What THINGS could you give up to make a new world?

If the "Occupy" movement were truly to spread, it could, at some point, actually succeed in bringing down the existing social and economic order.

If that happens, most of us(other than the poorest of the poor)would have to make some kinds of material sacrifices in the name of reshaping the world along humane, sustainable, and truly democratic lines.

For a start, what material things could you do without in the name of creating a different world?

For myself, I'd go with

1)The degree of consumer choice that now exists at the grocery store(do we really NEED forty different kinds of vanilla ice cream?).

2)As many new or expensive clothes as middle-class people can afford at this point.

3)Any chance of home ownership(not that I'm likely to own a home anyway, but still).

(I'd suggest that each poster choose three items, as I did, but choose more or less as suits you.)

Just thought this is something people need to be thinking about.

except my books, my computer, and my internet connection.

Which a computer and an internet connection are basic human rights, at this point. Hell, I'm going to say books are too.

Thanks for posting that.

Processed foods might also have to go, or at least be reduced in usage, meaning we'd go back to eating more natural foods, foods available in our own areas, or growing at least some of we eat.

And I'm willing to make those sacrifices on everyone's behalf.

Lol.

I wasn't sure if anybody would pick up what I was laying down.

:D

A single billion people would make this old planet a lot more comfortable for all life.

Well the top two anyway. I already own a home or will in another 8 years, but I would give it up if it resulted in a better world. I've got pretty good insurance from my wife's work. I'd give that up for Medicare for All.

Actually the first one is probably the most important. As you said, it's ridiculous the amount of choice a market economy lays on us when there are people who can't afford the basics.

the 1% are a serious issue... but aside from that we all need to simplify... lots of changes are needed to save our environment and so many of the people suffering tonight

We won't have all the "toys" we've been programmed to think we can't live without.

To do that, we'll all(other than those who already have nothing)will have to get used to not having some of the things we've been made to feel we need now.

evenly. So, if the goal is to make all the worlds citizens equal, the vast majority of americans would se a significant reduction in income/standard of living while the so called third world would see a significant increase in income/standard of living.

Link to global per capita GDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

After all, if you make a home and intend to stay long-term, you're more likely to know your neighbor, take care of your surroundings, and invest in the people in your community.

the(financial)empire.

Not having to deal with home payments or a mortgage gives a person much more independence from the Banking Industrial Complex, and sharply reduces(if the country takes up the idea as a whole)the resources at the disposal of the complex in its campaign to force the country and the world to obey its every command.

If you want to own a home, that's up to you(I don't want to pick a fight with you on this)but that's the rationale behind my choice.

And regulate the living HELL out of mortgages.
A roof over your head and food in your family's stomach should obviously be protected over corp. greed
That's something that a non-Randian thinker has no problem understanding, and really isn't that hard to implement.
Heck, you prob wouldn't even need to write new laws or regulations, just enforce the ones that exist.

if people gave up home ownership.

I live next to a house that is much smaller than mine and has a smaller yard as well (although that is an advantage for yardwork, it also would give my dogs less room to run).

They pay $500 or $550 a month in rent. My house payments, when I had house payments were $220 plus $50 a month for insurance. That's $270 a month vs. $500 a month. Now it is fully paid for and my expenses for insurance and taxes are about $135 a month. It is a blow to the banks for me to pay an extra $350 a month for a smaller house?

Your housing market may vary, but I think home ownership helps a working person to prosper. As long as they get an affordable house.

There are other models of residential provision(cooperative housing, for example, with people building their homes themselves and sharing the upkeep cost, among others). It's not as if everything HAS to be owned either by the state or privately and for individual profit.

n/t.

I want a freezer case with just two vanillas: ice cream and ice milk (no longer available), and a place to buy tennis shoes that has maybe five styles.

Shopping has become a nightmare of decisions, I absolutely hate it.

