inthemix.com.au: australian dance music | news | reviews | photos | forums | chat | what's on

DJ Squiggle · 03-Sep-11, 12:29am

Dick Smith's new book "Population Crisis" has him questioning Australia's obsession with consumption and increasing GDP.

Forty years ago the Club of Rome warned that world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion would all rub up against an expanding economy in its Malthusian ‘Limits to Growth’ tome. Peak Oil has also started to re-emerge as an issue, forty years after it too was identified.

Now, media-savvy ex-electronics retailer turned cream cheese king Dick Smith reckons he has the answer, blasting out a press release this morning telling retailers to “get used to” sagging bottom lines and embrace the gleaming alternative. “We can have a fantastic free enterprise system which is not based on exponential growth in the use of resources and energy, but we have to plan for it”, Smith explains.

Clive Hamilton expressed similar concerns 6 years ago in his book "Affluenza: When Too Much Is Never Enough"

Since the early 1990s Australia has been infected by affluenza, a growing and unhealthy preoccupation with money and material things. This illness is constantly reinforcing itself at both the individual and the social levels, constraining us to derive our identities and sense of place in the world through our consumption activity. It causes us to withdraw into a world of self-centred gratification - often at the expense of those around us. It is manifest in overconsumption and luxury fever, especially in our buying of goods that promise to transform our actual selves into the ideal selves the market has helped us construct.

Carter lost the election with this speech (I prefer to replace the word "God" with something less religious) when he tried to talk sense. Unfortunately Reagan's "postive" thinking won out as he accelerated the spiral of debt leading the USA to it's current sorry state.

Media Player

Hopefully we can get some sensible discussion here and avoid the shock-jock cliche of "So you want us all to live in a Cave!?". Call me an idealist but I'm hoping that dissenters will actually address the points raised.

CheelWinston · 03-Sep-11, 12:35am

i've got a real problem with the idea of 'growth'

Part of me hopes that the current retail downturn is at least in part due to the average person saying 'well fuck, i've got just about everything i need, ima just stop buying shit'

SparklingSam · 03-Sep-11, 01:23am

I had a problem with Dick Smith arguing against population growth when they showed that tv special, and he said how his daughter talked about it "being the elephant in the room", and then they had footage of her with her baby.
He advocates that couples should have no more than 2 children, but his daughters have 3 kids each.
That seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Kid A · 03-Sep-11, 01:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheelWinston

Part of me hopes that the current retail downturn is at least in part due to the average person saying 'well fuck, i've got just about everything i need, ima just stop buying shit'

I reckon this^^ would be an increasingly rare sentiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

m_xt · 03-Sep-11, 01:59am

What is your argunment OP?

DJ Squiggle · 03-Sep-11, 03:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by m_xt

What is your argunment OP?

None yet but I'll argue with myself//Dick/Clive/Jimmy if nobody else steps up to the mark.

I was inspired by another (otherwise intelligent) poster starting his thread flippantly with something along the lines of "Greens want us living back in caves". I reckon a lot of Greens would be in agreement with Dick & Clive but they dare not bring it up in the mainstream which likes to polarise rather than look at nuances. We aren't the mainstream here but we certainly are not unanimous on any topic so I await some (hopefully) interesting ideas.

Fewsion · 03-Sep-11, 11:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheelWinston

i've got a real problem with the idea of 'growth'

Part of me hopes that the current retail downturn is at least in part due to the average person saying 'well fuck, i've got just about everything i need, ima just stop buying shit'

Retail figures actually made a recovery July figures show.

Blue Moon · 03-Sep-11, 11:36am

Speaking of growth, employment figures out today for the US are pretty dire. Have they stalled?

buffed · 03-Sep-11, 01:20pm

it seems to be human nature to want to keep aspiring upward, both materially and in status. No way you can stop that other than by state imposed restrictions, but communism failed miserably. In a free society, it will be vurtually impossible to control peoples desire to aspire to whatever their perception of wealth or happiness is

Kid A · 03-Sep-11, 01:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

it seems to be human nature to want to keep aspiring upward, both materially and in status. No way you can stop that other than by state imposed restrictions, but communism failed miserably. In a free society, it will be vurtually impossible to control peoples desire to aspire to whatever their perception of wealth or happiness is

Just what "upward" is, is a very vague, loose, historically contingent thing.

I believe that the 'state', like you say, would have to play a large role. It would be reductive to think that's it's either "communism or this" though. That's the 'black and white', dismissive mentality that squiggle is talking about.

DJ Squiggle · 03-Sep-11, 02:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

it seems to be human nature to want to keep aspiring upward, both materially and in status

The materiality is true for most people in Australia but does mean it is natural?

It certainly isn't true for me. When I graduated from computer sicence in 1988 I worked full-time for only one year. Therein I chose to work part-time because my wage was double the minimum wage anyhow. I preferred to be rich in time/mind rather than cash/material goods.

I keep hearing that beyond a certain point that material wealth does not make people much happier. Therein, social networks (hi ITM'ers) become more important. Does someone have references to any independent studies? I can only find surveys done by biased organisations. The Wikipedia Happiness Economics entry makes a credibly referenced claim that...

