Anticonsumerism vs frugality

[blink2ce]

I think that to change human behavior on a societal scale requires an adoption of a new religion, or something close to it.

All good religions are able to be understood and appreciated by dumb people and geniuses alike. For example, the stories Bible can be believed literally by a dumb person, and that person will receive the benefits of the moral teachings. Likewise, a genius could spend years studying the Bible and still see new metaphors and interesting details that make the stories so powerful and wise.

The problem with the Metacrisis is that dumb people don't think there is a problem, and even if they knew, they won't do anything about it, because the social consensus does not encourage them to do anything. The average to high intelligence people recognize that there is a problem, but even many of those people are stuck in the existing social consensus, because for most people it is actually quite difficult on an emotional level to be so different from the people around you.

A religious reformation, if it was smartly crafted, could shift the social consensus dramatically. In order to do so, you need to use morality, symbols, metaphor, allegory, Heaven and Hell, the promise of triumph, the fear of shame, et cetera to shape the framework of ideas into something that is inspiring, gives people context and a place to sit.

For example, a tenet in this reformation could include ideas like this:
"Whoever consumes more than they need has sinned, for they have stolen from the futures of the sons and daughters, and the children of them."
"Whoever learns to sustain themselves carefully, at the deftness of their own hand, will be honored in Heaven."
"When all of God's people learn to live in harmony with themselves, and they do not venture into the mountains to make scars in the earth, God smile upon you, and He will make the Earth as it is in Heaven."

Edit: After I wrote this I just remembered that the Amish have already done a version of this. For some reason the Amish haven't seemed to explode in numbers, even though they always seem very happy every time I see one. If anyone has a thought about this I would be interested to hear.

[chenda]

+1000. Although I think our existing religious teachings provide enough cautionary tales as to the perils of limitless consumption. Camels and needles and such like.

[AxelHeyst]

You guys gotta read Building the Cathedral.

The classic religion ship has sailed in terms of mythologies guiding the collective unconscious, for better and for worse. A metamodern project of construction of personal mythologies towards eventual synthesis/emergence of new culture-wide mythology/spirituality is the tl;dr of the book.

Our personal myths have been laying the groundwork for the coming collective myth, acknowledged or not. In this way, the 'cathedrals' of our personal myths are, like Jung's Tower, only part of something much, MUCH bigger: a vast complex of rising mythic structures, all assembled independently and yet working together to form one harmonious whole. The is the true Cathedral: the coming Myth, on which we all build.

[theanimal]

The classic religion ship has sailed in terms of mythologies guiding the collective unconscious, for better and for worse. A metamodern project of construction of personal mythologies towards eventual synthesis/emergence of new culture-wide mythology/spirituality is the tl;dr of the book.

I don't think that's true. In the West, Christianity is the water we swim in. It's shaped everything around us, including many of our society's unconcious beliefs like morals and values. There are many new practices by those who consider themselves religiolously unaffiliated which are religious practices just presented/dressed in a different manner. A few examples: meditation (prayer), gratitude (grace/gratitude), daily affirmations (religious mantras), detoxes/retreats (sabbath, retreats). I suppose that's somewhat of a comical irony in that abandoing religion people end up creating it once more. 70% of the US still identifies as Christian and even among younger demographics, the number of those who identify as Christian still seems to be strong among young men.

I think that to change human behavior on a societal scale requires an adoption of a new religion, or something close to it.

The tenents of Christianity (I can't speak for other religions) are completely in line with all the principles of ERE. I could point to many existing teachings and ideas within that framework that encourage living simply and having reverence for the other beings and things of this earth. However, humans are fallible and that's why it's considered a practice. People strive to be more like Jesus and in line with God's word but that of course does not mean they are God.

What I'm trying to say is that these ideas already exist within religion, the issue is not the lack thereof IMO. It's humans being human and falling prey to our vices. A religious practice ideally helps steer one away from those pitfalls and pursue the Christian life (or whatever religion they're following). But that doesn't always happen. On this forum all are inspired by Jacob, but most do not have systemized lives and spend at levels far higher than he does. Within Christianity, all are inspired by and strive to be like Jesus, but most lead only somewhat of a virtuous life and fall prey to many vices.