I think a living standard like that would do quite well, once we got used to it (which might take a generation or two). There seems to have been plenty of happiness in the world back then. I'd prefer to see a per-capita income in the developed world of about 15% to 20% of today's value, which would leave some room for the developing world to close the gap without pushing the whole planet over the edge again.

Of course, if we want to be truly sustainable then along with the goods and services of 1800 we would also need the population of 1800 (about one billion people, or 15% of today's number). As well, we'll need some way to stabilize the population at that level, and some way to exchange goods and services that doesn't result in a growth economy.

The message is that getting back to a sustainable level of consumption and population is hard, but keeping both from growing again will be even harder. And we have to do that, because essentially any amount of growth in our numbers or consumption renders the human race unsustainable over the long run.

I believe this house is from approx. 1800

Problem with that one was...Jefferson went broke trying to finish it...and he always kept thinking of new stuff the place had to have.

He'd have driven the "This Old House" crew 'round the bend.

:rofl:

And you'd probably draw the line at re-editing the Bible as well.

And an urban setting from 1800 doesn't look quite that dire.

Wall Street in 1850, for example:

Reminds me of the Amish bumper sticker, "Warning, do not step in exhaust."

Seriously, cities had major pollution problems long before the advent of the automobile.

The future never reprises the past exactly, it can't. We'll keep most of the knowledge we've developed since then, and that will make things somewhat easier. What we will need for true sustainability is not knowledge, but wisdom. That's a lot harder to come by.

My points are these: We can be just as happy with a whole lot less stuff and a whole lot fewer people; avoiding growth is the key to long-term sustainability; and to achieve sustainability in the first place wisdom is more essential than knowledge.

Near term is likely wind turbines, although even that technology has more twists and turns than most people realize..

http://skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

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

For the far term I expect a technological singularity, beyond which it's really as impossible to predict what's going to happen as Newton, towering genius that he was, could have predicted GPS satellites that operate on principles totally unknown to Newton.

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

http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html

In the medium term I actually think a singularity of consciousness is more probable than a technological one. It's impossible to predict past any kind of singularity whether it's in technology or consciousness - the event horizon precludes it in both cases.

I did a number of years off the grid and I was never happier... stuck on it right now but would love to go back

give up something. Unless the 1% give up something what anyone else gives up is "chump change." x( Fuck em!

It always comes down to working people giving ground, doesn't it?

I've sacrificed and sacrificed and sacrificed already. I've wept bitter tears as I've parted with things that I worked damn hard to get just to try and survive this economic nightmare we are living in. I'm sure there is more sacrifice ahead but it will be after the fight.

It's about time we pull some demigods down off their high horse for a change. By any means necessary :grr:

to go 'all-in' as it were with the Occupy Movement. To turn on, tune in and drop out.

What we will possibly be sacrificing if we choose to do that:

Our condo (27 years to go 'til mortgage paid off, so no big loss)
Our savings (Earned by the sweat of our brow, so hard to say good-bye to)
Our retirement accounts (Before financial crisis of 2008, those actually might have meant something)
Our credit rating (Freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose)
Other non-essential luxuries like a lot of my musical gear. (That PA in my closet is a god-damned white elephant.)

We haven't decided to take the plunge just yet. But I am glad you asked the question. I think it's one we all should ask ourselves from time to time.

On edit: Sorry, I should learn how to read. I see you asked us ideally to pick only the top three. As you can see, our pondering has pre-dated your question.

we could still have material things that bring us joy...

as soon as I am sure all children (last one about to graduate UVM) are A-OK I would take the plunge... my first responsibility is to kids and then community/country

unaware that, during the late 60s and early 70s, an estimated 2-3 million young Americans experimented with various forms of communal living. That may not be statistically significant (about 1% of American population roughly), but it sure is a lot of people.

n/t.

Who exactly, will own "the property" - i.e., the houses. And does that include all the closely held commercial property? What about Trump Tower, etc - the corps will still own and control things, and benefit from it?

