uliet Schor notes that by 1990, we could produce our 1948 standard of living in just six months’ time. And yet, household debt has never been higher and leisure time—or time spent not producing—has never been lower. According to Schor, the result of this cycle of work-and-spend is that Americans feel more overworked and stressed out than ever before. All that economic growth and we’re not even happy.
But there’s a bigger problem.
If the Nearings were concerned about the planet in 1932, consider this: According to anthropologist Dr. Jason Hickel (citing a footprint from the Global Footprint Network):
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 ‘global hectares’ annually—a standardised unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is roughly what the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the US and Canada consume about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many times their fair share.
Equally disturbing: Hickel reveals that the wage gap that fuels our addiction to cheap consumer goods is perpetuating global poverty and instability.
These figures aren’t meant to depress, create shame, or point fingers, rather I believe Hickel is inviting us to objectively explore what’s going on in the world around us. This isn’t about guilt or judgement, but rather an invitation to create deeper awareness around issues that affect all of us living on this planet.
Dr. Hickel goes on to lay out a persuasive argument for why it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich nations if we’re serious about not only saving the planet, but also about ending global poverty. Moreover, he posits that de-development is not necessarily incompatible with wellbeing:
If we look at measures of overall happiness and wellbeing in addition to life expectancy, a number of low- and middle-income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manages to sustain one of the highest happiness indicators and life expectancies in the world with a per capita income one-fourth that of the US. In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as appropriately developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to justify their excesses.
It’s a radical idea…or is it?
Hickel acknowledges it’s one that would require enormous political and individual will. After all, it’s not necessarily in our nature to seek a lower standard of living. But he also points out that a growing number of people in the developed world believe we need to try to reverse our habits of consumption – and that doing so might just increase our overall happiness.
Personally, I am still at the beginning stages of this journey but it’s encouraging to see the simple living movement continue to re-invent itself, with people like Joshua Becker, Dave Bruno, and Marie Kondo, to name just a few, role modeling and bearing witness to the benefits of owning and producing less. But as the Nearings knew, living simply is about much more than de-stressing or pursuing the good life for ourselves. Rather, it’s essential to live in a way that affirms the belief that our ‘good life’ should not trade on the exploitation of the earth or its people.
I’m not saying this will be an easy journey or even that any one individual living a simple life is the solution. Will moving into a tiny house or giving up my iPhone save the world? No. That will require governments and international institutions taking enormous steps in the areas of policy and economic reform. But those things won’t happen without a massive cultural shift – which starts with each of us deepening our awareness around the impact of our daily actions – and advances with each of us re-thinking what it means to live the ‘good life.’