There is a marvelous article in this month's Orion Magazine about consumption. You can find it here.

I have always been bothered by modern economics, by our fundamental belief that we must grow: more people, more cars, more clothes, more toys, more jobs, more money... that if we fail to do this, we will soon be extinct. That societies that don't do this are stagnant and weak and worthless.

I think it's a case of starting with the wrong premise and arriving at the wrong conclusion. But it's so ingrained in our culture, in us, that we can't think any other way. Even when it's obvious that our runaway poplulation is causing the collapse of oceans and aquifers and rivers and too many species to count, even then we still have governments bemoaning if the rate of population increase slows down, and corporations insisting we need more, more, more consumers.

Because our modern math insists that unless we grow, we will die. But that's the wrong premise. And the wrong conclusion.

Now I know that any species needs a critical number of members in order to survive. But it's just as true, that when a species over-populates, something happens to reduce the numbers. Famine. Disease. And in the case of humans, the effects of our incredible destruction of the planet, leading to climatic disasters like the Dust Bowl.

It's much harder on the planet when there are too many humans in a place, than if there are, say, too many lemmings.

So growth, like nearly everything else, has to find a happy medium. And one of the first things we need to do is reduce our consumption. We need to be Bad Consumers. And start being Good Citizens.

The article talks about the Kellog Company and it's experiment in a 30-hour week. For years, employees worked six hours a day and the extra time off resulted in a vibrant, involved community. People had time to plant gardens, help at their kids' schools, go for walks, play ping-pong. They didn't miss the money. This was before the age of rampant consumerism and they didn't miss the stuff they never knew they were supposed to want. 

An important benefit was that more people had jobs. Instead of running 3 8-hour shifts, Kellog's had 4 6-hour shifts, resulting in more employment. More people in the community were working (albiet for shorter hours and less pay),  and the community was stronger. They called it Sharing the Work. As someone pointed out, you either share the work, or support the people who don't have jobs.

Does that sound familiar to anyone?

The experiment eventually collapsed when Kellog's sold the company and the new owners went back to 8-hour days and laid off a gazillion people. The people who were left got lots of overtime. And had to start supporting the people who had no jobs.

Wrong premise. Wrong conclusion.