I would give up the import of nearly anything we can make in this country, except for those things which offer an equitable basis in trade with others.

ok?

Kind of a cut your nose off to spite your face sort of proposition.

what we're saying is that we'd give up some of the few comforts we have so that everyone could have a better chance. Once we divest the 1% of most of their assets I'm thinking we wouldn't have to give up all that much. But I'm willing to give up quite a bit so that no one is hungry or homeless. Are you?

Witness this (think how much more would be used for everyone if it wasn't hoarded by the hands of the few):

If you truly would give it up why haven't you? Because you want other people to go first? Sounds like a cop out.

And I'm not rich. A lot of DUers are richer than I am...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2096977&mesg_id=2096977

lololol

Nope, it's got to be EVERYBODY. I'm sick of you rich parasites living off of me and everyone else. EVERYBODY gives up luxuries and lives at a reasonable level so none are hungry or homeless.

Again, would you do it?

*****************************

Acrylic on canvas

:thumbsup:

I'm not very materialistic as it is, my "stuff" is mostly sentimental things received as gifts or picked up on travels.

Would love to give up motor vehicles.

I don't have TV, I don't have a cell phone, my internet connection is still dialup, I have never owned a credit card, and I do not have a 401K. I already do all my banking with a Credit Union - I've used nothing but Credit Unions wherever I've lived since 1989.

I have a 640 sq. ft. cabin on 10 acres of woodland with no well or plumbing - I haul my water and use an outhouse. I own my place free and clear, having paid it off over 3 years ago. Because I live in a somewhat depressed rural area, my property taxes are fairly low.

I have electricity, obviously, and would prefer to continue having electricity -- although I have also lived without it in the past, so I know how to do it.

I have a job I like a lot, with a one way commute of 20 miles. I would not be able to get to work without a car since there's no public transit up here in the boonies. My current car is 10 years old and I bought it with cash a little over year ago, having put money away for several years against the time when my former 1996 used car would inevitably bite the dust (with 280,000+ miles on it).

I rarely buy anything besides food, although I occasionally buy new clothes since I work in an office and need to look reasonably presentable. I love to read and get all my books from the Public Library.

I'll probably work until I'm 70 if I can manage it (about 8 years from now), and then I'll be solely dependent on Social Security.

I'm really not sure how much more I could pare down.

Over the years I've often considered how I would survive if the whole thing falls apart. Hunt and gather and garden is what I come up with. I could probably manage, although it would be hard -- and I'd definitely prefer not to see the total collapse of civilization as we know it.

I've decided that what I would miss most would be toilet paper.

sw

It sounds like you're doing exactly what you want, exactly as you want to. You are both extremely wise and extremely fortunate.
I'd probably miss asthma medication the most ... but not for long. :evilgrin:

Yes, I've been very fortunate. For an old hippie who's been navigating life on the far fringes of mainstream society since the 60s I've managed to come out alright.

I'm very glad you brought up medications, though. That's an extremely serious factor to consider, and I would never want to see your, or anyone else's, life cut short due to lack of access to life-sustaining medicine.

While I am an herbalist, I have no illusions that plant medicines can manage all illnesses. I recognize that many people's survival depends on modern pharmaceuticals. It's another reason to NOT wish for a total collapse of modern civilization - and much more critical than the lack of toilet paper.

We need to look for mitigation and re-design, not total destruction.

Wishing you a long life,
sw

is our dependency on medications of all sorts. Much of it is due to Big Pharma maximizing their profits, but a fair bit of it is because we've created a toxic and allergenic environment. Many, many people depend on drugs that are used for chronic symptom management, like with asthma, high blood pressure, heart conditions of various sorts, auto-immune disorders, psychiatric issues etc. A serious supply chain disruption that affected the delivery of such medications could kill a lot of people quite rapidly.

I'm not too concerned personally. I'm an old hippie as well, and the inner work I've done over the years has given me a unique outlook on change in general and my own mortality in particular. Most people aren't prepared in that way, and are still pretty attached to "things as they are".

