surface area of the earth that is required to produce it, including growing space, fertilizer, water, storage space, energy to process and refrigerate it, and the fuel required to package, transport and market it. The materials, energy, and time invested in that head of lettuce can be expressed mathematically as a specific amount of surface area (square feet, yard, acres, etc) of the earth. At earth’s present population level there are about 4 acres of surface area available for each human being. The problem is that in the most industrialized parts of the world, such as North America, the average human consumes the earth’s resources at a level of about 26 acres per person. Obviously, that level of consumption is unsustainable.
Merkel is a former engineer, and not surprisingly takes a mathematical approach to solving the problem. Basically, his solution consists of 5 steps:
(1) Calculate your personal ecological footprint using a set of tables and formulas presented in the book.
(2) Determine what you want your personal ecological footprint to be, and reduce your consumption to match that figure.
(3) Calculate the minimum amount of income you can possible live on. (This figure is somehow related to EF, but I missed the connection. The author’s minimum figure was about $5000 per year).
(4) Reduce your expenditures and increase your savings until the interest on your savings matches the minimum income amount you calculated. You can then quit work and live on the interest from your savings.
(5) Get in touch with nature by spending lots of time in wild areas.
I see several flaws in Mr. Merkel’s specific approach:
(1) Most people are not engineers and don’t want to spend days or weeks calculating their personal EF down to the hair on a gnats butt. Besides, he’s already told us that our average EF is about 26 acres – an enormous value.
(2) I don’t want to become so obsessed with money as to be willing to track every penny like a miser. Life is about more than money, and I refuse to give it undue attention, or allow it to rule my life.
(3) The idea of retiring early and living entirely on earned interest is appealing on the surface, but is doomed to failure on a large scale. It could only work for the first few million of us. The idea is based on the expected continuation of our current economic system, which itself is based on and fueled by our consumptive lifestyle. If every person were to quit work and live on earned interest, the system would collapse.
Don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe that living simply and responsibly is good for individuals, families, communities, and the planet. However, I do not believe that the concept of simple living will be accepted by more than a few individuals. There are just too many opposing ideas that we hold dear. Down deep, most of us believe that:
(1) progress is sustainable,
(2) everyone in the world should (and can) achieve and maintain the same standard of living enjoyed by those in the most industrialized nations,
(3) if we don’t use the resources, someone else will,
(4) technology will solve the problems associated with earth’s limited resources,
(5) the gap between rich and poor is normal and natural, and we can’t do anything about it,
(6) we’re entitled to all we have because we’ve earned it.
What do I think is the long-term global ecological outlook ? Whether I like it or not, if I think realistically, I have to accept that:
(1) most people will continue to over-consume the earth’s limited resources until those resources become essentially depleted, or prohibitively expensive,
(2) there will always be a group who will exercise a measure of control over whatever resources remain,
(3) the rich will get richer, but there will be fewer of them
(4) the poor will always be with us, and there will be more of them (us)
(5) history will remember this present age as the apex of average standard of living
(6) the universe will survive - the ebb and flow of life will continue
(7) humanity will survive:
(a) we’re not as smart or powerful as we think we are
(b) we’re not in control of the universe or our destiny
(c) successive generations will face their own unique challenges
(d) humanity is not defined by the level of technology – stone age people loved their children as much as we love ours
So, what should I do personally?
(1) live simply because it’s the right thing to do – for me, for others, for the earth,
(2) recognize that most other people will not agree with me,
(3) remember what makes us human – although our relationship to the earth and it resources is important, materialism is secondary to spirituality,
(4) teach by example – we already have plenty of preachers,
(5) enjoy life.
