On minimalism

I recently shared an article on social media about how to retire in your 30s (1). I realize the minimalistic lifestyle necessary to achieve extreme savings goals might seem out of reach or undesirable for some, but I remain convinced minimalism can be a highly fulfilling way of life. I think there is something to be said for being happy with where we are and what we have, wherever that is. There's an entire social science literature on happiness/wellbeing that suggests that, beyond a middle-class income, income and happiness/wellbeing are only weakly—or maybe not at all—correlated. (2)

With this in mind, we should avoid thinking that more money and more consumption will make us happier. "If only I made what my boss makes" quickly turns into, when we do make what our boss makes, "If only I made what my new boss makes.” It’s the hedonic treadmill.

There will always be someone who earns more. Who drives a more expensive car. Who lives in a nicer house in a nicer part of town. Who takes fancier vacations to more distant places. Who eats more exotic food. So rather than constantly thinking about how we will be happy when something in the future happens or our means increase, we should be thinking about why we aren't happier now and what we can/should do about changing our attitude.

In addition to the persuasive evidence from the social science literature on this topic, my attitude has changed mainly due to 3 factors/experiences: moving to New York (and then London), my environmentalist awakening, and my (still cursory) exploration of Buddhism.

Before moving to New York, I had a certain idea of the good life. It involved owning a good-sized house full of nice stuff, driving nice cars, and having a "nice" (aka high-paying) job. When my wife and I moved into our first apartment after getting married, I could see I still had a long way to go. I was convinced we could only go up from there – 650 square feet, one bedroom, and an APARTMENT(!) full of BORROWED(!) furniture. I looked forward to getting more space and our own, nicer things.

When we moved to New York, we lived successively in two small, one-bedroom apartments that were, at 350 and 400 square feet, both significantly smaller than our first apartment in Provo. And we sold our car. When we moved to London, we lived in a 0 bedroom studio, and only took over what we could fit in suitcases. And we now no longer have our own place at all.

For us, living in small spaces was born of necessity. It was all we could afford. But by being financially compelled to live in smaller and smaller spaces, I learned that it was possible. I learned that I don’t need a house. I don’t need a yard. I don’t need stuff. And when we left the city on weekends to spend time with family and friends, for the first time I appreciated how living small can actually be a desirable way of life. I don't have to worry about caring for a large house. I don't have to maintain a car. I don't have to insure either. I don't have any yard work to do. I do have time to read and think. Life is simpler. I’m to the point now where I don’t even want stuff. I no longer view acquiring possessions as a goal, or even as something I think would make me happier. If anything, more stuff will likely complicate my life and make it less happy. You might call this the practical justification for minimalism.

I had also begun thinking more and more about where my stuff came from and where it went when I threw it away. When I consumed it. And it frightened me (3). I started wondering whether my consumption levels were fair to others around me and around the world. Whether, if everyone on Earth lived like I did, it would be sustainable. And even given my newfound preference for minimalism, and less and less rather than more and more, I discovered my life was not sustainable (4). Or fair. But rather far from either. This made me want even less. Not only do I not want stuff, I can’t justify it ethically or environmentally. You might call this the moral justification for minimalism.

Finally, I have gained an insight from my recent introduction to Buddhism that has been valuable to me personally. Although it seems rather intuitive, applying it in our own experience is more difficult. In a nutshell, it’s this: suffering is bad and reduces wellbeing; however, much of our suffering is self-induced. Ergo, we have the power to reduce significantly the amount of suffering we experience. (I should add a caveat – depression is real medical condition, and requires professional attention.) Meditation has helped me understand that I am not my feelings. I am not defined by my current emotional state. I can take a step back from my feelings and from my thoughts and appreciate that they well up in me as a response to stimuli. Those stimuli come from internal factors (hormones, what I ate, how well I slept) and external factors (the temperature/weather/time of day, the tone of voice of the person talking to me, who’s in my company), but ultimately they don’t define me. In fact, a current thought in neuroscience suggests the notion of a “self” is an illusion anyway (5). (What are we, anyway, but a compilation of sensory organs with a fairly unreliable memory and an imperfect reasoning ability?) The way I see it, always wanting more and then more stuff is a great way to live in a constant state of unfulfilled suffering. But if I don’t want the stuff in the first place, I don’t suffer by not having it. You might call this the spiritual justification for minimalism.

And so to me, whether it’s for practical, moral, or spiritual reasons, minimalism—the pursuit of less, not more—seems like the path to increased happiness and wellbeing. It will mean not needing to spend more money now, which will make it easier to save more. And it will mean not needing more later, which will mean not needing to save for as long. 