Yes, we need to look for mitigation and re-design, but I suspect it would be a good idea to be psychologically prepared for extremely large and rapid changes. The signals we're getting from every level - from the oil, the water, the land, the air, the other animal species (e.g. bats and bees), politics, finance, food prices, the shift in social attitudes - they all point to a grand convergence of destabilizing influences that are all colliding right about ... now.

The more mitigation, restructuring, education and consciousness-raising we can do in the next ten years, the better equipped we'll be to ride out any storms - even perfect ones.

This:



so true.

Consciousness-raising... When I was a young hippie, I thought that higher consciousness had an unstoppable momentum, and that the trajectory toward enlightenment was clear. Then came the massive push-back from the regressives, and the realization that the forces of darkness had in no way neared exhausting their arsenal. That they were hellbent (so to speak) on destroying every spark of higher-mindedness that they could reach.

So, darkness (egoism, greed, hate, disdain for life) has triumphed for now. And sure destablization follows, with the world so out of balance.

Like you, my own mortality does not concern me -- although I'd sort of like to stick around awhile longer, to witness what's coming, and maybe (hopefully) be of some assistance. I took the Bodhisattva Vow in 1987 and I intend to keep it.

sw

You know.

Namaste.

What possible justification is there for one human to claim exclusivity to that much space?

birds. They are all safe from harm here, along with every tree, bush, wildflower and their attendant bees. 10 acres just happened to be the size of the lot my tiny cabin came with, it's surrounded by woods all around.

Would you be better pleased if I lived in a cardboard box in the middle of a city?

and you have have to come up with a thousand bucks or better every month for the privilege of living in it, you don't have the option to haul your own water, hunt your own food, grow your own crops, and fell your own firewood then we can talk a "minimalist lifestyle". I have known several people who worked and saved all their lives with the goal of having a piece of land all to themselves and living like you do. You own ten acres free and clear; you are very well off.

Nothing like fulfilling the stereotype for the boys over at the ConCave.

He/she paid for the land. What other justification is needed?

Sweet junk food.
Hollywood movies.
Restaurants.
24/7 shopping.

For others (although I do own some name brand stuff)

Periodic home remodeling.
Kitch souvenirs from travel.
Name brand anything.
Custom consumables.
Production music.
Specialized (single use) appliances.
Meat at every meal.

If not, why does whatever Governing structure get to decide who gets a better house and who doesn't?

There are democratic, decentralized models for an alternative structure, like the Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain.

Either someone gives me a house for free, in which case they're deciding, or they make me rent it, in which care I'm deciding. If I'm deciding which house I want and am willing to pay the appropriate rate for it, what's the difference between letting me rent it and letting me buy it?

You sound like you're already convinced that ANY alternative to the exact status quo would lead to a police state. Why are you so sure that it isn't possible to have anything other than what we have now without it turning into tyranny or something?

The future does not have to be as inflexible at the past. We can make a non-centralized, non-greed based economy that still respects a lot of personal choice.

And as to the OP, I was saying what I was willing to give up. If you're not willing to give up on home ownership, that's your call.

Freedom does NOT have to derive from property. It can derive equally from the acknowledgment that each person, whether she or he owns property or not, has a RIGHT to be free.

...but if you can't explain it to me, how are you going to explain to the average citizen whose support you'll need to implement such a radical change?

You've already decided that anything other than private, individual home ownership and the "free market" economy equals the Gulag, so I'm not sure you're sincerely interested in any reply I could make here, but here are some thoughts;

Housing can be built by cooperatives...we could seize the homes the banks have foreclosed on under assets forfeiture(since their predatory lending practices were clearly criminal)and return them to the people who were forced out of them.

Communities(not necessarily "the state", in the monolithic form you seem to think is its only possible form)can build collective housing(and no, there's no reason that the homes or housing structures would have to be identical)that could be shared by the communities.