Quote:

"Although on average richer nations tend to be happier than poorer nations, some studies have indicated that beyond an average GDP per capita of about $15,000 (most of the world's nations have less than this), the average income in a nation makes little difference to the average self-reported happiness. Other economists have disputed the accuracy of these studies, finding a logarithmic correlation between GDP per capita and self-reported happiness"

Everyone I have ever met is seeking "progress", as you say buffed, so perhaps if those that have reached the materially "comfortable" threshold could learn to find satisfaction in non-material progress we could then sustain lifting the entire planet out of poverty. eg Learning another language, creating music, tripping out with meditation, education in general (for its own sake not vocation).

When it comes to happiness I've collated my favorite links/audio/video/humour onto a single web page where you can find a good streaming audio discussion on Downshifting with Clive Hamilton's co-author (of Afluenza) RIchard Dennis and I've also just found the following video of him talking on Affluenza...

Media Player

claude glass · 03-Sep-11, 04:54pm

It think it's quite funny that someone who is independently wealthy on the back of retail puts out a book like this. There are many books on this topic. Dick Smith is saying nothing new, and jumping on the bandwagon, as he does. As usual, this is as much about Dick Smith's ego as it is about anything else.

YossarianIsSane · 03-Sep-11, 05:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

It think it's quite funny that someone who is independently wealthy on the back of retail puts out a book like this. There are many books on this topic. Dick Smith is saying nothing new, and jumping on the bandwagon, as he does. As usual, this is as much about Dick Smith's ego as it is about anything else.

He does tend to do this. Doesn't make him wrong though. I think it's great that you have someone who is a notable public figure espousing views like that and getting them out there.

Whitey1981 · 03-Sep-11, 05:38pm

It would mean more if it wasnt a rich bloke saying it.

Most people who arent wealthy say 'money wont make you happy but Id love to give it a try'. And its true, with money you can do more and be more comfortable in life.

Fair play if youre not into that but its extremely rare.

buffed · 03-Sep-11, 06:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

The materiality is true for most people in Australia but does mean it is natural?

It certainly isn't true for me. When I graduated from computer sicence in 1988 I worked full-time for only one year. Therein I chose to work part-time because my wage was double the minimum wage anyhow. I preferred to be rich in time/mind rather than cash/material goods.

I keep hearing that beyond a certain point that material wealth does not make people much happier. Therein, social networks (hi ITM'ers) become more important. Does someone have references to any independent studies? I can only find surveys done by biased organisations. The Wikipedia Happiness Economics entry makes a credibly referenced claim that...

Everyone I have ever met is seeking "progress", as you say buffed, so perhaps if those that have reached the materially "comfortable" threshold could learn to find satisfaction in non-material progress we could then sustain lifting the entire planet out of poverty. eg Learning another language, creating music, tripping out with meditation, education in general (for its own sake not vocation).

You wrote, 'when i graduated from computer science'........... If you ask me, technology is largely to blame for the growth fetish and the destruction of 'social' interaction in our society. i travelled to New York recently and i was shocked at the low level of social interaction between people. every cafe was full of people on ther own sipping coffee with earphones on, staring at their Ipad or laptop.

everyone has their own perception of what hapiness is, so i think it's pointless tracking down independent research on it as its a totally subjective thing.

Some countries are far more expensive to live in than others and there is no question that even though more money won't make someone happier per se, it can certainly make one's lifestyle more comfortable, relatively speaking

claude glass · 03-Sep-11, 06:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by YossarianIsSane

He does tend to do this. Doesn't make him wrong though. I think it's great that you have someone who is a notable public figure espousing views like that and getting them out there.

I haven't read the book, so I shouldn't really comment, but I will anyway based on prior form. I wonder if it will change anyone's behaviour. I doubt it. If governments contine to discount the message put forward in Limits to Growth, as they have done repeatedly, I cant see it doing any good. I wonder if it makes a good father's day gift. It is, after all, a consumer product.

Sure, there are worse things he could do, but I think it is important to be critical of superficial action that, more likely than not, is simply more of the same stuff he purports to target.

DJ Squiggle · 04-Sep-11, 12:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparklingSam

his daughters have 3 kids each.

The hypocracy is even worse: they were apparently the ones that inspired him on his population cause. They probably justified it with recknoning the world needs more "environmentalists" like them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitey1981

It would mean more if it wasnt a rich bloke saying it.

Well are the authors of "Affluenza" rich? I doubt it, unfortunately the general public are more likely to listen a celebrity. The GP aren't interested in logic or morality, they just want to fit in. I've seen people into cutting edge arts (eg electronic music) set trends before. My hope is that fashion (something I normally detest) will entice others on-board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitey1981

Most people who arent wealthy say 'money wont make you happy but Id love to give it a try'.

Agreed, In India many of backpackers dress very casually. Some (including me) wear clothes bordering on rags. It is empowering to reject something you can have if you wanted. Bu tth ewomen in their beautiful Sarees and the men in their slacks and ironed shirts aren't the ones using more than their share of resources - Australians are the hogs of the panet. Imagine if Indians end up emulating the average Aussie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitey1981

And its true, with money you can do more and be more comfortable in life.

To a point. At best the happiness curve goes logarithmic (ie "tends" towards a plateau). The links I gave suggest where that point might be and much of Australia seems to be beyond that point - I guess if I want to convince you I should dig up some actual examples from those links.

