Macro-Scaled Downsizing to Simplify and Enhance All Planetary Life, Part 4
Transitioning from individual micro-downsizing to societal-scaled downsizing
Image: An Urban Community Food-Growing Initiative
Recap/Update—Our Human Predicament?
With this 4th post in a multi-post series, attention moves from individual downsizing strategies and procedures to concerns associated with the more comprehensive level of global society downsizing. For background information, it will help to peruse the three previous posts: Part 1; Part 2; and Part 3.
Over the past two decades my wife (Bettye) and I have increasingly questioned the whole concept of consumption, as promoted by the capitalistic pro-growth economic system we have faithfully participated in for eight decades. While we’ve managed well enough in taking advantage of this system’s benefits, the negative impacts on individuals, society, and the ecosphere have grown more apparent over the decades.
The increasing media coverage of extreme whip-lashing weather events—from hot to cold, dry to wet, livable to unlivable—is growing more prominent. It’s also making It harder for climate-change deniers to explain away the growing intensity of long-term environmental damages caused by the growth of a global techno-industrial complex.
Despite pronatalist propaganda, the chief driver of most issues can be attributable to population growth (around 70 million people annually), and is projected to continue for at least two more decades. Simply put, population growth is the principal driver of excessive material consumption and the production of toxic waste products.
The global economy’s continued use of carbon-based fuel (coal, oil, natural gas) produces emissions that drive global heating, which influences climate change and weather extremes. This toxic combination of factors is largely responsible for the ongoing extinction of flora and fauna species, roughly estimated to be between 10,000 to 100,000 per year. Another worrisome issue is that of planetary-boundary tipping points, seven of which have already tipped into danger zones.
Addressing the ultimate effects of overconsumption helps explain the need for macro downsizing, which can only be achieved by collective cooperation—from families to communities, cities, states, nations and global civilization. Heretofore, the focus has been on individual downsizing strategies. In this post we transition from the micro (individual) to the macro (societal) levels of consuming natural materials.
At this point, it’s important to emphasize that downsizing applies to all humans, of all ages. Young people can learn from the hard-earned experiences of older generations in dealing with a lifetime of managing excessive stuff. Young folks today experience a vastly different consumption-oriented landscape, so we oldsters can also learn from them. After all, they will inherit the future we leave behind.
Pre-Adulthood Downsizing Backstory—Influences and Experiences
This section partially explains how we Americans and other world citizens transitioned within two decades from an era of modest austerity to one of greater material affluence. Our personal experiences further indicate how most Americans eagerly jumped on the pro-growth economic bandwagon. While the results have been astounding, the overall effect continues producing a host of modern ills, as described in the opening section. Now, our backstory.
Our parents were members of The Greatest Generation, Americans born between 1901-1927 who bore the major responsibility for supporting and surviving WWII. They grew up on southern farms during the early 20th Century and became adults in the 1930s, a rather stressful era marked by the stock-market crash of 1929, the Great Depression and the Dust-Bowl decade that followed. Most of their young adult lives were marked by financial concerns, owning minimal possessions, and having to cope with hard times.
Bettye and I were born in time to grow up during WWII, when Americans collectively made willing sacrifices for the common good. The government called for rationing of everyday items to conserve essential materials for the military, including food and groceries, transportation and fuel, clothing and household goods.
To help supplement food rations, many citizens cultivated Victory Gardens. People also collected materials to be recycled: metal for weapons and rubber for vehicles, kitchen fats for explosives, and paper for various uses, like shopping K-rations and medical supplies. My folks owned a small grocery store, so we had plenty to eat. Still, I don’t recall people complaining about not having enough resources to live on.
Postwar, an era of economic boom commenced, propelled by massive rebuilding of wartime destruction abroad, expanding employment opportunities, and growing production and consumption of material goods for eager consumers. We were beneficiaries of this swelling abundance, including ample opportunities for employment, access to affordable education, housing and medical care. In short, life was good.
We were The Silent Generation (born between 1928-1945), a fortunate cohort in many ways. Men of ages 18-26 remained eligible and registered for the military draft. However, my cohort was too young for the Korean War, and as a father of three sons, flat-footed, and working on a doctoral degree, I was exempted.
Bettye and I had grown up in homes managed by parents who practiced frugality. The thought of using credit to buy anything, even a house, was not a viable option. They chose to work hard, live modestly, save as much income as possible, and purchase essentials using cash. Although Bettye’s father was a studious investor of stocks, my dad equated participation in the stock-market with gambling. As a consequence, I didn’t consider investing in stocks until my mid-30s.
From Young-to-Old Adulthood—Influences and Experiences
Our three sons were born and reared as members of the Baby Boomer Generation (born between 1946 and 1964), a cohort influenced by an economy based largely on producing durable goods and local repair. By the early 1980s they were young adults exploring life’s options. Generally speaking, since around that time, younger generations have progressively navigated a digital-first, ultra-convenient, single-use “throw-away” culture defined by fast fashion, constant subscriptions, and app-based deliveries.
We senior citizens have negotiated a wide-ranging developmental progression of societal and ecological changes commonly associated with economic development. The most obvious changes have been with ongoing advances in technologies, most recently connected with AI.
Although technological innovation has introduced time-saving efficiencies, life-saving discoveries, more entertainment options, and a wide-range of communication and learning possibilities, we are also more burdened with decisions regarding whether a technology is more helpful than harmful. Most people have experienced an increase in multitasking.