There will be new forms that can emerge, with the creative energies that will be released within people when they are allowed to be motivated by the greater good, by the wish to create housing of quality, beauty and originality for the sake of doing so. I'm not auditioning for the role of global emperor...the ideas will emerge from below, as they should...so I can't predict how this would work all by myself.

Have I at least reassured you that it's not a choice between East Berlin circa 1959 or the status quo? Is there anything I COULD say that would make you realize that there are a lot of non-totalitarian alternatives to the way things are now?

:thumbsup:

and are made to last. I have a T-shirt from the early 1980s that is in better shape than the ones I purchases two years ago. And what's the deal with toaster ovens and headsets? They never seem to last more than a few years! Excess packaging; can we do away with THAT already? Mass produced "gift" items; etsy, anyone? There are so many EASY cuts that we can make to have a better world for all.

This year I went from vegetarian to vegan. I feel better, I'm saving money AND avoiding animal proteins can do more to slow climate change than going without a car does.

from recyclable to actually reusable.

People used to put their empty milk bottles out on the porch, to be taken back to the dairy to be sterilized and refilled. We could do that with a lot of things.

It's totally frivolous, despite how important everyone thinks it is. Get out of the planes. Get out of the cars. Unless it's extremely important. It's not even a choice. We either stop this now or we face dire consequences.

Or at least could be. Planes and cars not so much.

Boats use a lot more fuel per ton mile than a car does at the same speed.

There's an old joke among boaters that a boat is a hole in the water into which you pour money.

Ocean going ships are a different matter but a boat is not a ship.

And also thinking of commercial, rather than individual, transport, and perhaps that's ships. Still, personal sail is possible, my family had a sail dory for many years. I have some experience on the water, but none as an owner or pilot. You're right about the fuel use in personal craft, I assume.

I'm not about to stop driving or taking a couple of overseas vacations each year.

After all that's really what we're discussing here.

if any? Voluntary or state-imposed?

Sort of like how one stops before walking over a cliff. Sadly, it is my experience that even the most intelligent are ignorant in very important areas. But that's another whole discussion.

to voluntarily restrict their travel.

I'm not persuaded myself, mind you...I think comparing my week of fun in the sun in the Cayman Islands to walking off a cliff is a bit of stretch...

It's not just you. It's millions of "you". Everyone wants to be on the Cayman Islands. If it were just you there wouldn't be an issue with carbon emissions. This wouldn't be a subject.

The problem is that too may people see the world through "me" rather than "we".

Educate yourself on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We're headed toward disaster at alarming speed. But if you don't care, then just argue away. Ignore it.

As I approach retirement in 5 to 10 years, I'm planning to (among other things) finance a couple of dozen trips to various destinations around the world by selling off my gun collection. I don't have anyone to whom I would bequeath it, so why not use it allow me to take vacations all over the world? Such trips will not only give me pleasure, but also help (in my own small way) to boost the economies of all of those countries.

I don't expect strawberries flown in from Chile, but I'd rather not have to get through the winter on turnips and parsnips stored up in the root cellar the way our ancestors did. Hopefully, the makers and the foodies will come up with sustainable backyard greenhouses to keep things more varied (and nutritious) through the colder months.

I also really like living in a one-family house surrounded by trees and grass. Having grown up in a New York City apartment where all you could see out the window was a courtyard and the opposite wall -- not even a street or much in the way of sky! -- it means the world to me to be able to look out the window and watch the birds or step out the door into a bit of nature.

Aside from that and my computer, though, just about everything is up for grabs. I don't consume much or buy much that's new. And I've always tried to live by the old motto, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without."

We are living lives entirely out of accord with nature --


Cars are something to think about -- they take us out of and away from our own

community -- and I'll include trucks in that. This idea that we can import food

and products is something that has to go.