An important factor that does not often get considered is that satisfaction with wealth is a relative experience. It is about empowerment and dignity. Society is currently structured to favour those with money not just in terms of material goods (which is understandable) but in terms of empowerment and dignity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitey1981

Fair play if youre not into that but its extremely rare.

Agreed. Most Activists in Australia are middle-class. My situation is rare because my parents came from a very poor peasant foreign background so I've seen them climb to material heights they would never have expected as kids so I felt middle-class compared to those back in Croatia and had no aspiration to get more because I saw that those with money in the expat community in Australia (hard working but not educated) were into kitsche - hence the "Wog mansions" which Aussies have now emulated a generation later with their "Mc Mansions". I understand such motivations but find them repulsive. OK The world of academia and geekery and arts has its own ugly side (which I eventually discovered) but that is what made me different (and all my cousins incidently, none of them geeky nor arty nor particularly academic).

Kid A · 04-Sep-11, 11:29am

You read Clive's follow up works 'freedom paradox' or 'Requiem for a Species', Squiggle?

Downshifting is something he touches on at the end of Affluenza but in the freedom paradox the prescriptive content forms the bulk of the work. Although I don't entirely agree with the prescriptions he draws from the metaphysical foundations he sets up (which I largely agree with), I found it be his most balls out and entertaining read....empowering?..pragmatic?....not massively, but there's definitely something there.

'Requiem for Species' is more of a jaded effort. As opposed to constructing these potential lifestyles that would hopefully become fashionable (like you suggest), he seems to be more accepting of empirically verified, evolutionary truths that are suggestive of the fact that the human species will only act when the garbage swallows our homes and the lakes start burning.

My cynicism is similar. 'Risk Society' (as formulated by Ulrich Beck (( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_society )) is here and is set to worsen.

With regard to a more action oriented, existential approach (without the reliance on market based identity creation), Zygmunt Bauman is the guy to read...and in the authenticity stakes...he's got a good couple of decades on the works of Clive and Dick. And, he's still going strong!

Kid A · 04-Sep-11, 12:39pm

One of a few strong lectures by Clive Hamilton on this site:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/clive-h...ciousness-1047

claude glass · 04-Sep-11, 04:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

You read Clive's follow up works 'freedom paradox' or 'Requiem for a Species', Squiggle?

Downshifting is something he touches on at the end of Affluenza but in the freedom paradox the prescriptive content forms the bulk of the work. Although I don't entirely agree with the prescriptions he draws from the metaphysical foundations he sets up (which I largely agree with), I found it be his most balls out and entertaining read....empowering?..pragmatic?....not massively, but there's definitely something there.

'Requiem for Species' is more of a jaded effort. As opposed to constructing these potential lifestyles that would hopefully become fashionable (like you suggest), he seems to be more accepting of empirically verified, evolutionary truths that are suggestive of the fact that the human species will only act when the garbage swallows our homes and the lakes start burning.

My cynicism is similar. 'Risk Society' (as formulated by Ulrich Beck (( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_society )) is here and is set to worsen.

With regard to a more action oriented, existential approach (without the reliance on market based identity creation), Zygmunt Bauman is the guy to read...and in the authenticity stakes...he's got a good couple of decades on the works of Clive and Dick. And, he's still going strong!

Kid A I'd like to recommend to you the erudite musings of Timothy Morton: The Ecological Thought and Ecology Without Nature.

Kid A · 04-Sep-11, 05:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Kid A I'd like to recommend to you the erudite musings of Timothy Morton: The Ecological Thought and Ecology Without Nature.

Cool, they sound interesting, will get around to it.

Description of the ecological thought makes sounds a lot like the Buddhist concept of interdependent arising...which I assume you're pretty familiar with.

Description of Ecology Without Nature makes it sound logically sound, but simultaneously quite disagreeable. Surely, the bulk of thinkers who set up organic/synthetic, natural/unnatural distinction understand that they are superficial lenses, and are simply being pragmatic. Anyway, I guess I'll have to read the whole thing.

No surprises that ZIzek likes it, given some of the stuff I've heard him say (regarding the human condition and environmental 'decline').

claude glass · 04-Sep-11, 07:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

Cool, they sound interesting, will get around to it.

Description of the ecological thought makes sounds a lot like the Buddhist concept of interdependent arising...which I assume you're pretty familiar with.

Description of Ecology Without Nature makes it sound logically sound, but simultaneously quite disagreeable. Surely, the bulk of thinkers who set up organic/synthetic, natural/unnatural distinction understand that they are superficial lenses, and are simply being pragmatic. Anyway, I guess I'll have to read the whole thing.

No surprises that ZIzek likes it, given some of the stuff I've heard him say (regarding the human condition and environmental 'decline').

yep a clever intersection of Buddhism and OOO IMHO. Not for those who think the void = nihilism.

freedom74 · 04-Sep-11, 09:12pm

I agree with some of what is written above. We definitely have a dysfunctional attitude to growth with our "growth at all costs" mentality.

However I despair at our prospects for change. Population control could assist, and this would take the forms of reduced baby incentives and a reduction in immigration. However there are many lobbyists from different quarters who powerfully defend the status quo. Our retailers. Our property barons/developers. Our NGO/public service worker representatives (who see more population and increased overseas arrivals in particular as providing them more work opportunity to justify their otherwise sometimes dubious claims on public funds). Our resource/mine barons, many of which incidentally are foreign companies. Large employers generally of unskilled or semi-skilled labour.

