by J. Lee
ECONOMY IS DEFINED AS FRUGALITY IN THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY, THINGS, ETC
|Would I rather live in the constructs of a norm which holds sustainable living conditions as a problem to proceeding in unsustainable economic growth, or would I prefer to break away and be part of a minute few who would trade my service not for goods and moneys, but instead for the good of the whole in the long run?
In order to begin my argument, I need to first set forth my current living arrangements and consumption, weighing my needs vs. my wants when purchasing, and my values vs. my actions when reaching my decision to purchase.
My needs are the same as any humans needs. I need food and water, I need exercise, self actualization, enjoyment to sustain a positive mental well being, acceptance or physical, mental, and emotional connections with other beings, and I need to be sheltered from the Earth’s elements in enough of a way that I will not fall out of equilibrium with my physical and mental well being.
My most recent wants have fallen outside of the physical and materialistic plane, and lean more towards a supplemental attention for the lack of well being I currently have. I have material wants, but they all inevitably end up being wanted only to serve the purpose of the emotion or social status that they will provide to me. It is useless listing the material things as they all serve the underlying purpose of fitting into a structure of life I don’t understand. They are all selfish desires to claim ownership of unnecessary things to provide insubstantial positions in a crumbling belief system.
My value is simple and complex. Equality. Equilibrium in self, of self, and as a species. I don’t want to feel the need to compete anymore. I don’t want to feel better than anyone, and I don’t want to feel less than anyone. I don’t want anyone to feel better than me, or less than me. They are the same; however I can only control the equation on my end. I don’t want to consume more than I need, and I don’t want to want more than anyone should have.
My recent actions and spending, both monetarily and emotionally, have been hypocrisy to everything previously mentioned in my needs and values. My wants remain the same, but lean more towards a selfish end than they do an equal proportion.
The implications of changing my living conditions of trading my services for money and goods to an employer over to letting the services become my contribution or investment in humanity vs. an investment in my selfish gain are substantial, however.
To meet the proper specifications of the transformation, I would have to be willing to completely jeopardize my physical security as well as my ability to acquire my fundamental needs. The reality of this is that in a society set to trade token services earned in exchange for tangible physical possessions, asking nothing of my service monetarily stunts my security of receiving any goods in the first place.
The things I need, however, in order to maintain sustainable living on its own, being the bare necessities and nothing more, are all attainable through services sold to self to get what I need to live independent of employer or exchange at all. In plain English, I can get my basic needs without selling my time and effort, and do it independently of the affect of any one person.
A second issue becomes the sacrifice of the material wants in order to gain the emotional supplements I am not currently getting myself. The problem of lack here is still completely replaceable with proper self care on all levels of need. So the issue of sacrifice becomes an inquiry of willingness to dismiss addiction of abundance of anything in order to progress in a lack of unnecessary consumption, only taking what is necessary to maintain a positive emotional experience while never owning the physical objects which give me what I need.
The value of equality then becomes more attainable as I need less material ownership in order to sustain a healthier outlook and therefore a more stable well being, leaving more resources for others with similar enjoyment needs to achieve a similar result.
Scientific method needs to be testable and replicable, and unfortunately a theoretical utopian existence is highly combated by current societal norms. The utopian existence in a fast paced consumption environment with multiple hierarchies set up to work against the benefit of what economy stands for is like holding your hand out in front of a moving train and expecting to stop its motion. Utopia based on how we currently exist is neither attainable nor replicable; however it is theoretically possible and provably so.
Regardless of idealistic banter, it would be counterproductive to leave society in an attempt to meet my needs as proper human contact and emotional bond and acceptance are human needs. The issue then lies in sustaining equilibrium in self in an abundance of disarray and greed.
To weigh health vs. idealism is absurd, but so is acting against a value system which is held for the better of all, not just self. Either way it is weighed, health has the potential to suffer and deteriorate. It is not just probabilistic that it would, it is scientifically proven on both ends of the scale.
To add to the equation yet another variable, and quickly generalize psychological impacts of values, intent, belief, and the actual actions taken by any person, the situation becomes infinitely more complex.
If I am to act in accordance with my belief and value systems, I am committing individualistic suicide by wiping my status as a member of legal society out, and replacing it with a highly unheard voice due to an overly brainwashed population. Many look down and disrespect the voices and actions of people who go against what is already somehow proven to them to be a sustainable way of life. They choose to not have their needs threatened by change, and their greed stolen by logic. It is therefore common to never hear of the people who die in attempt to lift the wool from the eyes of the many, because these people are made to look insane. Even if their death is brought to life, it is passed off in pity for another sick soul who was the product of a poor prioritizing of realism vs. idealism.
In many ways our way of living is sustainable to people today, because the real impact of our unsustainable economy will only terrorize us in our lifetime, it will not completely wipe out our population until our future generations lifetime, when we are all passed on. We strive for the future selfishly and pass off the future generation’s well being with false claims of needing to live in the moment and not fix what isn’t broken.
On the topic of conforming to today’s norm vs. living for the benefit of everyone being an efficient way to produce my main value of equality, there are still more implications of net benefit. How much effect I have in producing equilibrium living as part of today’s norm, vs. how much effect I would actually have not serving a system of politics to create my desired utopia?
Would leaving my job and my possessions have an impact in creating more equality to more people than just being a sheep to the system and trying to benefit the whole through charitable donation of goods and services? It is a common sense belief that charitable donations do put people with less in a better situation to have a bit more of what everybody should have.
It is also arguable that donations are gratefully accepted by those in need, but a percentage of that gratitude has an element of shame behind its mask. And a percentage of people donating also give with an element of pity behind their donation. In the striving for equality, it is of all basic human needs, and in these cases it provides one need with a side effect of destroying another human need. The net benefit of this system has the potential to be destructive and non profitable in the emotional sense.
There is also the opposite, which is where both persons in the exchange benefit greatly, both materially as well as emotionally. The question now becomes in my own personal exchanges of donation and charity, both giving and receiving, am I legitimately making a difference to support equilibrium and produce the desired outcome. In my current situation, I believe I have done more harm than I have good.
Seeing as I do not currently have a collection of experiences not conforming to today’s norm, I can only speculate the ideal of what I want to achieve based on educated theoretical guesses. I would not be arguing the idea would I not believe it to be a possible benefit to the cause of equality, but until I actually go out there and do something, I have a great idea without a great passion to see it happen.
So the answer to the original question so far, I seem to prefer the selfish and mundane approach to a destructive human fantasy over an altruistic approach to obtain an idealistic utopia. All it takes is a dropping of fallacy that is currently held out of fear in order to take a step into fantasy of living with an actual noble purpose.
The goal I strive for can be achieved in a much less dramatic fashion, and that is living in equilibrium between both methods of life to create sustainability under impending doom, while doing it solely for the self imposed value I have rather than for the claims of a nation to inhabit the best of the best, which is completely opposite the point of the efforts it claims.
So finalizing this essay, I would never choose to live in today’s norms if I could sustain my health otherwise, but if it is necessary I am willing to do it while functioning under a completely opposite goal set. I don’t want to help the economy hurt the people; I want to help the people avoid the hidden attack of their economy.
ECONOMY IS DEFINED AS THE FRUGALITY IN THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY, MATERIALS, ETC
Our economy has trained us to need the goods, and demand the supply, in overabundance.
** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **
Click Here To Go Back To My Port Or Click Below...