We need to settle on soap and products which don't do harm to the environment and

stick only with those --

and I'm someone who does question the concept of "personal property" which I think

is a highly destructive concept for our planet.


I could give up a lot of things -- but I think that Global Warming is going to take

those kinds of decisions from us. It's too late for that --



What I'd mainly like to give up is nuclear reactors -- we have more than 100 across

the US -- and it may make the difference between "a whimper and a bang" -- !!

My father used to say to me "Boy, you can get along without pretty much anything in this world but you should always try and make sure that you have guns and money, because if you have those two things, you can get pretty much anything else you need." He was a terrible old bastard, but occasionally, he would kind of have a point.

forcing others to do without as well? If you *do* want to impose this on others, what would be the mechanism for enforcing such a limitation on business to prevent them from carrying more than a few brands of each item?

For that matter, how do you prevent others from buying as many new or expensive clothes as they wish?

So, sorry. I'm not giving up my books, embroidery stuff or even toilet paper.

*Every* attempt at social revolution makes things worse. Throughout history all positive social change has come from social evolution. Modern western capitalist society has a lot wrong with it, but still provides a far better standard of living *at every centile* than anything else ever tried, especially the Keynesian varieties.

Rather than talking about "creating a different world", we should be looking at making incremental changes to this one to improve it - a tax rise here, better health care provision there, and so on.

I think we could create a better world for everyone and the vast majority of us wouldn't have to give up that much. Capitalism has created enormous wealth, but it concentrates it into too few hands. Some of the very rich own several mansions, we could easily tear those down and use the resources to build nice good homes for everyone who needs one. The very rich have entire collections of cars in their garage, do they really need that many? I can understand one for every person who drives in you family, but you don't need a used car museum in you home. The shopping problem the OP mentioned is related to this, we really don't need a 30 different brands of toothpaste that are really no different than one another. We don't have to expect a massive drop in the standard of living to build a better world, capitalism has created the wealth to build that world, now we just need socialism to redistribute that wealth. Read this pamphlet by Slyvia Pankhurst if you this post elaborated on. Link:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1923/socialism.htm

But I think it would be abundance measured by different standards: there would be different, more moral, measures of what constituted "wealth" and "value".

We already live a very minimal lifestyle.

I am also pretty sure we could do more to make it more so.

The one place that I have found that I am saving the MOST money...is cooking.

I make my own sauces, gravies, and broths instead of buying prepackaged. Nothing goes to waste.

We eat more beans.

The one thing we have not been able to do YET is cut our gas consumption as much as we would like, but we are working on that too.

and economic order that their 'slip' is showing! :rofl:

I've never seen such panic out of the Usual Suspects. :rofl:

how about fruits IN SEASON and ONLY IN SEASON? Apples from Chile make zero global warming sense.

I am with you in the degree of numbers of cereal...only one caveat, I need to keep my store brand corn cereal (food allergies)

Give up on paying for truly cheap crap that comes from around the world. I want to pay more for AMERICAN made. But can we make them full rise, not just half rise? (American Clothing CO talking to you... your variety of pants for men is great, but you need a model for us ladies that don't wear the half rise kind, trust me, I am so there if you do...)

Thanks, Nadia.

I am willing to pay HIGHER TAXES, you heard right... as long as we get single payor, good roads, and education from cradle to grave.

I am also willing to give up some of my time for free to help achieve this... even if it means, not that I can do this full time, spending some time in the cold.

I am also giving to write, or help write, policy papers on this... in plain english.

Right now, the very top hog most of the resources. Suppose that in a better world, resources were distributed more equitably. The very wealthy could still be very wealthy - they could still control most of the resources, be multi-millionaires, own many houses and yachts, etc. But if we shaved off just a LITTLE of the way-more-than-they-need that they have now, we could afford:

1. Universal healthcare for everybody in the United States, not just for the lucky ones who are employed by big corporations or the government.

