Jacob,
I don't think you made the connection between your current lifestyle and what drove you to it, "Peak Oil". No man is an island, seems a little selfish for each person to reach early retirement while the rest of society burns.
I do think the practice of thinking about an alternative future to be helpful.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/chris- ... bigger-aga
All this talk about early retirement seem a little bit narcissistic to me
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15980
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
I'm beginning to make that connection (reaching out). The main problem as I saw it was that the great majority of people who were/are aware of peak oil would discuss it at length but then next day they would have to return to their consumerist lifestyle with irrelevant work because they got bills to pay.
There is (or was?) an even great number of people who are unaware of peak oil or simply dismiss it. (If I promoted ERE as a peak oil solution, they would simply discard it.)
In both cases an ERE lifestyle would make it possible for people to adapt much more readily to peak oil (and other problems).
But I don't think that explicitly connecting ERE to peak oil, global warming, or overpopulation is going to help convince people. Those who already worry about those issues should easily see the connection already. Those who don't are more likely to be turned away---yet they'd still pursue it for the individual or family reasons. This reinforces the point in this thread.
I let it be up to people to decide what they are going to do with that freedom. Anecdotally it seems few people plan to contribute nothing and even if they did so and chose to, say, become permanent tourists, their impact would still be reduced i.e. no longer part of the peak oil problem.
What I like about ERE is that it is a solution that works in the present environment on the individual scale as well as the collective scale. A lot of the peak oil and sustainable solutions only work if they are implemented on the collective level. This means that some of them won't work at all because the will isn't there. It was this realization that caused to more or less abandon active efforts in the peak oil community. Grand plans are only as good as their implementation and those plans were impossible to implement. ERE on the other hand can be implemented and the grand scale would appear as an emergent effect.
You can say the means are the same but the goals and motivation are different. I think that's okay, because the means are what's important. Goals and motivations can change much quicker than means.
There is (or was?) an even great number of people who are unaware of peak oil or simply dismiss it. (If I promoted ERE as a peak oil solution, they would simply discard it.)
In both cases an ERE lifestyle would make it possible for people to adapt much more readily to peak oil (and other problems).
But I don't think that explicitly connecting ERE to peak oil, global warming, or overpopulation is going to help convince people. Those who already worry about those issues should easily see the connection already. Those who don't are more likely to be turned away---yet they'd still pursue it for the individual or family reasons. This reinforces the point in this thread.
I let it be up to people to decide what they are going to do with that freedom. Anecdotally it seems few people plan to contribute nothing and even if they did so and chose to, say, become permanent tourists, their impact would still be reduced i.e. no longer part of the peak oil problem.
What I like about ERE is that it is a solution that works in the present environment on the individual scale as well as the collective scale. A lot of the peak oil and sustainable solutions only work if they are implemented on the collective level. This means that some of them won't work at all because the will isn't there. It was this realization that caused to more or less abandon active efforts in the peak oil community. Grand plans are only as good as their implementation and those plans were impossible to implement. ERE on the other hand can be implemented and the grand scale would appear as an emergent effect.
You can say the means are the same but the goals and motivation are different. I think that's okay, because the means are what's important. Goals and motivations can change much quicker than means.
-
MarkInTheNorth
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:58 pm
...seems a little selfish for each person to reach early retirement while the rest of society burns...
I disagree. Another way of defining "early retirement" is "has fully taken personal financial responsibility for his future material needs." Imagine if everyone did that. If everyone reduced their expenses and everyone increased their skills and produced value to exchange in the marketplace, saving the excess value they create to the point that they can invest that excess value in other productive enterprises (stocks, bonds) and gain enough reward for deferring gratification (called "profit" or "return on investment") that no one needed to rely on the government or charity to provide them a living out of others' work? That would be an extremely healthy society... a society that lived below its means, that created more wealth than it consumed.
Beyond that, your statement suggests that is immoral for me to seek to provide for my financial independence until everyone else has done so as well. I have no ability to control other people's choices and no wish to live in a society that would attempt to do so. I cannot control others' choices and I am not responsible for changing their minds so that they begin to learn, work, save, and invest. The knowledge for doing so is all out there, usually for free. The responsibility for taking control of one's own life - which means taking responsibility for one's thoughts and emotions and actions - lies with each individual.
