Essays

American Traditions

Being confined to one way of living is important to many people. However, yes, ethics and morals are important. But, sometimes there isn’t anything wrong with not wanting to be confined to just one way of living your life. Simplicity is different. It has different meanings for different people. Some may think living the right way is spending less money for example. Then, you have those who say live life to the fullest. They don’t care about how they spend; they just want to be happy.

I think I fall into both of these categories. Sometimes I want to live by the rules and laws of saving for later. But, then there are those times when I want to just to live it up. Kind of like the differences between the Puritans/ Quakers and the Transcendentalists.

Puritans and Quakers: The religious sects who have different beliefs at least believe in one God. No matter what they say which separates them from one another; it is the duty of the believer, “To serve God diligently in one’s profession, skill or vocation.” (David Shi, The Simple Life. P. 9) It is my duty, then, to serve God in everything I do. My character and moral value is predicated upon my works to the lord. A true believer in Christ I am. I know moral character and ethical responsibility is important in practicing my faith, so I must be mindful of this as I go throughout the day.

It is said; Puritans and Quakers differed theologically, meaning they had different religious beliefs. However, if one is to live without the lord and with the Lord- then at least they believe. This is why I relate to the religious sects and believe they can co-exist amongst each other. If we look around us, how many times do we see struggle and fighting all because of religion? David Shi asserts, “Yet if the Puritans and Quakers differed theologically, driving each other to fury, they at the same time both promoted a Christianity writ plain. The Friends echoed Calvin and the Puritans in emphasizing the virtues of thrift, sobriety, and hard work at one’s calling. And, it was only natural, they agreed, to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor. God did not intend man to be poor and uncomfortable. But, they also stressed that the material world of daily toil and daily bread was, after all, only transitory, and one’s heart should be set upon eternal treasures.” (Shi, The Simple Life, p. 29)

What does this tell me? Does it mean I can work all day and spend all my money in one place? Sure it does! However, if I live by money alone how can I be totally free? The problem however is money alone is not happiness for me. I need other things. I need spirituality, and I need reason. I want to live the simple life as much as possible, but there has to be a blueprint for the plan to do so.

As George Fox put it, whom by the way was the founder of the Society of Friends, I.e. Quakers. “Neither be cumbered nor surfeited with the Riches of the World, nor bound, nor strained with them. Fox realized, “after Riches do increase, take heed of setting yours Hearts upon them, lest they become a Curse and a Plague to you.” (Shi, The Simple Life, p.29) This then was “Designed to teach The Society of Friends how to live rather than how to make a living. Simplicity would not only serve as a testament to the rest of the world against the evils of conceit, greed and superfluidity, but also to promote social justice.” (Shi, The Simple Life. P.29)

Even then, way back hundreds of years ago; people were trying to distinguish themselves from being greedy and conceited, from just living a simple life. This is the struggle a lot of us have. We do not know how much is enough? In my situation, the learning curve is to limit the spending to live comfortably later. The simple life is just that in my opinion. Live according to your means. Not outside of them.

Transcendentalists: Just as our way of living evolves, so do the beliefs and practices we share begin to change, as well. The Quakers and Puritans believed in the simple life as living within moderation along with certain rules of “how to live in a complex, yet tempting material world without coming to love it.” (Shi, The Simple Life, p.29) Our Transcendentalists friends however differ slightly.

“As Ralph Waldo Emerson, the philosopher put it, in 1844, “there was in all the practical activities of New England for the last quarter of a century, a gradual withdrawal of tender conscientious from social organizations. These tender consciences imbued with a romantic emphasis on naturalism, immediatism, individualism, and perfectionism, espoused a more spontaneous and liberating version of the simple life than that

promoted by conservative moralists.” (David Shi, The Simple Life, p. 125)

This is appealing to me because we as individuals can view simplicity very differently. I stated in my introduction some people choose to spend wisely and save for the future, while some people want to live it up now and live in the moment. The transcendental way of thinking is a progressive way which is predicated on movement away from the norm. If I want to live the simple life, I must decide on how and which way I want to do these things. I too, like the Romantics and/or Transcendentalists “view simplicity as a personally chosen, rather than a socially imposed, way of living.” (Shi, The Simple Life, p.125)

In other words, who wants to be controlled or governed on how to live? The ideas of the church versus the individual are and will always be front page, but they can co-exist. Living in simplicity can be viewed very differently, however, it all comes down to the individual and what he/ or she believes in. “Life is a selection,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson. (Shi, The Simple Life, p. 128) This was a great idea back when, and it still is a great idea now. How and what we do with our life is up to us. No one else is responsible. As Emerson put it, “there are two selves- inner and outer, spiritual and material, imaginative and physical. Each is essential to the human experience.” (Shi, The Simple Life, p. 131)

I have the ability to determine the simple life and what it means. Do I follow my spiritual or my material self? Do I follow my imaginative or my physical? It’s all up to me.

 

My Ecological Footprint

If everyone on the planet lived my lifestyle, we would need:

= 4.84 Earths

To begin, I didn’t know I was so wasteful and hurting the earth as much as I am. It is very eye opening to see what we use and do not use that can be so instrumental in producing a climate and society that is healthier and cleaner for a better future.  I suppose it would be better to start with my transportation needs. It’s difficult to see myself walking or running to work as my job is thirty minutes away along a usual morning drive. The traffic in my city isn’t as demanding as say a big city like Chicago, or New York. However, my job consists of two or maybe three different trips to a warehouse to receive supplies for the day’s agenda. I have no idea how I could accomplish this without my pick-up truck.