Notes

(1) http://www.vox.com/2015/5/1/8518455/extreme-early-retirement

(2) For an introduction, see Skidelsky and Skidelsky, 2012. How Much Is Enough? Money and the Good Life.

(3) E.g., see the Story of Stuff Project (www.storyofstuff.org).

(4) See Chandler, D. (2008). Leaving our mark - MIT News Office. TechTalk, 52(23), 1,4. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/footprint-tt0416.html.

(5) See Harris, 2014. Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.

Florida's climate change word crimes

The Washington Post (e.g., see here, here, and here) and the Miami Herald, among others, have recently reported on Florida Governor Rick Scott's administration's unwritten policy of forbidding the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) employees from using the words "climate change" and "global warming" in any official documents, studies, or reports.

Governor Scott denies any wrongdoing, pointing instead to his administration's record on the environment. "I’m into solutions, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do."

While the Herald's report contains multiple sources all describing similar pressure and instructions from administration officials, proving the existence of a policy of censorship may be difficult as administration officials seem unwilling to discuss the specifics of the issue or to communicate about it in writing. As such, the only available evidence as of yet appears to be hearsay.

Regardless of whether Scott's administration is pressuring DEP employees to avoid usage and discussion of certain terms, as the Washington Post points out, this is hardly the first time a Republican-led administration has interfered with scientific communication. The Post goes so far as to call this a play "straight out of the Bush playbook," referring the Bush 43's administration's "edit[ing] scientific reports to minimize the link between human activity and climate change." 

In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, University of Miami professor Harold Wanless finds the practice of censoring DEP officials unconscionable, perhaps worse: "It’s beyond ludicrous to deny using the term climate change. It’s criminal at this point."

Professor Wanless raises a point worthy of further exploration: assuming the Scott administration does have an unwritten policy censoring scientific reports, in what ways would this policy be "criminal?" Would it be a violation of DEP employees' first amendment rights? Would it also make the administration guilty of gross negligence, given the overwhelming scientific evidence linking human activities to serious global climatic changes? And finally, would it be evidence of corruption, suggesting the administration has been captured by private interests benefitting from the status quo of limited or no action to mitigate and adapt to climate change?

Governor Scott, along with other prominent Republicans, has adopted the "I'm not a scientist" mantra in an attempt to exonerate himself of responsibility for any negative effects his state and its citizens might suffer from climate change. Governor Scott should not be faulted for not being a climate scientist. A healthy society needs elected officials with a variety of backgrounds. But not trusting input from experts, and even going so far as to attempt to silence them, is indeed inexcusable. It might even be criminal.

U.S. Senate votes on climate change

On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Senate voted 98-1 to pass an amendment to S. 1, its Keystone XL Pipeline bill, stating that "climate change is real and not a hoax." A further amendment, stating that "it is the sense of the Congress that--(1) climate change is real; and (2) human activity significantly contributes to climate change" and citing the scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Research Council, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), failed by a vote of 50-49. 

It is worth noting a few points regarding these votes. First, it is historic that a Republican controlled Senate would agree that "climate change is real and is not a hoax." This is a far cry from the rhetoric many Republican senators employed during the election cycle, where many of them either flatly denied climate change is occurring or made statements such as "I'm not a scientist" as if to suggest they shouldn't be asked such questions. That said, this vote shows the evolving position of congressional Republicans on the issue.

Second, this amendment was clearly a political calculation aimed at securing the necessary Democratic support for the Keystone XL Pipeline bill to pass a vote. As Republicans do not currently benefit from a supermajority in the Senate, getting any legislation through a vote requires at least some bipartisan support.

Third, the language of the amendment that passed is the minimum language required to secure Democratic support.

Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, in rejecting the second proposed amendment, nearly half the members of the U.S. Senate voted to reject a statement consistent with overwhelming empirical observation and that reflects the prevailing opinions of experts across multiple scientific disciplines. 

In the first place, it is curious that the Senate would take any position on a matter of empirical observation. It is not as if, simply by voting, the Senate can change reality, creating a world where humans are not "extremely likely" (borrowing a phrase from the IPCC) to be significantly responsible for observed changes in our climate since the industrial revolution.

What would it hurt the Senate to agree with the overwhelming consensus of observation? As the Senator (Brian Schatz, D-HI) who proposed the rejected amendment pointed out in his testimony on the floor of the Senate, "The purpose of this amendment is simply to acknowledge and restate a set of observable facts. It is not intended to place a value judgment on those facts or to suggest a specific course of action in response to those facts. It is just a set of facts derived from decades of careful study of our land, air, and water."

The Senate's rejection of Senator Schatz's amendment provides cause for concern with our political system: if our elected officials aren't basing decisions affecting our nation and our planet on empirical observation, on what are they basing their decisions?