2. Decent day care facilities for all children, not just the wealthy.

3. Nurturing public educational experiences for all children and young people, not just the wealthy.

4. A living wage for everybody, not multi-billions for the top 1% and not enough to live on for 20%.

5. Protected retirement for everybody, not this fear we all live in that social security will be privatized and lost on Wall Street while CEOs of failed companies get golden parachutes worth hundreds of millions.

In return for living in a world that provided that kind of safety net for everybody, I would gladly give up having the choice of 40 different kinds of ice cream in the store, most of which are full of unhealthy toxic ingredients anyway.

... by taxing the uber-wealthy out of existence.

There, that was easy.

We'd still have plenty of movers and shakers in this society but they wouldn't tend to be such nasty, disconnected people if they lived in the same neighborhoods, shopped in the same grocery stores, and depended upon the same social services as the rest of us.

Haven't bought new furniture ever in my life except once, an extra-strong, extra-long futon couch frame.
Haven't bought a new computer since my second one, custom-built for me in 1992.
Haven't bought new kitchen appliances, consumer electronics devices (except for my recording studio), or the kind of plastic junk you find in places like Target or Walmart - well, ever, really.

Things I'd like to give up but can't...
For-profit utilities.
For-profit insurance,
That portion of my taxes that goes to the bankers, the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and, of course, the MIC.

n/t.

But I can't really answer the question because what I would give up totally depends on the qualities of the new social and economic order and the ability of this new social and economic order to sustain itself.

My requirements for survival, personal needs and desires would change from how I exist in this capitalist consumer society to how I would exist according to the possibilities of the new system.

The question requires a vast spectrum of things to consider. "Giving up" goods, rights, events, choices, institutions, etc. (the list is virtually endless) would depend on the return.

I can say this for sure: I can be totally happy and can live with almost nothing - very few basic material things in a tropical place as long as my basic survival needs are met, and as long as I have lots of free time to love, think, create, dream, hike, swim in the ocean, am free to travel freely, and nobody fucks with me. Or something similar.

Kind of like modern semi-communal tribal life free from the control of the the forces of superstition, and all the restrictive baggage that goes along with having to deal with the seen and unseen imperialistic impositions into most areas of our lives that unrestrained undemocratic free market capitalism forces into our personal space, the baggage that many people accept as "just the way things are".

Anyway, that's kind of what I

Imagine
:)

I could reduce my carbon footprint to zero by putting a bullet in my head. China would still build a new coal-fired power plant every week; Shipbreakers in India would still let off-flow stream into the ocean, Fukishima and Chernobyl would still leak radiation, Tijuana's sewage would continue to pollute the Rio Grande, and I would be contributing to the worm population.

Recycling, driving a hybrid, and conserving give me bragging rights that "I'm doing my part", but I harbor no illusions that my actions amount to any more than swatting a fly.

I'm talking about what the future might be like if we got rid of the system we have now(and it's looking more and more as if we'll have to, as those who run this system have made it universally clear that they won't tolerate any meaningful change).

A just, humane, democratic world cannot also be a paradise of consumption. We simply won't have as many toys. In exchange for that, we wouldn't have powerlessness or misery either.

"What THINGS could you give up to make a new world?"

So to directly address your assumption that "a just, humane, democratic world cannot also be a paradise of consumption", I disagree. Improving the human condition doesn't always have to be about getting by with less. In fact most of history has shown that is not the case. Our entire existence is an experiment, none of us have ever done this before and the fact is evidenced in that 7 billion people now exist on the planet, a goodly portion of whom live much better lives than the wealthiest did just a couple centuries ago. We are doing something right; the system needs tweaking, not replacement.

The mention upthread of cities in the late 1800s is a perfect example. No doubt cars and airplanes are not perfectly clean machines, but would you rather a return to the disease-ridden cities with streets awash with horse piss and the filthy smoke-belching locomotives, or keep improving what we have?

Yup, nitpicking the geography here.

1) The stress of paying for education.

2) The stress of paying for health care.