Your view is essentially the collectivist view. Wherever that has been implemented it has been a catastrophe - from the Mayflower Compact, which resulted in the starvation of half of the Pilgrims when they landed here in the early 1600s, to the Soviet collective farms, to Mao's Great Leap Forward, to Pol Pot's killing fields. You need to wake up to the implications of what you're suggesting when you say it is immoral for a man to try to provide for himself without first providing for everyone else. I know you mean well but you have to get over this idea that taking individual responsibility is selfish.
I disagree. Another way of defining "early retirement" is "has fully taken personal financial responsibility for his future material needs." Imagine if everyone did that. If everyone reduced their expenses and everyone increased their skills and produced value to exchange in the marketplace, saving the excess value they create to the point that they can invest that excess value in other productive enterprises (stocks, bonds) and gain enough reward for deferring gratification (called "profit" or "return on investment") that no one needed to rely on the government or charity to provide them a living out of others' work? That would be an extremely healthy society... a society that lived below its means, that created more wealth than it consumed.
Beyond that, your statement suggests that is immoral for me to seek to provide for my financial independence until everyone else has done so as well. I have no ability to control other people's choices and no wish to live in a society that would attempt to do so. I cannot control others' choices and I am not responsible for changing their minds so that they begin to learn, work, save, and invest. The knowledge for doing so is all out there, usually for free. The responsibility for taking control of one's own life - which means taking responsibility for one's thoughts and emotions and actions - lies with each individual.
Your view is essentially the collectivist view. Wherever that has been implemented it has been a catastrophe - from the Mayflower Compact, which resulted in the starvation of half of the Pilgrims when they landed here in the early 1600s, to the Soviet collective farms, to Mao's Great Leap Forward, to Pol Pot's killing fields. You need to wake up to the implications of what you're suggesting when you say it is immoral for a man to try to provide for himself without first providing for everyone else. I know you mean well but you have to get over this idea that taking individual responsibility is selfish.
You have a very very very limited ability to impact how society thinks, but you have 99% control over your own life. It seems to me that getting your own life in order does more for society than any protest/movement would, as you can guarantee results for yourself.
I fail to see the evil side of selfishness in not being a burden on society and being responsible for yourself.
I fail to see the evil side of selfishness in not being a burden on society and being responsible for yourself.
As someone who spent a large chunk of his life as an altruist I am quite leary of evangelistic types. The only way to really help others, I believe, is by your example. Jacob walks the talk; hence he's believable.
St Francis said "Preach the gospel always-speak when necessary." Let others see what we're doing and they will question and search and eventually, if interested, follow.
djc
St Francis said "Preach the gospel always-speak when necessary." Let others see what we're doing and they will question and search and eventually, if interested, follow.
djc
Unfortunately most employees don't have a choice, but what seems selfish to me is working 40 hours a week when unemployment is so high. Its not an issue of productivity. Even back in the 1950s the middle class had 2 cars and a washing machine for every family, and today we average about 40 times as much productivity per worker as back then (granted, I can't remember my source - that number may be off, but its ballpark).
The issue is distribution.
You can't blame an individual for the fact that the system is set up so that all of the per worker productivity increases caused by new technology benefit the upper class exclusively.
Real median income has flat lined for decades, while real GDP increases.
In a more reasonable society the standard work week would be much fewer hours, while people still made the same income.
The more people who opt out of the current system, the closer to that we get.
The issue is distribution.
You can't blame an individual for the fact that the system is set up so that all of the per worker productivity increases caused by new technology benefit the upper class exclusively.
Real median income has flat lined for decades, while real GDP increases.
In a more reasonable society the standard work week would be much fewer hours, while people still made the same income.
The more people who opt out of the current system, the closer to that we get.
mvbma, I must admit I'm a bit stumped as to what you think would be an un-selfish approach. In ERE, we use fewer resources. The alternative to ERE is working... which can only increase our usage of natural resources. Although I have no papers to cite, I've always thought of GDP as a good substitute for "how quickly we are digging stuff out of the ground."