Agreed big time about our retail industry underpinned by people getting into debt to buy sh1t they don't need and that if consumers kept their wallet/purse shut the system would collapse. That would have great outcomes for the environment however.

Consumers have been driving pollution in other ways. Instead of buying from a local fruit store for instance, where more produce will have less food miles, they buy from supermarkets. Supermarkets are ruthless in screwing farmers for the lowest dollar to boost their mega-profits. Either of the big 2 thinks nothing of telling some difficult farmer.......... stuff you we'll just go to (some place futher away) and fill a few trucks and roll it into our sheds.

The carbon tax will do little to address our growth fetish, or our dysfunctional consumer/materialist culture. It will entrench inequality in the long run, particularly in regional areas, and make many goods cost more through transport. Many areas are not served by rail. Our land mass is too large, unlike Europe, for more extensive rail networks to be viable, and we cannot fill in the gaps with more population as its beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of our lands to ramp up the numbers. Its not going to do in our modern age, internet, technology and fast travel, for people to have to wait days for for something to arrive when it can go faster by road freight.

The greens support rail over road, and in a big way, the history of rail is that it has been government owned, under central control, and operated by predominantly union labour. This is something the greens prefer to see. Many road transport operators are small and medium size businesses which have taken great risks, operate on slim margins, are under over-regulation by a nanny state. Much freight operators aren't Lindsay Foxes or Tolls, but small/medium enterprises. Many successful operators hail from humble beginnings, such as one of our biggest produce carriers, Adelaide-based Collins Adelaide. Its my view that the Greens harshness to our road transport sector is much driven by ideology as its mostly contractors/small business and has a mostly non-unionised workforce.

DJ Squiggle · 04-Sep-11, 09:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

One of a few strong lectures by Clive Hamilton on this site:

Nice one for the record but it does beg the question:
if that is a strong lecture what do one if his weak lectures sound like?

No doubt there are good points raised but I couldn't bear to sit through it. His co-author RIchard Dennis OTOH is one of the best speakers I have come across while poor Clive not only needs a script but he cannot even follow it without umming and ahhing. Clearly not an orator.

Kid A · 04-Sep-11, 09:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

yep a clever intersection of Buddhism and OOO IMHO. Not for those who think the void = nihilism.

What's OOO?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

Nice one for the record but it does beg the question:
if that is a strong lecture what do one if his weak lectures sound like?

No doubt there are good points raised but I couldn't bear to sit through it. His co-author RIchard Dennis OTOH is one of the best speakers I have come across while poor Clive not only needs a script but he cannot even follow it without umming and ahhing. Clearly not an orator.

I like his style of presentation. Straight forward, clear, referential (in a not too wanky, way i like). Not very animated, but the topic doesn't call for it.

There aren't as many ums and aah in his talks on the freedom paradox and censorship, but it's the content I was mainly referring to.

DJ Squiggle · 04-Sep-11, 09:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

You read Clive's follow up works 'freedom paradox' or 'Requiem for a Species', Squiggle?

I haven't even read Affluenza. I spend enough time reading a computer screen and I make music/videos using a copmuter so I have become a podcast junkie instead, giving my eyes a rest while I go for long walks. Podcasts and web pages are easier to share with others and to cite than are physical books too (though a book is much nicer to read than an LCD).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

Downshifting is something he touches on at the end of Affluenza

OK, interesting. Perhaps minimising retaliation from Shock-Jocks that only browse the first chapter and make Cave-Man attacks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

My cynicism is similar. 'Risk Society' (as formulated by Ulrich Beck (( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_society )) is here and is set to worsen.

Was not aware of their work. What concerns me is that most people are clueless regarding statistics so their assesment of risk is delusional (I can give amusing examples to anyone who thinks I am exaggerating).

The Wikipedia article does remind me of a very important issue that is ignored by environmentalists out of naivety and by others out of fear of PC retribution: Rich people can afford to mitigate the risks. Beck point about many risks being knowledge related rather than income related are partially true but the knowledge in some postcodes is very poor and it is income based. So let me play the devils advocate:

Why should a rich person care to contribute to environmental protection? Why should any individual put effort into environmental protection? If they pollute, the effects will be diluted amongst millions of others but the inconvenience will be carried 100% personally.

DJ Squiggle · 04-Sep-11, 10:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by freedom74

I agree with some of what is written above. We definitely have a dysfunctional attitude to growth with our "growth at all costs" mentality.

I was kind of hoping you'd disagree here, but paradoxical personalities are real personalities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freedom74

The carbon tax will do little to address our growth fetish, or our dysfunctional consumer/materialist culture. It will entrench inequality in the long run, particularly in regional areas, and make many goods cost more through transport.

What percentage of the price of goods is attributable to fuel? Can you give some examples please?

Quote:

Originally Posted by freedom74

Many areas are not served by rail.

While I appreciate your reasoned arguments that followed and think it's great that your haters will now be more confused than ever about you, I did start this thread so as to not hijack yours (on the very topic of rail vs road transport) so I would ask that you extend me the same courtesy please.