3) The stress of wondering if I will survive in my twilight years.

Relieve those stresses and the world looks much different.

any questions?

I'd die(but not kill)for a just world.

And water moccasins.

Things:

1. Items intended for decoration or status: jewelry, wallpaper, special serving ware for special occasions, luxury vehicles, shoes that serve fashion, rather than practical needs; dresses, hair dye, make-up...

2. Most imported food and goods, buying locally produced items.

3. I'm not sure what else. I'd be willing to give up a car if there was an affordable, PRACTICAL mass transit system available, and if I could get things delivered, but I live rurally. There isn't the "mass" to support mass transit. I wonder about the following:

*technology? I don't want to give up my 'puter or my non-"smart" cell phone. I'd like to be able to afford a laptop. I'd like to be able to afford some kind of e-reader, and to be able to afford to transfer most of my huge library to digital to save space. I'm not willing to give up the library.

*I'm not willing to give up my home, humble as it is. I grew up moving every year; that pattern continued through my young adulthood. I want stability. I want to be able to stay without my payment, rent or mortgage, rising. I want to be able to maintain my home however I damned well please without asking permission. I'm NOT willing to give up the privacy my home affords me. It doesn't have to be more than a humble cottage, but I want my own space.

*tv? Sure.

*electricity? NO. I'm already very thrifty when it comes to power usage, and I'd be happy to exist on wind and solar, if it were affordable to install that capability.

*travel? It's not like I do any, anyway. If I could afford to travel, I'd still want to.

*my horses? That's why I can't afford to do anything else; I won't sell them. They are family, and their line has been part of the family for 66 years. They will die with me.

*the sheep could go; I don't need her. She's the leftover from the herd I sold 4 years ago to be able to keep feeding my horses. Nobody wanted her. Now she thinks she's a horse. She'd be traumatized away from her "herd," so she stays. She's the cheapest critter on the place to keep.

*the chickens? Sure. Factory eggs are cheaper. Not healthier, though. A few chickens around provide me with food and keep the bug population down. I don't see a real benefit to giving them up to reshape the world.


What else should I be thinking about? What other material things do I have? My furniture? My photo albums? My pots and pans?

Edited to add:

If I were young enough, I'd give up the right to excessive reproduction, and be happy to limit myself to 0-2 children during my lifetime.

Of course, I already did that, back in the 80s.

I would give up the chance to make money through buying stock in privatized health insurance, medical care, military contracting, charter school and prizon businesses.

Medical costs have soared under our privatized for-profit system and quality of care has been stratified by wealth.

Military costs have soared under our privatized for-profit system and quality has suffered.

Prison privatization has encouraged legislators to create even more laws that would add to the US' already astounding incarceration rate.

De-privatizing would save us billions of dollars to finance the extra jobs needed to expand Medicare to all, the repair of our national infrastructure and its upgrading with green elements, and the retooling of weapons manufacturers to other vital engineering needs.

Man-for-man our infantry (just as an example) is *far* deadlier than during the '60s when we had the draft.

The fabulous work of KBR/Halliburton.

When we did jobs like kitchen duty and electrical wiring on base in-house, our taxpayer dollars worked double duty because those duties served as job training for the troops for when they got out of the military. They could cook for hundreds, and do electrical and other contracting. And the work was supervised by their superior officers who would not have tolerated the shoddy work that Friends of Bush/Cheney were allowed to get away with.

So I'm not giving up shit, and we'd be better off deciding what we demand.

What I'm saying is that a just world will probably not have the variety of consumerist "toys" that we, in theory, have now. So which of those, in that new world, would you be ok with not having in the name of having a decent, free, democratic life for all?

as long as i have kindle and books (library), i can live in one room, (pretty environment like mountains), small town so i dont need car. no cable, dont need internet. clothes dont matter to me. i dont want things.

food? i would e happy with a pill.... that has all we need and take once a day.

hubby though.... wouldnt go for it.