Isn't it more selfish for someone to continue contributing to a destructive economy just so they can take an extra trip to the mall?
Are you suggesting that we simply give our money to charity and then commit suicide?
Isn't it more selfish for someone to continue contributing to a destructive economy just so they can take an extra trip to the mall?
Are you suggesting that we simply give our money to charity and then commit suicide?
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
I think early retirement can be a selfish choice. And that people who choose this option for selfish reasons often rationalize doing so.
I also think that the freedom that comes with early retirement can be put to good and loving and community-minded purposes. It's not really early retirement that is bad but those darn humans who figure out how to pull it off.
It somehow always ends up being a problem with the darn humans, in my experience.
Rob
I also think that the freedom that comes with early retirement can be put to good and loving and community-minded purposes. It's not really early retirement that is bad but those darn humans who figure out how to pull it off.
It somehow always ends up being a problem with the darn humans, in my experience.
Rob
I think some people retire early for selfish reasons and other people continue working for selfish reasons. I'd broaden the definition for "unselfish" beyond "community-minded," for it's difficult to predict or quantify one's impact if you're, for example, a writer who writes a book about extreme early retirement, or perhaps a not-well-known songwriter whose 500 worldwide fans get a lot out of your music.
Getting enough sleep for the first time in your life due to early retirement strikes me as actually an ethical thing to do--treating your body the way it's meant to be treated.
Even if you never did anything extraordinary for your community, if you raised a couple of well-balanced children by utilizing all the free time you have at your early retired disposal, I think that could also be categorized as unselfish--both on the face of it, and with regards to your children's likely impact on the world.
Getting enough sleep for the first time in your life due to early retirement strikes me as actually an ethical thing to do--treating your body the way it's meant to be treated.
Even if you never did anything extraordinary for your community, if you raised a couple of well-balanced children by utilizing all the free time you have at your early retired disposal, I think that could also be categorized as unselfish--both on the face of it, and with regards to your children's likely impact on the world.
So ERE is a bit narcissistic while working and blowing your money on status symbols (new car, name-brand clothing...) is not? Seems the opposite to me.
Perhaps the counter point would be "well not THAT type of working life".
But if some types of working lives may or may not be narcissistic than certainly the same can be said for ERE.
Wouldn't someone going into the clergy be a narcissist? They aren't contributing their maximum potential towards the national GDP. Clearly they aren't pulling their weight economically.
Ok people - back to work!
... just poking fun..
Perhaps the counter point would be "well not THAT type of working life".
But if some types of working lives may or may not be narcissistic than certainly the same can be said for ERE.
Wouldn't someone going into the clergy be a narcissist? They aren't contributing their maximum potential towards the national GDP. Clearly they aren't pulling their weight economically.
Ok people - back to work!
... just poking fun..
I think this has been said in previous posts to some degree, so I'm just repeating this...
...it occurs to me that retiring early is actually altruistic in that a position in the workforce now becomes available to someone else possibly seeking that position, upon someone successfully retiring early. For example, that professor who retired at age 33 (on the blog), has made his position available to another professorial type - in an age where tenure track positions are hard to come by - that is kind of a nice thing to have available.
I've worked in positions with people who were just warming benches (I mean that literally, these people came in and played board games ALL DAY), and earning pay. Due to their long tenure in the workforce and other things, they couldn't be gotten rid off or laid off. Had they retired, their position would have been open to someone else seeking it - others in junior roles were overworked handling their tasks. And I know they made some bad moves seeing as they were paying a mortgage in their 60s and 70s considering they had been employed with the same employer making decent wages for decades.
...it occurs to me that retiring early is actually altruistic in that a position in the workforce now becomes available to someone else possibly seeking that position, upon someone successfully retiring early. For example, that professor who retired at age 33 (on the blog), has made his position available to another professorial type - in an age where tenure track positions are hard to come by - that is kind of a nice thing to have available.
I've worked in positions with people who were just warming benches (I mean that literally, these people came in and played board games ALL DAY), and earning pay. Due to their long tenure in the workforce and other things, they couldn't be gotten rid off or laid off. Had they retired, their position would have been open to someone else seeking it - others in junior roles were overworked handling their tasks. And I know they made some bad moves seeing as they were paying a mortgage in their 60s and 70s considering they had been employed with the same employer making decent wages for decades.