Kid A · 04-Sep-11, 10:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

OK, interesting. Perhaps minimising retaliation from Shock-Jocks that only browse the first chapter and make Cave-Man attacks?

hehe...probably had something to do with it. But, i think if you're going to tackle the merit of the modern capitalist ideology/lifestyle, it's going to take a while to do it with considerable justification/substance. In light of this, I think the deconstructive ( this is why shit is fucked and we should rip it down) portion was naturally chunkier than the subsequent constructive (downshift and be happy) bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

The Wikipedia article does remind me of a very important issue that is ignored by environmentalists out of naivety and by others out of fear of PC retribution: Rich people can afford to mitigate the risks. Beck point about many risks being knowledge related rather than income related are partially true but the knowledge in some postcodes is very poor and it is income based. So let me play the devils advocate:

Why should a rich person care to contribute to environmental protection? Why should any individual put effort into environmental protection? If they pollute, the effects will be diluted amongst millions of others but the inconvenience will be carried 100% personally.

It's a good point...in fairness to Beck, I think he does discuss the distribution of risks amongst classes etc in the book.

Your last point/question makes me think of this..pretty telling really:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

DJ Squiggle · 04-Sep-11, 10:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

Your last point/question makes me think of this..pretty telling really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Ahhh yes, I'd forgotten there was a short-hand phrase. And now thanks to your URL I find out that it is based on an essay I must read before continuing my intended line of thought.

Abziie · 06-Sep-11, 05:38pm

This romanticisation of the peasent lifestyle that is running amok in australia doesnt really sit well with me.

An interesting model which may help to explain the human drive for growth (and hostility in some small sections) is Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Kid A · 06-Sep-11, 07:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

This romanticisation of the peasent lifestyle that is running amok in australia doesnt really sit well with me.

An interesting model which may help to explain the human drive for growth (and hostility in some small sections) is Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

What do you mean by the peasant lifestyle?

Kid A · 06-Sep-11, 07:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

Ahhh yes, I'd forgotten there was a short-hand phrase. And now thanks to your URL I find out that it is based on an essay I must read before continuing my intended line of thought.

This might interest you too. Only goes for about 20min so it's not very in-depth but it's a worthy listen regardless.

Kate Soper on Alternative Hedonism-

http://philosophybites.com/2009/01/k...-hedonism.html

Abziie · 06-Sep-11, 08:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

What do you mean by the peasant lifestyle?

A life witout these worldly 'excesses'.

How are all those adventures, stunts and that famous helicopter going, dick?

DJ Squiggle · 06-Sep-11, 10:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

What do you mean by the peasant lifestyle?

I get what Abziie means. A more modern version of "The Noble Savage". The young hippies that have that delusion are as entitled to it as are youngsters with the materialist delusion. They seem to mature out of it more often than the latter though.

I've seen my elderly relatives in Croatia do OK as peasants (I lived with them in for a week in 2005). As wise as they are, they are not worldly - luckily they have educated kids who will protect them from merciless beaurocrats and "developers" otherwise they would be crushed. In Tasmania there are plenty of people living a hybrid lifestyle.

By the way, subsistence farming is far more efficient than industrial farming (per hectare not per hour of labour) but can only make sense for Westerners if they have learned to enjoy the associated lifestyle. It almost always means having tried a more materialistic lifestyle first - it is of course much easier to "downshift" when it is out of choice.

For the rest of us, growing fruit trees and vegies in our gardens and nature strips (rather than manicured lawns) makes a lot of sense. In Melbourne, community gardens not only provide land for those without any but are also fulfilling an important return to non-commercial socialisng.

Kid A · 06-Sep-11, 11:07pm

Fair enough to have a go at youth for impotent ideologies of environmentalism, or hollow claims to want to 'return to nature'. But, I reckon if someone wants to seriously consider serious alternatives to the unsustainable culture of consumption, then that may well require romanticizing the slower paced, simpler life (to some extent at least). And, this life, in some ways, may look like a little something the peasant life. Who knows though, I'm not speculating with any confidence how it should/will look. Basically though, I don't see any danger in undermining the perceived benefits of this life of excesses. Excesses mean just what they are.

Perhaps a return to a slower lifestyle is a bit of a scary prospect for those with a 'modernist' approach to progress. Maybe soon enough that teleological viewpoint of humanity's course will be done away with though.

'funnylolol'

Media Player

Heist9000 · 07-Sep-11, 08:55am

"Makes character judgement... dismisses ideas"

This whole thread could be that very penguin meme

Heist9000 · 07-Sep-11, 09:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

Hopefully we can get some sensible discussion here and avoid the shock-jock cliche of "So you want us all to live in a Cave!?". Call me an idealist but I'm hoping that dissenters will actually address the points raised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

the greens will never be happy until we are all wearing loin again and carrying around clubs

.

claude glass · 07-Sep-11, 12:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

Fair enough to have a go at youth for impotent ideologies of environmentalism, or hollow claims to want to 'return to nature'. But, I reckon if someone wants to seriously consider serious alternatives to the unsustainable culture of consumption, then that may well require romanticizing the slower paced, simpler life (to some extent at least). And, this life, in some ways, may look like a little something the peasant life. Who knows though, I'm not speculating with any confidence how it should/will look. Basically though, I don't see any danger in undermining the perceived benefits of this life of excesses. Excesses mean just what they are.