----
I think it remains a marketing problem. Consumerism sells people a false bill of goods, that they can have a happier, richer life with more. To go against that goes against thousands of years of human behavoir where we weren't as adversely affected/didn't have as large an impact. To resist those impulses requires a strong, positive message. Something that people can be. Something that people can feel. Something that evokes this:

I'm not sure either of those is particularly compelling. I'd argue for something along the lines of "if you avoid consumerism and embrace an anti-consumerist lifestyle, you'll lead a richer, more exciting, creative, and spiritually-rewarding life." Tweak or adjust the verbiage based on the particular audience or values of the speaker.

For most people, simply not doing something that is considered abstract and out of sight does not do that.

[blink2ce]

@theanimal Yes, that's a good point. The Bible is already in line with ERE. Another example from the Bible: 1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

So no new scripture needs to be written, just a focus on back to basics. A good pastor or religious leader could easily tell the stories in the Bible in a way that makes it clear that our consumption today is unholy.

Up until last year I was completely secular. I think I was so late to the game because the bible itself is not exactly relatable in a post industrial world. I went to church a few times and it seemed boring. No one explained the stories in a way that mattered to me. Only after hearing some people on YouTube describe Christianity to me in a new way, and re-tell the story of Christ with more context, did I understand what wisdom about human nature the bible contains.

It is my understanding that since the birth of Christ, there have been a number of reformations that created a renewed interest and enthusiasm in the religion. Maybe we need another one of those.

@AxelHeyst I will check out that book. Thanks.

[AxelHeyst]

I don't think that's true. In the West, Christianity is the water we swim in. It's shaped everything around us, including many of our society's unconscious beliefs like morals and values.

Of course you are right about all that - my bad for not being clear about what I was talking about. Building the Cathedral is proposing a solution/path/response to The Meaning Crisis. My own tl;dr of The Meaning Crisis is "the insufficiency of existing cultural mythologies/narratives (including religion) to explain my experience/life in a way that satisfies me." A few hundred years ago, religion *dominated* sense-making. Everyone understood their role in the cosmos through the lenses of religion.

Then the enlightenment happened and the pendulum swung the other way. Objectivism and science[ism] undermined the monopoly of sense-making previously held by religious narratives while failing for the most part to provide meaning-making of what Sadie Moon calls 'numinous experiences'.

What I'm trying to say is that these ideas already exist within religion, the issue is not the lack thereof IMO.

I agree, but I would clarify that what Sadie Moon is talking about (and what I'm interested in) is not attempting to address a lack of sense-making within religious traditions, but a lack of effective sense-making infrastructure on the world as a whole.

"As the last great cultural myth of Christianity continues to recede with no new collective myth taking its place, a vacuum has been opening. Some have called this widening abyss "the meaning crisis," and it will continue to swallow us up until some sustainable answer for our times is found. This book aims to propose a possible solution to this crisis. As such, it is addressed to that large and growing number of people who have no working, living relationship to myth. For those comfortable served by some religion or another, this book will offer very little."

[theanimal]

@blink2ice- I completely get that. I was raised Catholic and went to religious school growing up but became frustrated with the church at large during college and my early twenties as a result of seeing some things that I thought were inconsistent with being Catholic and Christian. One of the things that always irked me is the parish we went to when I was growing up was in a town of fairly wealthy to very wealthy families. Consumerism, greed, and excess were rampant but talk of that within mass during the homily or elsewhere was largely absent. The few times it was brought up, there were grumblings about the preists not knowing their base and then they ultimately went back on to sidestepping any discussion around those topics. Looking back, it's a hard line to toe, sharing the teaches without completely alienating your parishoners. I've never been atheist, but did drift away from the practice for a while and have realized I was probably throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think you're right that a strong pastor could lead a transformation just as strong secular individuals do elsewhere. Perhaps I (we?) put too much of a burden on the priests/pastors who are still also just human and are shaped and susceptible to the same cultural and societal norms as the rest of us.

