Consume Less

The 13 Sept "Ask a Scienceblogger" query is:

When I think about global warming, I feel completely powerless. Is there any meaningful action I can take to help?...

The answer is yes: consume less. In individual acts, on a daily basis, consume less. This isn't the same thing as suggesting that we consume nothing. It is to say, rather, that we have opportunities in everday life to avoid the destructive tendencies of a hyper-consumer philosophy of life.

More like this

There is, it appears, a nice discussion going on over at a post that Ben recently put up regarding the use of nuclear energy. And quite a few of the commentary take a stance that the ideal for citizens to consume less, is at best unrealistic and at worst an impedent to our right towards…
The other day, I put up a small question about history. What better place could there be to put my answer, but in the form of a fractal? Patterns seem to almost repeat themselves. Sweeping changes result from a single, initial circumstance. Each point is connected to another, within the same set.…
When I think about global warming, I feel completely powerless. Is there any meaningful action I can take to help?
When Google started "suggesting" the most popular search phrases below its query box, I was creeped out. Especially when I saw what it suggests for "is Obama". Yes, I was happier when I didn't know what other people were typing into Google. However, the folks at HINT.fm took the opposite approach…

I agree.

Walk/bike. Refuse or re-use a bag when you go shopping. Use personal coffee mugs and packed lunches. Strive for energy efficiency in the home (low flow shower heads, etc.). If anyone has other tips - even refreshers of the obvious - it'd be great to hear them.

Better to adapt and reduce the size of your footprint now than to deal with the footbinding that environmental catastrophe could force upon us.

I'm glad you people aren't actually in charge of anythng important.

"Consume less."

If you were in charge of an ancient tribe and hunting got scarce, you would be scribbling on cave walls that people should eat less. Then you would insist the tribe members in Kansas be allowed to starve.

You're supposed to be scientists. The scientific answer should not be to hunt less, it should be to find a way to domestic and raise your own livestock.

Start thinking, people.

I assume you're being sarcastic, since we don't live in an ancient time of scarcity. But, if sarcastic, to what end? I don't follow.

Consuming less is a negative reinforcement. When automated looming got cloth manufacturing at a high rate and cotton grew scarce, was the solution to 'wear fewer clothes?' No, the solution was to find ways to pick cotton faster so more could be grown. I use both of those analogies because they are obvious to us now.

It is the same thing here. Science finds solutions to problems. Answers like 'consume less' are for people who don't know how to think - or who don't understand how and why innovations happen.

By Chief Scientist (not verified) on 19 Sep 2006 #permalink

Yes, Chief Scientist, science finds solutions to problems. The ultimate solution to the problem of living on finite resources will include, at some point, the imperative to 'consume less'.

Most of the arable land is already under cultivation, and though agriculture in much of the world could be made more productive by the input of additional energy (oil), there's only so much sunlight that reaches Earth's surface to be captured by plants. There's also only so much oil left in the ground.

We may not know exactly how much of any of our resources remain, but we do know that they are finite. Demand on these finite resources continues to grow with the population and the economic development that's raising the global standard of living. You don't have to remember much undergrad Calculus to know where this is going: to continue unrestrained consumption of our planet's resources while uttering blythe nothings about science, technology, and innovation is reckless.

So, I hope you're working on that/those innovation(s). Meanwhile, I'll shop for efficient fluorescent lightbulbs to take home in a reuseable canvas bag that I'll strap to the back of my bicycle. Consider it an extension on our collective neck-saving innovation deadline.

By Narsillion (not verified) on 19 Sep 2006 #permalink

wait, Chief Scientist -- I liked it better when I mistook your reply for sarcasm. Are you now suggesting that since we screwed up and pushed for more consumption in the past (pick cotton faster) we should use that as a model for screwing up in the future? (ignoring, for the moment, that your reference to 19th century agriculture is errantly reductive in its thrust)

As our most basic human needs are met (food, shelter, security) we seek to satisfy other needs. It is overconsumption in the "less neccessary" parts of our lives that is the problem. We do not need to consume less food or wear fewer clothes. We need to consume less of the things that significantly contribute to the problems we have created for ourselves. For example, is it practical to have a gas guzzling SUV, especially when one lives in the suburbs? Consumption of products like super fuel inneficient vehicles is an attempt to satisfy a more than basic human need, ego perhaps.

At any rate, I do agree with you on the fact that we need to start thinking more and more clearly. Too much of our brain energy is being focused on temporary solutions to critical problems. Consuming less is a lifestyle that means being conscious of the negative effects you, as an individual, are imparting on the planet. But for this to be effective people have to start thinking - differently. I think somewhere along the evolutionary line we humans became detached from the natural world. We are trying to take comfort in material things that really don't matter and we are abandoning the things that really do matter.

Do you know why they STILL make huge inefficient vehicles for people to buy with money they don't have and drive around and impress people they don't know? Beacause people still buy them!! This is the change in thinking I am talking about. It starts with the individual.

Technology can be used in A VERY helpful manner, but can also harm greatly. Just as a baby in a mother's womb is sensitive to all its mother's health and vice versa, we are sensitive to mother earth's health- and vice versa.

There are MANY things one can do to live harmoniously with nature. The concept that we (nature and us) are inextricably connected to each others' health must first be understood.

I was born and raised in India (a third of the size of the US with TRIPLE the population) for half my life. From first-hand experience, I can tell you that the finite resources/population dilemma is all too familiar there.

Here are some things that we did to 'consume less' in our family....

*My grandma used the SAME tote for a NUMBER of years to buy food, plastic or paper products, etc.
*We cooked just enough for all members in our family to eat well, not excessively. Rarely had left over food.
*The unedible parts of fruits/veges were immediately buried in the soil. As long as mother nature isn't inundated with "garbage," she learns to utilize 'waste' as nutrients for soil.
*We printed on both sides of a page when possible; if not possible, used the blank side as a scratch sheet.
*I personally have used the same musical keyboard for the past 10+ years. It isn't the prettiest or most technological saavy keyboard and I am nowhere near Mozart, but have impressed people with my keyboarding/piano skills MANY times. (no lessons)
*Instead of using disposable saran wrap, I cover my left-over food with plates and put it in the refrigerator.
*I use the same glass throughout the day to drink water. (course, I rinse it every time before I re-use it).
*We practice the ancient Indian art of Yoga to keep our health in check; we meditate to keep our minds in balance; and that prevents high health bills (and eradication of ancient forests for medicine - very common these days).

Thank you so much for posting your thoughts on this site, Ben Cohen.

<<>>

I just want to let people know that not everybody who drives an SUV, does it to impress people. For me, an SUV is the only practical vehicle for our family. We live way out in the country where we get easily 12" of snow in the winter. Also, since we cannot afford fancy vacations, we need a vehicle that can pull our travel trailer way up the hill, so we can spende the week kayaking. And there is NO way we are fitting 2 kids, a huge dog, a stroller, and an ice-chest in a Toyota Prius.

To the Camom75: you might want to bring the toilet with you too.