Perhaps a return to a slower lifestyle is a bit of a scary prospect for those with a 'modernist' approach to progress. Maybe soon enough that teleological viewpoint of humanity's course will be done away with though.

None of this really applies when you realise that nature is not 'out there'. Now more than ever in the anthropocene. You can't return to what you are always already a part of, and have permanently altered.

Kid A · 07-Sep-11, 01:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

None of this really applies when you realise that nature is not 'out there'. Now more than ever in the anthropocene. You can't return to what you are always already a part of, and have permanently altered.

I agree with this. I am not proposing that there is any ontological distinction between conscious humanity and a so called state of (unrefined) nature. My 'distinction' between the two is purely pragmatic, framed in 'ordinary language', in which we understand the meaning of "nature" by reference to the (general) public discourse in which it is used. "Returning to nature", in the sense that you suggest, is an impossibility, so in this respect, the word (nature) itself surely loses its meaning. For, without some arbitrary synthetic/organic, natural/unnatural distinction, the redundancy of the term is inevitable.

So, is it that you are saying we cannot move to a situation in which say, bikes are the primary mode of transport and urban infrastructure is gradually replaced by parkland (speaking hypothetically here)? Or, is it that you just don't like the way we employ the term 'nature' to refer to these things that are in no categorical sense distinct? Or is it something that I'm still missing?

Media Player

DJ Squiggle · 09-Sep-11, 01:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGCfiv1xtoU

Slavoj takes a long time to get to the point of making the controverisal politically inorrect claim that we should become more artificial.

I agree with him: It does not matter if every tree disappears or even if the planet dies. Maths will not change... therein lies the new gODD as Slavoj suggests (and not just pretty NeWage pictures but understanding how the pictures are generated).

In the meantime, since choking and poisoning ourselves bothers most of us and since if it feels good to feel connected to something bigger than ourselves then an arbitrary, but useful, barometer of "success" is nature. Ecology is slightly (but significantly) less likely to be corrupted by politicians, priests and marketing. Either we can we dink directly from the stream in our neighbourhood or we cannot.

Slavoj's closing statement baffles me though: "True Ecologists love all this [garbage]". Perhaps he means they can accept its place in the greater scheme?

DJ Squiggle · 09-Sep-11, 01:37am

Since we are questioning materialism, it seems appropriate to give a sneak preview of the video I am working on which illustrates my response to the London Riots: a Sex Pistols vs X-Factor mashup track.

Media Player

Kid A · 09-Sep-11, 09:25am

Nice one mate. I like the 30-50sec mark, super hypnotic and fits the tune really well.

RE Zizek. I agree with you. I'm always interested to hear what the guy has to say, but I don't think like he does. Often it seems, as with the video above, that he's simply adopting a position for the sake of being counter-cultural (which I guess I too have been guilty of from time to time).

claude glass · 09-Sep-11, 10:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

So, is it that you are saying we cannot move to a situation in which say, bikes are the primary mode of transport and urban infrastructure is gradually replaced by parkland (speaking hypothetically here)? Or, is it that you just don't like the way we employ the term 'nature' to refer to these things that are in no categorical sense distinct? Or is it something that I'm still missing?

Well I'm not sure that we can make those changes. Something new is required. It's possible that while we see nature that way, and while we still keep failing at modernity, we won't get to that something new.

EeeeeeeJ · 12-Sep-11, 12:43pm

Bigot Smith is not arguing against an obsession with material wealth and acqusition of material possessions. He is arguing against immigrants.

A city like Sydney is choked with cars/4WDs and is expanding with increasingly large houses on its fringe. These big houses and vehicles are filled with consumer devices, which have become much more affordable in recent decades with reduction of industrial protection and advances in manufacturing. Over time, governments are saying,"We can't keep housing an increasing population in these energy-hungry houses, move them in these energy-hungry vehicles and live so extravagantly".

Rather than accepting that they should cut back, people blame migration and allege conspiracies in which big corporations bring Asians into the country to deprive good Aussies of big houses, clear roads and cool electronic devices. To appeal to a broader audience, some allege that the conspiracy is to deprive righteous inner-city trendies of inner-city terraces, clear roads and cool devices. Rather than overlooking government incentives to encourage Australians to have children, they argue for increasing incentives and the number of Australian births while opposing immigration so as to protect Australians' extravagant lifestyle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheel Winston

Part of me hopes that the current retail downturn is at least in part due to the average person saying 'well fuck, i've got just about everything

There is a trend (maybe a correction) where the average new dwelling in Australia is now becoming smaller, after a few decades of becoming larger. There has, in recent years, been a downturn in expenditure on consumer devices. Some commentators are suggesting that people are becoming less interested in "keeping up with the Joneses" in owning a large house and lots of new consumer goods. Others just spout the Liberal / Murdoch line of "Labor mismanages the economy so nobody has the confidence to spend".

DJ Squiggle · 13-Sep-11, 02:28am

I wasn't looking for diatribes but that's an impressive one EJ and it can be backed up with facts eg the documented deliberate demonisation of refugees with the "children overboard" conspiracy (exposed by the Murdoch press incidently).