[AxelHeyst]

Perhaps I (we?) put too much of a burden on the priests/pastors who are still also just human and are shaped and susceptible to the same cultural and societal norms as the rest of us.

I think it is correct to hold religious leaders to a higher standard of sense-making for the same reason it is correct to hold law enforcement to a higher standard of justice and temperance than regular citizens: more power > more ability to hurt people > more responsibility.

[chenda]

I don't think that's true. In the West, Christianity is the water we swim in. It's shaped everything around us, including many of our society's unconcious beliefs like morals and values. There are many new practices by those who consider themselves religiolously unaffiliated which are religious practices just presented/dressed in a different manner. A few examples: meditation (prayer), gratitude (grace/gratitude), daily affirmations (religious mantras), detoxes/retreats (sabbath, retreats). I suppose that's somewhat of a comical irony in that abandoing religion people end up creating it once more.

There is a view that Christianity became a victim of it's own success. In the Middle Ages the Church started schools, universities and hospitals, and set up systems for caring for the poor. In the twentieth century, the hospice movement, and, arguably, the welfare state, was started by Christians. Today these values have morphed into secular values. The spiritual vacuum has been filled by alternative religion which often lacks these social commitments, and tends to be quite consumeristic itself. New agey types don't tend to be running food banks or homeless shelters, or if they do it's not driven by their spiritual beliefs.

[philipreal]

I'd say I'm skeptical of the chances of a Christianity-based ERE movement causing significant widespread change? While it's possible and pretty easy to read the bible in a way that's pro-ERE, there are certainly many other ways to read it, and in general, people are going to read it in the way that's most convenient to them (or be taught it in the way that's most convenient to their teachers). Furthermore, I think I lean more with Axel about the ability of organized religion to be the sort of broad-ranging carrot/stick we're looking for*. While much of the US still identifies as Christian, regular church attendance has significantly declined even just over the last two decades (42% to 30%). It'll be difficult to spread new** teachings to people who are only there for Christmas and Easter. Christianity has indeed shaped everything around us, but that doesn't mean a change within Christianity at this point will shape the world nearly as much.

I do think it could make a big difference to a smaller group of people (who could then affect others in their own way), so don't take this as discouraging any aspiring ERE pastors.

*Excuse me if I'm misunderstanding Axel's points. I haven't read the book yet, but I'll put it on the list.
**New as in different from current mainstream christian messages.

[7Wannabe5]

New agey types don't tend to be running food banks or homeless shelters, or if they do it's not driven by their spiritual beliefs.

I probably fall on the mostly secular edge of New Agey, but it has been my experience that doing work like this solves the meaning crisis for the same reason that women with more than five kids are group least likely to commit suicide. You aren’t necessarily happy; you might even be entirely miserable, but you are incredibly useful and loved in an in your face manner. You don’t question the meaning of life when you are surrounded by kids with filthy hands, empty bellies, and functional illiteracy.

In “How the West Lost God”, the author offers research that suggests that smaller families led to less religion rather than vice versa. People turn or return to religion when they need support for the task of raising a family. Young men these days are turning to traditional religion because they are having difficulties with family formation due to the interplay of feminism and neoliberal economics. It is more difficult for them to find a home within Level Green, although those involved in issues such as animal rights may be better able. Young man currently caring for five rescue animals also more unlikely to commit suicide due to meaningless crisis, although young man thinking about how there is nothing he can do about extinction of tigers might be more likely. Old guy financially supporting attractive Ukrainian refugee woman also less prone to depression. Etc. One way to interpret “with freedom comes responsibility” is that when you are free you have to find something to take responsibility and care for or your life will feel meaningless. Even a garden may serve this purpose.

[Jin+Guice]

@7: What happens to the woman with 5 kids when they all grow up though? I think this person has just made themselves busy enough with survival based tasks that they no longer suffer from meaninglessness. I propose a good way to not suffer from meaninglessness is to take any survival need and make it much harder to fulfill.

