Bigger things

I was just about to do another post with more travel pictures, and then I caught a glimpse of a BBC program on the melting polar ice caps and how the change is accelerating every year...

...it kind of puts any and every other little worry and concern and project I think about into perspective.

Plenitude by Juliet Schor

This is the text of the speech I wrote and delivered for Toastmaster's this week. 

I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading and thinking recently. Having spent most of the past 12 years in university, that really shouldn’t be anything new, but once I finished school and wrapped up my work contracts, I got to do a different kind of thinking and reading. My reading was no longer limited to quantum dots, viruses and nanotechnology. I started thinking about bigger things – literally and figuratively.

Two of the issues that interest me most are unemployment and environmental sustainability. How do we build a society where everyone can make a living? And how do we do that while preserving the environment we depend on to live?

We live in one of the most prosperous societies that have ever existed. At a mundane level, just look at our grocery stores and the abundance and variety of food on the shelves. I remember going to my local Loblaws a few years ago and counting 18 different kinds of apples available for sale. 18! Our grocery stores are brimming with foods from every corner of the world. And yet, so many people in this society struggle to put food on the table for their families because they are unemployed or underemployed.

In first year economics, we learned that to decrease unemployment, we have to increase growth. We need to pump more money into the economy so that people will spend more and buy more. This increased demand will lead to increased production and the creation of new jobs.

But this solution comes with its own problems. In a world with finite resources, we can’t grow indefinitely. Even the seemingly infinite stock of fish in the sea will dwindle and disappear if we keep fishing more and more – as we’ve seen with the collapse of the cod fishery in Newfoundland. In the past 30 years alone, we have consumed one third of the planet’s resources. Besides that, this production and consumption is polluting our air, water and land. So, given these environmental constraints, growth does not appear to be a feasible solution to the problem of unemployment.

So, what is?

Well, a few months ago, I read a book by Juliet Schor, which suggests an interesting alternative. The book I read was called True Wealth. It was previously published as Plenitude.

Dr. Schor, who is a professor of sociology at Boston College, proposes that we can reduce unemployment and protect the environment by working less. Yes, that’s right, we should each work less. Instead of working 40 hours a week, what if we worked at 80% of full time? That’s 32 hours a week -- 4 days a week instead of 5. Effectively, this would enable us to share the existing workload amongst more people.

You’re probably thinking right now about all the reasons this pie-in-the-sky socialist idea wouldn’t work, right? Well, in the early 1980’s, there was a worldwide economic downturn and Western Europe was particularly hard hit. The Netherlands decided to take a proactive stance and started hiring new government employees at an 80% work week. The idea caught on and public sector workers were joined by academics. Eventually, even their whole banking industry joined in the 80% schedule.

But what would people do with 20% less income. Well, for one, they would buy less. Immediately, that would reduce the strain on scarce environmental resources. Instead of shopping or buying new gadgets for our entertainment, we could spend time outside, read a book or hang out with friends. Instead of paying other people to make our food or coffee, we would do it ourselves – and thereby not only save money, but save on the packaging and disposable cups or napkins or cutlery that comes with having take-out.

But where are you going to find the time? Remember, the basis of this whole model is working less. Less time for work means more time for everything else. More time to do stuff can help offset the less money you have to buy stuff. So we’re buying less and creating more.

Of course, there are some things we can’t do on our own. Sometimes we’ll need help from other people. That’s also part of the model. With less time working, we could have more time connecting with other people. It could be friends helping friends move instead of hiring movers. It could be neighbours sharing a lawnmower rather each buying their own. We would be strengthening our social fabric while reducing unemployment and protecting the environment.

In summary, this model proposes that we work less, buy less, create more and connect more.

Albert Einstein once said that “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” This model of Plenitude, by Juliet Schor, is a different kind of thinking.

Questioning business as usual

It isn't news to anyone that there's something wrong with our economy.  And I'm not just talking about the crash or the bailouts either.

In my high school economics class we learned that the goal of an economic system is to efficiently use and equitably distribute resources in a society.  Somewhere, it seems like we've veered off course.

Is it an efficient use of resources to cut down trees, burn fossil fuels, pollute our land, air and water to make cups, cartons and cameras that will only be used once and then thrown into landfills?  Is it equitable that executives receive million dollar bonuses as they lay off hundreds of workers?  Does it make sense that in a time and place of so much natural, material and technological wealth, food banks are serving record numbers of people?

It seems like business as usual isn't working for us anymore.

In her book, True Wealth (previously published as Plenitude), Juliet Schor suggests an alternative.  In a nutshell, she suggests that we work less, buy less, create more and connect more.  If people could work fewer hours, we could reduce unemployment by sharing the work amongst more people.  The lower income associated with shorter hours could also restrict consumption, thereby saving natural resources.  Fewer hours at work also means more hours of leisure, which people could use to create more on their own (through cooking, sewing, DIY projects, etc.).  Finally, more free time means more time to connect with other people and build community.

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

Ecological responsibility

I was invited to gave a talk on ecological responsibility today at the Multifaith Centre at U of T as part of their Faiths Engaging the World Lunch Series.  When I was preparing for the talk, I came across the verse in the Qur’an that describes the slaves of the Most Merciful.

In Surah Furqan, chapter 25, verse 63, it says: 

wa ‘ibaadurahmani lladhina yamshuna ‘ala al ardi hawnan

And the slaves of the Most Merciful are those who walk on the earth easily (gently, with dignity but without arrogance)

What a beautiful verse to describe ecological responsibility; walking on the earth gently, easily, with humility (which are all meanings that can be found in the word hawn).  It’s treading lightly on the earth, with humility.

For a truly humble servant could never destroy, pollute and waste the gifts of his Master.

Rethinking our habits

How many of the things we do, do we do out of habit?  Lots of them, probably.  It's not practical to thoroughly weigh the pros and cons of the hundreds of miniscule actions and choices we make every day.  What time should I wake up?  What should I eat for breakfast?  Which toothpaste do I use?  What should I wear?  How do I get to work?  For most of these things, we find something that works and we stick with it.  Out of habit.

For many of the things we do every day, our habits suit us and everyone else just fine.  But there are some habits that aren't benign.  Some habits cause us to waste money.  Some waste our time.  Some, such as getting a morning coffee in a disposable cup or driving long distances to work every day in a single passenger vehicle, damage the environment that we depend on to live.  Looked at in isolation, these appear to be miniscule actions with miniscule impact.  But multiplied over time amongst millions of people, they add up.  They add up to landfills and floating islands of garbage in the ocean and smog and climate change.

These problems can be depressing to think about.  What can we do to clean up our oceans or mitigate climate change?

Such questions are overwhelming if you're trying to address these problems single-handedly.  But these problems weren't created single-handedly.  They're the sum of seemingly miniscule actions with seemingly miniscule impacts done by millions of people over time.  The existence of these problems shows the tremendous power of our daily habits and the enormous impact they can make on the world.

Now what would happen if we changed them?

The train

A few years ago, I read about how it's like we're all riding a train.  As this train of progress hurtles along, we keep making improvements.  We make the seats more comfortable, we dampen the noise, we improve the climate control but we never look to see that this train is heading towards an abyss.

I think we know about the abyss now.  Climate change, food security, air pollution, declining fish stocks and general environmental degradation are on the radar.  Now, it's a matter of changing the course of this train.