In my Sustainability class we were discussing different theories of development and we were assigned a reading called addressing "The Subsistence Perspective." I read it and basically what it was advocating was that we abandon our Western definition of affluence as consuming as much as possible and replace it with the traditional definition of being self-sufficient. The author used an interesting allegory: a fictional conversation between an economist and a subsistence fisherman.
The economist sees the fisherman fishing for a few hours and then going back to shore. He asks the fisherman why he didn't stay out and fish longer. The fisherman replies that he has enough to feed his family and so he is going home to spend time with his family. The economist explains that if he had stayed out longer, he could have had more and been able to sell the extra for money to invest in a bigger boat. Then he could have reinvested the money into a bigger boat with which to catch more fish to make more money and so on and so forth until he had as much money as he ever wanted and could buy whatever he desired. The fisherman asks him, "Then what?" and the economist replies, "You can retire and spend more time with your family."
This is a summary, but the essential idea is there. The story, to me, is idealistic and a bit heavy-handed, but the idea intrigues me. I'm CERTAINLY not saying that we should all sell our houses and go fish for a living, because that would be ridiculous, but it has made me think about how we live as a society. We're constantly striving for the next best thing, to be rich to buy a new toy, new house, new car, that sometimes I think we forget about the true cost of that lifestyle. We're never content, we stay in jobs that we hate because we can't give up the money it provides us with, I know I've said more than once "I need the money." But sometimes I really do NEED the money for things like food and housing. But, if I saved more and spent less on silly things that I imagine I need, what would happen? Would I be more free because of it or would my life lack something?
I also wonder what would happen if the people at the top of our society, the incredibly wealthy, started living on only what they actually NEED. Maybe they'd just buy one house instead of five, maybe they'd be content with only a few pairs of earrings or only one car. Instead of constantly trying to impress their peers and us "little people" with how much money they have, what if they donated some of that money? What if CEOs decided to take only a modest salary of, say, $800,000 instead of the seven and eight figures they usually make and passed that savings down to the people who really CAN'T spare the few million dollars? Even congressmen and ex-Presidents get caught up in all of this, throwing HUGE amounts of money into...what? Campaigning? Their wardrobe? The legions of people writing their speeches? What if they were required to set a better example? I wonder what would happen to society. Would we be less for the lack of glitter or would we be more equal, more content?
Of course, all this is purely speculation. I'm completely positive that Donald Trump or Brittany Spears is not going to wake up tomorrow and say "Hey, do I really NEED all this? Maybe I should think of all the homeless." Frankly, I don't think that will EVER happen, but it's interesting to think about. And maybe someday when I'm rich and famous (HA!) I can set a good example.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