I think the most satisfying human relationships are ones where you area able to give without expectation of return. I think this is an additional reason why raising five kids (while you are doing it) or helping out in a homeless shelter (while you are doing it) is likely to decrease feelings of meaninglessness.

Re: religion: I think the main teachings of each major religion are applicable for solving a lot of the existential problems faced in large scale societies. Institutions and specific literal instructions based on religion are a mixed bag. The ethnocentrism that brought those religions to power... not great. As @AH noted, religious institutions have lost their place as the central authority on culture, meaning making and social paradigm, though they still serve other purposes for many people.

[chenda]

Great post. For full disclosure, I don't have any desire to work at a homeless shelter or run a food bank and am somewhat at the edge of woo-woo New Age stuff, but there is a part of me which thinks the Christian apologetics have a point on this (needless to say, I'm not talking about prosperity theology or those that worship at the shrine of perpetual tax exemption) I am surprised lonely young men are returning to religion, as it seems everyone thinks they are immersing themselves in porn, although I suppose its not mutually exclusive.

[7Wannabe5]

What happens to the woman with 5 kids when they all grow up though?

Well, obviously empty-nest-syndrome is a thing, but if you have 5 or more kids the odds of ever becoming totally empty-nest are pretty low. Also, there's always a balance between finding meaning through responsibility and experiencing freedom. Sometimes what religion provides is the moral authority to boundary the responsibility to the extent that adequate freedom is also available. A problem with Christianity is that some said it became too feminine in energy, because Christ himself wasn't a "12 Rules/Clean Your Room" Old Testament or Work-Ethic sort of human/God. He was more of a Moneyless Man.

As a species we are sort of borderline in terms of paternal care for young. It's obviously beneficial for the young, but it's also good for many or most men (although the extent to which some affluent men meet this need at midlife-plus by choosing to care for a younger female "partner" as though she was a rescue pet tends to make me ) It's funny/sad to me how some of the old men in my social circle are grouchy because lonely/unfulfilled (they succeeded at success, but it didn't get them what they wanted) and/or others are grouchy because they still don't have enough freedom and/or because they are losing their power/freedom due to encroaching decrepitude. When I read what you wrote about "wanting" and trauma, one possible exception I thought of was the occasion when I told my hopelessly grouchy young man first husband "All I want is a happy family." and he replied, "Well, you can't have a happy family, because I am not a happy person." and then I sat on the basement stairs and cried for two hours. My point being that we often simply don't possess the power to get what we want. So, my philosophy became, "You can't make other people happy, but you can bring them pleasure." My point here being that although this definitely was a level-up in philosophy, pleasure (like freedom) also does not constitute fulfillment (even for a Type 7! )

I propose a good way to not suffer from meaninglessness is to take any survival need and make it much harder to fulfill.

Great point, and absolutely true. It's also difficult to feel like life is meaningless while you are rough camping. This is why retiring with "too much" money at the ERE Level of Optimization can be problematic. You need all the inefficiencies of 1910 farmwife to fill your day. Meaninglessness is mostly a problem of first world humans who are core or effectively primarily in their juvenile masculine energy. That's why they are also most likely to have "meaningless" sex in order to best facilitate maintenance of their freedom. When you are an old woman like me, even if you have a good deal of freedom-loving energy, it is almost impossible to even have "meaningless" sex, because there is so much weight-of-life and "knowing" mutually carried in any coupling. Even the most wild-azz ESTP will likely have put on some ballast by the time he hits 70.

[Henry]

@7: What happens to the woman with 5 kids when they all grow up though? I think this person has just made themselves busy enough with survival based tasks that they no longer suffer from meaninglessness. I propose a good way to not suffer from meaninglessness is to take any survival need and make it much harder to fulfill.