Secondly, I live in an apartment building built in the late nineties, so lots of the insulation and greener supplies maybe not used to build this section where I live. It’s possible we could install some recycling water bins, but the appliances here are fairly new with the upgrades and the outside buildings have not been touched. Restoring the siding with better recycled and insulated materials could definitely help in those regards which would lower my score.

Doing things like turning off lights, unplugging unused appliances, and going green on cleaning agents will help lower my footprint, but there are things in my building which are not accessible, such as solar power and wind power. My eating habits are something I am constantly working on and eating organic is something I am trying but with mixed results. Taste is everything and organic does vary in that department.

I know how important it is to save water and I barely wash my truck once a month. I truly believe in only using a full washing machine and I never use the dishwasher. I like to hand wash, but without letting the water just run. I recycle at work and use water to drink that comes in the form of recycled bottles. My footprint will lower as I will now do my best to consume less, and recycle more.

 

Essay: How Much Is Enough?

I know how much is enough. It is enough to satisfy our human hearts. It is enough to clog our arteries with substances that are like pieces of plaque and deadly. It is enough to bankrupt our pockets and we still want more. It is enough to put a smile on our faces while we are dying inside. It is enough to forget about the common man and the desire to have compassion for him. It is enough to teach our children over-consumption until their bellies are protruding the pants. It is enough to watch our land and resources shrink only so we can call ourselves the wealthiest.

I want to say thanks. Thanks to Alan Durning for his compassionate, yet unrealistic assumption of the American people. We Americans are the cruelest and most demeaning people ever to walk the earth. There is no hope. Forget about riches in love, honesty, family, faith, and character. Or, as Durning puts it, “Traditional measures of success, such as integrity, honesty, skill, and hard work, are gradually supplanted by a simple, universally recognizable indicator of achievement-money.” (Alan Durning, How Much Is Enough. p. 13) Money has now become the true measure of a man and its money that drives the blind mindset that says, “Net worth equals self-worth.” (Durning, p. 13)

Durning is really on to something here. He knows we can do it! He knows we can save the earth, the animals, and the plants. But, how do we do it I ask? If we are consumed by the acquisition of goods, how can we treasure what it took to get here? The rich in America can look a poor man in the eye and say they do not have spare change. I’ve seen it. Michael Jordan once famously said on the Oprah Winfrey Show. “A man once asked me for change. I said why you can’t say, hi, welcome to McDonald’s. The nerve of this guy! Does he not think- maybe this guy once bought a pair of my shoes?

I think this is the attitude of the rich American. The same attitude Michael Jordan showed to this stranger is the same way the affluent look at saving the earth and recycling for tomorrow. They simply do not care. The mind of the rich is only on the rich which is why we can’t explain the poor people in this world having such a disparity between the classes. Honestly, can we factually say the poor and middle-class are contributing to rising greenhouse gases, and a climate that is being destroyed?

They do not drive the majority of the cars. They do not consume the majority of meat and/or grain feed animals which in turn lead to “the associated soil erosion, water consumption, pesticide runoff, groundwater depletion, and emissions of the greenhouse gas methane.” (Alan Durning, How Much Is Enough. p. 16) And, who would think consuming beef could lead to all of this? I sure didn’t know it. But, thanks again Alan Durning. Of course, this is a very serious situation that I am taking very seriously. My attitude towards the subject just happens to be that of complete astonishment!

I knew the American people were the biggest consumers of all resources; I just didn’t know it was this much. I am part of the problem and I’m not rich. If the rich can create so much chaos, how can I do the same? I’m ashamed of myself. I’ve looked the poor in the eye and done nothing. I’ve consumed that awesome steak and ate at the big chains without a thought of the poor. Well, maybe the answer to this question is actually right here. How Much Is Enough? Maybe, just maybe, it is enough when we share with those who are less-fortunate and we begin to erase the gap that separates us.

There are reasons to do so. The poor have fewer reasons to waste resources because everything matters that much more to them. They can’t afford to be wasteful. The poor cherish what I and the rich can afford to throw away. And, there are things we all could learn from those who do not have what we do. The less fortunate sometimes do not have to worry about stroke, cancer-causing meats and heart disease because they are not consuming all of their calories from fat. Plus, our world could be greener without all the environmental damage done because of urban sprawl. If we treat our water, food, transportation and use resources with respect; we all can have a better and more self-serving place to live.

I began this with a facetious remark to Alan Durning’s work because I know I have wasted earth’s most precious gifts. I know we are not the worst people on the planet. I believe he has hope in all of us. I am inspired to change my life because of his attention to what matters most. I believe, How Much Is Enough, is when we stop turning a blind eye to those who lack and we start to value life and its available resources. I think it is imperative that we heed this calling and simplify our lives, just like those who do not have much. Over consumption does not make us happy, and neither does seeing poverty. Sometimes, having just “enough” is enough and this is what matters.

 

References

 

Shi, E. David (1985) The Simple Life: Plain Living and High Thinking in American

Culture- Chp. (1, 2, and 6)