Do you have any stats on the smaller house-size trend? That would be good news. Ever notice that the McMansions devote almost no land to a garden? Often they are first homes. Why build such a huge first home? No wonder we were in record personal debt even before the Global Financial Crisis hit. People were "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, juggling credit cards, consolidating debts, refinancing, and putting off the evil day". Radio National pretty much predicted the GFC on 17th July 2005 with their broadcast called "The Debt Mask".

You can read the transcript of that show (I will upload the mp3 tomorrow) where a wrecklessness John Howard moment is quoted...

Quote:

John Howard: It is true household debt is high. It is also true that household assets are at a record high. It’s one thing to rack up debt while your assets are declining, it’s another thing to rack up debt while your assets are increasing in value because the capacity of people to meet their debts has risen as well as their debt. So I think we have to keep a sense of perspective about this.

Steve Austin: Am I right in saying we have the fastest-growing level of consumer debt in the OECD?

John Howard: Well, there are different measurements of that. But I’m not arguing that it’s growing rapidly, but the point I’m making is, that that is a mark of consumer confidence; it’s also a mark of the capacity of people to repay. If you have valuable assets, and you have a capacity to meet your debt, there is inherently no great evil in incurring some debt.

I heard a report in England a couple of months later stating they too had record personal debts. The mantra of "we couldn't see it coming" is a therefore exposed as lie.

EeeeeeeJ · 13-Sep-11, 10:30pm

What can I find on home sizes?

Quote:

While the average new home grew 10 per cent to a world record 215 square metres in the decade to 2009, the managing director of Stockland, Matthew Quinn, said homes were shrinking and the trend was locked in. ... Mr Quinn said by cutting up to 70 square metres from the size of a new home, buyers could save $40,000-$60,000 a house, making them affordable. ... Already the average size of a four-bedroom house has dropped 20 per cent since 2007 while three-bedroom houses have shrunk by 26 per cent over the same period as living areas, media rooms and hallways disappeared in more compact designs

http://smh.domain.com.au/mcmansions-...810-1imvm.html
(Of course, some people could be buying 4 bedroom homes with smaller rooms instead of 3 bedroom ones with larger rooms)

The article has opinions from others.

Quote:

Stephen Albin, the chief executive of the Urban Development Institute of Australia, which represents many new-home builders, said the trend to shrinking new home sizes was only just beginning. ''I think there's a massive shift going on and we are at the front end of it,'' he said. ''People are starting to realise a five-bedroom house has other costs, from the amount of leisure time you lose maintaining it, to heating and cooling,
...
Andrew Tice, a senior research officer at the University of NSW's City Futures Centre, agreed that house sizes were on their way down. ''Stockland's views echo what we see through conversations we have with other developers

http://smh.domain.com.au/mcmansions-...810-1imvm.html

This article suggests that the First Home Buyers' Grant drove an increase in sizes. The grant did more to drive up prices than home sizes.

Quote:

Oliver Hume National Research Manager Mr Andrew Perkins said excluding Wyndham [council area in western Melbourne] homes sizes have actually fallen marginally in the past three years. The biggest drop in size was in Whittlesea where homes fell from 269 sqm in 2006 to 242 sqm at the end of 2009.

He said the median sized house in Melbourne’s growth areas was 232 sqm costing $390,000 (based on Oliver Hume’s house and land price index established in 2006). In 2006 the media house size was 240 sqm and it cost $305,000 indicating prices had risen almost 30% over the period.

“Much of the drop in house size can be attributed to the rise of the First Home Buyer market boom in the 2007-2008 period where they peaked at an unprecedented 70% of all sales across the markets. These houses are generally smaller homes as they house singles or small families and affordability is paramount,” Mr Perkins said.

He said home sizes shrank though to late 2009 when the Global Financial Crisis was easing but homes sizes have not yet rebounded back to the 2006 levels.

Oliver Hume Director Mr Paul Ciprian predicted that moving forward, when the FHB grant is out of play, house sizes would stabilize and people would forgo land size to maintain affordability without compromising on house size.

http://impactpr.com.au/release/809

The US is leading the trend, maybe because of the downturn there and its origin in real estate.

Quote:

After years of growth, the government reported that median new home size fell to 2,135 square feet in 2009 after peaking at more than 2,300 earlier in the decade. Now, the typical U.S. owner-occupied home has six rooms, with three of them being bedrooms, according to the Census Bureau's annual American Housing Survey. The most common number of baths is two or more.

http://www.floordaily.net/flooring-n...To_Shrink.aspx

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

Why build such a huge first home?

I think that this is driven by what developers offer. If you live on the suburban fringe, you give up the convenience of proximity to work, shopping and entertainment. Developers offered larger size to compensate for the lack of convenience. As for backyards, I guess that people keep the children inside and don't do any sporting activities in their backyard themselves

DJ Squiggle · 14-Sep-11, 01:04am

Thanks EJ.

This is a tangent but let me say that regarding the First-Homebuyers scheme, Murdoch's Australian Newspaper challenged the government on this via an FOI request that was denied... "just because"

Quote:

The High Court decision upholding the government's use of a conclusive certificate to snuff out a Freedom of Information request for tax figures on bracket creep and the first home buyer's scheme is being criticised as a dark day for democracy.

The Australian lost the appeal in the Federal Court also. It meant that we did not really have FOI because the govt could block it on a whim.