I think the chances of that radical of a discontinuity happening is highly unlikely. You have five kids you have to figure on one deadbeat and/or one kid staying in close enough proximity who will furnish grandkids. Furthermore, today's technology keeps people in daily contact. Even if all five kids left some European hovel and freightlinered to America they can TikTok themselves twerking in front of the Statue of Liberty.

[Frita]

"Denial" followed by "Anger" and "Bargaining" if pushed to different degrees. There's something going on here. I've noticed that when talking to someone who values sentiment (subjectivity) over reality (objectivity) insofar they conflict, I somehow appear more convincing to them if I put on an angry face than if I keep pushing the rational angle with more facts. The latter just seems to annoy them. The former seems to convince them temporarily, but it really doesn't. The sudden change of "apparent mind" is but an attempt to restore social harmony. Analogously, they're doing the same to me as I am to them.

To follow the Kübler-Ross grief model, how does not knowing what one is grieving complicate the process? Not identifying and processing emotions leads to more denial (numbness, confusion, stuckness, maladaptive coping skills, health issues). Consumerism seems more like an addiction, both a symptom and cause of many layers of suffering.

I also like Lois Toklin’s Ball in a Jar grief model Growing Around Grief - Whats your Grief
. Consumerism is still there but the jar (of other options) expands to where it is a less attractive option. I’m thinking our society seems to be on the hermit crab model, finding a bigger or different blinged-out shell for the consumerism to live. People are struggling to do the personal work with community support to grow their jars. They cannot buy new jars, nor can we give the jars.

For me, I think there’s a messy middle between subjectivity and objectivity. We need to be aware of ourselves before we can understand others, etc. a la Kegan. And perhaps listening to understand, rather than change/teach/manipulate, and ask questions to prompt inquiry is more skillful. That can be a sea of alienation that @J&J describes while attempting to stay afloat and join the flotilla @AH describes. After an unsatisfying interaction like you described, how do you regroup and approach another pass?

Regarding the woman and five kids, we are assuming she is responsible. I have seen women who self-destruct with addiction as their children raise essentially themselves. Unresolved trauma and/or allegiance to coping skills that create problems bigger than what’s being avoided (addiction) render them quite self-centered.

[jacob]

For me, I think there’s a messy middle between subjectivity and objectivity. We need to be aware of ourselves before we can understand others, etc. a la Kegan. And perhaps listening to understand, rather than change/teach/manipulate, and ask questions to prompt inquiry is more skillful. That can be a sea of alienation that @J&J describes while attempting to stay afloat and join the flotilla @AH describes. After an unsatisfying interaction like you described, how do you regroup and approach another pass?

I think the best method really depends on which one someone responds better to: Didactic or dialectic? Personally, I have little patience for the dialectic method. It probably depends on what the goal is as well. Dialectic seems better to form a connection between people. Didactic seems better for actual learning and understanding. The methods definitely struggle the other way around. "Dialectic people" are rarely the sharpest knives in the drawer (which is more like an echo-chamber). "Didactic people" rarely seem to care as much about the person who is listening as they care about they're talking about.

[7Wannabe5]

Regarding the woman and five kids, we are assuming she is responsible. I have seen women who self-destruct with addiction as their children raise essentially themselves. Unresolved trauma and/or allegiance to coping skills that create problems bigger than what’s being avoided (addiction) render them quite self-centered.

For sure this happens. You need go no further than the novels of second wave feminism era to find vivid depictions of women rendered near insane by being stuck at home with 5 kids under age 7. I was just struck by how the low suicide rate of this cohort contrasts with the group most likely to commit suicide which is old men living alone in rural areas who own guns. I suppose if you look at the matter from the opposite perspective, it could just be that the old guys have the tools, skills, and freedom necessary to get the job done efficiently.

Why not another 4 quadrant model?