As you go through life, you will easily find many people who are not too happy with other people who have succeeded through their sacrifice, skill, ability, and resourcefulness. People who succeed have both vision and persistence. Majority of people have "no" vision, and heavy indebtedness provides their "persistence".
Success in life has nothing to do with selfishness.
Success in life has nothing to do with selfishness.
-
veganprimate
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:25 pm
- Contact:
"No man is an island, seems a little selfish for each person to reach early retirement while the rest of society burns."
First of all, Jacob has a blog and has written a book. Apart from going from house to house in every town in American (and Europe, Asia, and Australia) what the f*** to you want him to do? If the rest of society burns, it's their own fault. Are you telling me the dudes with SUV's and large trucks are unaware of peak oil? The guy who starts his truck up and lets it run so it's warm when he sits his overfed American ass in it to go to work is unaware of the war in Iraq? No, people would rather tend to their personal comfort rather than worry about the bigger picture. How is any of this Jacob's problem?
However, ERE (and things like simplicity, frugality, etc.) actually do address larger issues. Amy Dacyczyn (Tightwad Gazette) mentioned that there is a lot of overlap between frugality, simplicity, and environmentalism (I think those were her examples). Sometimes there isn't. For example, a frugal activity might not be simple. But there is significant overlap.
Even if one is being frugal or attaining early retirement for selfish reasons (a dislike of work), it's going to be environmentally sound to have less crap in the landfills. Even if someone doesn't have kids b/c it's expensive, or they just don't like kids, it's still going to benefit the planet to have one fewer carbon-based lifeform on it.
But rampant consumerism, even if you put a good spin on it (I'm helping the economy), has so many bad effects for the planet and all its inhabitants that it's hard to justify.
First of all, Jacob has a blog and has written a book. Apart from going from house to house in every town in American (and Europe, Asia, and Australia) what the f*** to you want him to do? If the rest of society burns, it's their own fault. Are you telling me the dudes with SUV's and large trucks are unaware of peak oil? The guy who starts his truck up and lets it run so it's warm when he sits his overfed American ass in it to go to work is unaware of the war in Iraq? No, people would rather tend to their personal comfort rather than worry about the bigger picture. How is any of this Jacob's problem?
However, ERE (and things like simplicity, frugality, etc.) actually do address larger issues. Amy Dacyczyn (Tightwad Gazette) mentioned that there is a lot of overlap between frugality, simplicity, and environmentalism (I think those were her examples). Sometimes there isn't. For example, a frugal activity might not be simple. But there is significant overlap.
Even if one is being frugal or attaining early retirement for selfish reasons (a dislike of work), it's going to be environmentally sound to have less crap in the landfills. Even if someone doesn't have kids b/c it's expensive, or they just don't like kids, it's still going to benefit the planet to have one fewer carbon-based lifeform on it.
But rampant consumerism, even if you put a good spin on it (I'm helping the economy), has so many bad effects for the planet and all its inhabitants that it's hard to justify.
"No man is an island, seems a little selfish for each person to reach early retirement while the rest of society burns."
If everyone in society is biting their nails, and society deems this to be a problem, then there are two positive actions an individual can take upon: a) Stop biting their nails (ERE, sustainability, etc), and b) Help other people stop biting their nails (using excess resources to mitigate the problem, like volunteering, donation, what I think you're suggesting, etc.) Both result in fewer people biting their nails. Is the combination nice? Yes. Yes it is. But doing one (exclusive) or the other cannot be considered selfish; you're part of the solution.
If everyone in society is biting their nails, and society deems this to be a problem, then there are two positive actions an individual can take upon: a) Stop biting their nails (ERE, sustainability, etc), and b) Help other people stop biting their nails (using excess resources to mitigate the problem, like volunteering, donation, what I think you're suggesting, etc.) Both result in fewer people biting their nails. Is the combination nice? Yes. Yes it is. But doing one (exclusive) or the other cannot be considered selfish; you're part of the solution.