Quote:

Michael McKinnon: ...one of the major impacts of the decision is that in the event of journalists identifying controversial documents, documents that the public should know about to be able to judge their government correctly, a politician simply has to issue what's called a conclusive certificate, to say that it's conclusively against the public interest to release these documents, and there is very little legal recourse left to anyone. Under this decision, when we go to an appeal on a conclusive certificate, all that is required is for a Treasury bureaucrat to stand there and say 'These documents should not be released because they'll misinform the public', and that's pretty well the end of the case.

Richard Aedy: So as long as the Public Servant's clean and sober the documents stay suppressed?

Michael McKinnon: That's exactly right, and I can take you to, as that's put by one of the two judges in the decision, it simply says that as long as the reasons they give are not fanciful or absurd, then they're held to be reasonable.

Luckily in 2008 a bill was introduced to remove this "conclusive certificate" which made a mockery of FOI and AFAIK the bill passed.

The above stories (which the public was oblivious of) can be heard streaming online or you can download mp3's.

DJ Squiggle · 14-Sep-11, 02:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

Radio National pretty much predicted the GFC on 17th July 2005 with their broadcast called "The Debt Mask".
You can read the transcript of that show (I will upload the mp3 tomorrow)

You can now hear it streaming on my site. Or if you prefer podcasts go download the mp3.

DJ Squiggle · 14-Sep-11, 02:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeeeeeeJ

I think that this is driven by what developers offer. If you live on the suburban fringe, you give up the convenience of proximity to work, shopping and entertainment. Developers offered larger size to compensate for the lack of convenience. As for backyards, I guess that people keep the children inside and don't do any sporting activities in their backyard themselves

The developers only offer what the consumer is willing to pay for. I would consider a large garden as compensation for remoteness but these people do not. There appears a general lack of appreciation for nature in these estates... this often goes hand-in-hand with consumerism. In fact I would go so far as to generalise and say that consumerism is compensation for an inability to appreciate nature.

twistedbydesign · 15-Sep-11, 09:26am

The entire global economic/cultural consumer/growth paradigm is hanging by a thread, change is inevitable.

We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights.
The work we do -- the value we create -- is for the rest of what we want: the stuff that makes life fun, meaningful, and purposeful.

This sort of work isn't so much employment as it is creative activity. Unlike Industrial Age employment, digital production can be done from the home, independently, and even in a peer-to-peer fashion without going through big corporations.
We can make games for each other, write books, solve problems, educate and inspire one another -- all through bits instead of stuff. And we can pay one another using the same money we use to buy real stuff.

For the time being, as we contend with what appears to be a global economic slowdown by destroying food and demolishing homes, we might want to stop thinking about jobs as the main aspect of our lives that we want to save. They may be a means, but they are not the ends.
- some hippie who broke into CNN

CheelWinston +	03-Sep-11, 12:35am #2 there's like a whole one left in the freezer
Joined May '01 Times thanked < 499 Posts 9,941	i've got a real problem with the idea of 'growth' Part of me hopes that the current retail downturn is at least in part due to the average person saying 'well fuck, i've got just about everything i need, ima just stop buying shit'
	Be the first<like Quote

SparklingSam +	03-Sep-11, 01:23am #3 Is it beer o'clock yet?
Joined Feb '06 Times thanked < 156 Posts 7,254	I had a problem with Dick Smith arguing against population growth when they showed that tv special, and he said how his daughter talked about it "being the elephant in the room", and then they had footage of her with her baby. He advocates that couples should have no more than 2 children, but his daughters have 3 kids each. That seems a bit hypocritical to me.
	Be the first<like Quote

Kid A +	03-Sep-11, 01:45am #4 Private Language
Joined Apr '07 Times thanked < 172 Posts 4,779	Quote: Originally Posted by CheelWinston Part of me hopes that the current retail downturn is at least in part due to the average person saying 'well fuck, i've got just about everything i need, ima just stop buying shit' I reckon this^^ would be an increasingly rare sentiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence Last edited by Kid A: 03-Sep-11 at 02:15am
	Be the first<like Quote

m_xt +	03-Sep-11, 01:59am #5 You're talking to a machine.
Joined Sep '07 Times thanked < 430 Posts 1,572	What is your argunment OP?
	Be the first<like Quote

DJ Squiggle +	03-Sep-11, 03:31am #6 intolerance will not be tolerated
Joined Feb '08 Times thanked < 2 Posts 164	Quote: Originally Posted by m_xt What is your argunment OP? None yet but I'll argue with myself//Dick/Clive/Jimmy if nobody else steps up to the mark. I was inspired by another (otherwise intelligent) poster starting his thread flippantly with something along the lines of "Greens want us living back in caves". I reckon a lot of Greens would be in agreement with Dick & Clive but they dare not bring it up in the mainstream which likes to polarise rather than look at nuances. We aren't the mainstream here but we certainly are not unanimous on any topic so I await some (hopefully) interesting ideas.
	Be the first<like Quote

inthemix.com.au: australian dance music | news | reviews | photos | forums | chat | what's on

View AllcloseChatterbox

View AllcloseYour Feed

closeMy Menu

closeStatus

Current Affairs and Politics

The Growth Fetish

Quick Reply

Posting Rules