Popular modern technologies in the 1940s for the average American family included a single landline phone that required dialing five digits. Most homes also had a radio that provided programs most Americans accessed, often as a family. By 1950 TV was rapidly becoming a home entertainment viewing device featuring three major networks that produced news and various programs accessible to most Americans.
The other standard media in those years involved local newspapers subscribed to by most households. Most homes were small (950-1200 square feet; 1-2 bedrooms; 1 bath) but affordable. Also included was an attached or detached small garage or carport. Our first home (ranch style) fit this description and cost $13,500 in 1960. Today, a similar new home would cost between $180.000 to $280,000, depending on location. Moreover, basic home appliances were simpler to operate and maintain. They also lasted almost twice as long when compared with contemporary models, thanks to “planned obsolescence“ and unessential upgraded features.
As for other major home-related expenses, a large portion of the population relied on savings accumulated during WWII and paid with cash. Avoiding debt was a more common practice, but during the post-WWII decade this psychological aversion was upended.
Medical and dental care, while not as technically advanced in the mid-20th century, was relatively inexpensive. My parents paid cash for most procedures, as did my wife and I until the early 1960s, when medical insurance became more common, largely through employers. Approximately 70% of the U.S. population was insured by 1960. Not so today, unfortunately, as costs continue escalating.
One major technology in its middle-aged stage during my childhood was the camera, both still and motion models. Because photography was a more expensive hobby or professional endeavor, most people owned simple cameras, that mostly took only black-and-white photos, like Brownies or Kodaks. Consequently, people tended to take fewer shots, mostly of special occasions and events.
Compared with today, our collection of childhood and youth photos is miniscule when compared to the prolific output made possible with digital camera aps on smart phones. Our digital photo library is gigantic in comparison. Going through all will require many hours to view, delete, or possible edit. Sound familiar?
I could continue listing how life was simpler, but this is enough for now—except to mention that we were not deluged with plastic products. Plastic bags were not ubiquitous until around 1979-80, and fewer items were packaged in plastic wrappings. Most products were available in containers consisting of paper, cardboard, metal, or glass. Plastic products were being produced and used, but they represented a small portion of commercial goods.
Certainly, with some glaring exceptions (destructive wars, toxic pollutions, etc.), the natural environment was also healthier. By the end of the 1940s, the U.S. population had increased from approximately 132.1-million to over 150 million, less than half of today’s 343 million. Since 1940, over 100-million acres of rural landscape in the coterminous U.S. have been changed into urban and built-up land. Much of this converted landscape consists of former agricultural and forested lands lost to suburban sprawl, urban expansion, and low-density residential developments. For much of the U.S., auto and truck traffic was far less, so much so that I had my driver’s license at age 15.
Finally, downsizing can also apply to the number of children couples have. In addition to being a financial concern, the continuing expansion of our species over the globe is creating harmful living conditions. Our global overconsumption of natural materials and exorbitant production of resultant toxic waste products are negatively affecting all lifeforms.
According to a majority of socioecological experts, including leading world scientists, our future hangs in a delicate balance. We must choose—as soon as possible—which path to take: upsize or downsize? The ignorance and denial of status quo thinking and acting could potentially lead to global socioecological collapse. Otherwise, a survivable existence will require strategies and practices based on realistic approaches employing appropriate forms of mitigation, adoption, and adaptation.
Wrap Up
I didn’t start out today to write so much about the simpler conditions of living eight decades ago. It just seems relevant for our exploration of downsizing to consider the historical backstory, tracing how techno-industrial economic growth has contributed to the current overload of modern life. The proliferation of all human-contrived systems has contributed to greater physical comfort and safety, but also stressed our psycho-emotional health.
There’s so much to be discussed that we’ve not covered. For instance, there are debilitating psycho-emotional responses that need downsizing, especially feelings of anger, resentment, and tribal hostility. Worldviews (beliefs) that promote harmful ideologies and behaviors need to be acknowledged, understood, and countered with positive responses.
We also need to find ways to downsize any concepts of achieving unrealistic ambitions, perfectionism, and even former identities. Our younger, more vigorous selves can be lovingly relinquished when accepting the later stage of life as one of a slowing down process. The main positive aspects of graceful aging are achieved when gaining the understanding, and acceptance of this reality, with an attitude founded on gratitude, appreciation, and going with the flow of life, whatever it brings.
The pace of life also needs to slow down, especially for those who are accustomed to an overcommitted lifestyle. As we pass into old age, our former personal activities must slow down, in some cases a lot—and the same applies for society. We’re finding that going slower and enjoying single-action tasks is more restful and productive than multitasking.
For us, slowing down means no longer taking long trips involving air travel, long road trips, strenuous schedules and activities. We also prefer to avoid attending large, crowded, and noisy public gatherings. In the past two decades we’ve developed a distinct preference for participating in smaller, more intimate social gatherings for generous conversations and entertainment. How about you?
The concluding post in this downsizing series will explore focusing on upsizing strategies and practices, as related to both material possessions and non-material concepts. In addition to thinking about how downsizing applies in your personal and socio-political life, I suggest thinking about what might need “upsizing” in your life.
Till next time . . .
Clif (with Bettye Ware, reader/editor/partner)