I watched a video in which an Integral therapist offered discourse with intention of gently convincing humans of Type 7 that they should not engage so much in debate because it constitutes verbal aggression. I am trying to improve. One of my three daily affirmations is "I holistically engage in curious, compassionate communication." I give myself a D rating. It seems very fake and boring when I attempt it., like I am an inhabitant of one of those planets on Star Trek where everybody has turned into blissed out zombies because an AI is doing all their thinking. Also, the therapist kind of seemed like the conversational equivalent of a sexual "massage-guy" to me; the kind of guy who assumes that all women are on the verge of hysteria and need somebody to help them relax. Also, I don't think my purpose with debate is to "win" or "convince." It's more like a fun learning method for me.

[Jin+Guice]

Even if all five kids left some European hovel and freightlinered to America they can TikTok themselves twerking in front of the Statue of Liberty.

Haha. Yes. This is my point actually. You kept yourself in survival mode for 30 years... FOR THIS. Kind of makes you wonder what the point of it all is?

My point being that we often simply don't possess the power to get what we want.

The trauma/ wanting thing is not about getting what you want. It's about aligning your actions with what you say you want, or if you are observing others, watching to see if their actions align with their stated goals. My theory is that misalignment means insecurity means trauma response.

It's also difficult to feel like life is meaningless while you are rough camping. This is why retiring with "too much" money at the ERE Level of Optimization can be problematic. You need all the inefficiencies of 1910 farmwife to fill your day. Meaninglessness is mostly a problem of first world humans who are core or effectively primarily in their juvenile masculine energy.

What I was trying to say is while reducing yourself back down to survival mode is likely to alleviate your meaning crisis, it does not solve it. The meaning crisis remains there; however, you are unaware of it because you now derive meaning from surviving. If/ when you figure out how to survive, you are again faced with a crisis of meaning.

[7Wannabe5]

Haha. Yes. This is my point actually. You kept yourself in survival mode for 30 years... FOR THIS. Kind of makes you wonder what the point of it all is?

Well, the hardest thing about being a parent is that you never stop worrying about them, but I can honestly say that I never wonder what the point of having them was, because "the point" is besides the point. 1) Circle of life. 2) My kids are cool. 3) I certainly could have had kids that suck, I know some very cool humans who do have kids that suck (inclusive of one doozie who actually beat up his parents), but that's the risk/reward with any large investment of resources.

That said, my point certainly wasn't to literally encourage having a large family as cure for ennui or nihilistic depression. I only think humans who hold parenthood as one of their core purposes should be encouraged to procreate. It's just an obvious example of engaging in responsibility quadrant located kitty-corner to freedom quadrant.

The trauma/ wanting thing is not about getting what you want. It's about aligning your actions with what you say you want, or if you are observing others, watching to see if their actions align with their stated goals. My theory is that misalignment means insecurity means trauma response.

My theory is that whatever a human does is likely quite reflective of what that human actually wants, and the shit that humans talk has little bearing on this reality.

What I was trying to say is while reducing yourself back down to survival mode is likely to alleviate your meaning crisis, it does not solve it. The meaning crisis remains there; however, you are unaware of it because you now derive meaning from surviving. If/ when you figure out how to survive, you are again faced with a crisis of meaning.

Labeling a negative subjective state a "crisis of meaning" does not necessarily make it one. Sometimes bad dreams are caused by eating too many beans and a lumpy mattress. What I am basically suggesting is that "crisis of meaning" is often being applied to what is really more like individualistically-bypassing or never yet achieving or neglecting until the nth hour the Love and Belonging level of Maslow. If you don't do Level Blue Traditional family formation and you also don't do Level Green Community Commitment and you also don't do Radiating Love Through All-Such at Level Turquoise then you will likely experience a negative or empty subjective state. The two ways I've observed that INTJs who don't belong to this forum solving the Love and Belonging level is that they usually actually don't go very long between long-term romantic partners even though they think they want to live in the woods by themselves (my ex-FIL was an INTJ and he lived with us for a few months between wives and confided in me about his motivation for getting married again very quickly to one of the women who doled out the food at the senior center where he went for cheap lunch, something akin to "better to marry than to burn" but absent almost any religious or emotional connotation except for a slight edge of befuddlement with himself) and they engage in very practical community service like swinging a hammer for Habitat for Humanity.