Today's false trichotomy is bought to you by the number 2 and the letter Q.

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1416969]

Comments

[andlosers.livejournal.com]

(Answered "no" to the last question because I'm currently between contracts ...)

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

Likewise - in education.

I might feel differently in full time employment (but then I've only ever earned less than 13/14k in full time employment and I think its just enough to live on in Edinburgh, if it was 30k I might take a cut).

[andlosers.livejournal.com]

*nod*, I'd drop my last salary, but probably not my first one.

That is an awesome user icon by the way.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

want <> need <> have taken / am taking / will take

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

When I worked in the hospital full time - I would have done it for free I loved it that much. So maybe there is a bit of a socialist in me ;)

...but if it was something I hated, I'd probably want whatever reward I could get for it all to myself!

[randomchris.livejournal.com]

It depends what you mean more and less of. Most people's lives contain trade-offs between health, free time, money, material possessions, relationships and enjoyment. I think there are contexts in which any one of them could be traded-off for another. Generally when I want more of something I expect this to result in having less of something else.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

I want (A LOT) less of most *things* I have.
I want to have less things* for *my* benefit - benefit to others would be a side-effect.

KEEP:
Flat, laptop, phone, money, boat (and all its equipment/supplies), mp3 collection, guitar, tools, some books (though I'd love to solve them like mp3s solved music).

Steven isn't a thing but I'll keep him too :-)

A bit of land that I could grow food on would be cool to have.

the rest? clutter, sheer clutter.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

by money I mean my savings/company money/ISA, not my current income.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

"more than they have" can cover anything from open source software to bizjets. Both are classed as tangible goods, but their environmental impact is radically different (as is our ability to provide everybody with as much of them as they might want).

I can envisage a world where everybody has as much software (or IP -- movies, books, films, poems, whatever) as they want, but I can't envisage a world where everybody has a bizjet.

Thus, I consider the doctrine that "we [in the developed world] all need to get by with less than we currently have, for the long-term benefit of everyone [worldwide]" to be flawed at best, and at worst bone-headedly wrong, much like mediaevial theological arguments over angels, pins, and dancing -- because it doesn't distinguish between resource constrained products and stuff that isn't so constrained.

[andrewducker]

Well, there is the possibility that we can sustain our current intake long-term without fucking up the planet for everyone, but I haven't seen anything which shows it's currently possible.

I'm still vaguely hopeful that we'll come up with the technology to do so, but not as massively so as I was a few years ago.

Yeah

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

Mostly I want more free time than I have, and slightly more living space.

The "more" in question two, that which is helping to screw up the world, is "more for its own sake" or "more in order to fill the void of meaning".

And no, I pay enough tax, make enough sacrifices. I'll go without when the rich pay their taxes, and the underclasses stop popping out babies.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm making certain assumptions in ticking 'yes' in the final question. We struggle to pay the rent/bills on the money we have at present. However, in any rational model whereby us getting by with less benefits others (unless you just mean giving lots to charity) would be heavily socialist. In said model, I would be (I think) in the bottom section, and would actually be better off for my situation rather than worse (unless I was under the current government where the 'poor' are those earning, as far as I can tell, nowhere near enough to live on). However I hope, sooner rather than later, to be in a rather more comfortable position, and it's vital to my politics that I be just as willing to part with more of my more generous income when I'm more affluent as I am to take from the rich when I'm poor.

Alternatively, for me to be in a situation where me giving up part of my income would benefit others long term, we would need to be in a much poorer country, where I'm actually earning what would be considered to be an above average wage. In that country, I have what there might be considered luxuries such as the internet, a mobile phone, and an occasional DVD/luxury food habit. Again, according to my own principles, if I am, even in my impoverished state, financially at the top end of that society, then yes, I'd be prepared to pay higher taxes to see everyone live comfortably.

That being said, I'd probably get outta dodge at the first opportunity. But my principles don't preclude that.

[andrewducker]

Interesting that you feel beholden to poorer people in the same bureaucratic entity as yourself, but not to other people on the same planet.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Oh, in a global society I would apply my principle globally. And I would like there to be a global society. But while there isn't, I'm better off somewhere with a decent economy.

[drplokta]

You forgot "Many of the biggest advances made by humanity were caused by people wanting more than they had"

[andrewducker]

I didn't forget that, it just wasn't part of what I was asking. If you want to run your own poll, feel free :->

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

[x] I am a Tory capitalist, nyah!

[andrewducker]

Which would mean your answer to question (1) is yes, to question (3) is no, but doesn't clarify your position on (2).

[lpetrazickis.livejournal.com]

1) Yep. A townhouse/condo, nice bookshelves, etc would be nice.

2) No. Most of the biggest problems humanity has solved have been solved because people wanted more than they had. Many of today's biggest problems will be solved because we want more than we have.

3) Sure, I could get by while consuming less energy.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

I voted "no" on question 2 because I didn't agree with its framing; I think the biggest problems faced by humanity are caused by people not getting enough of what they need; to whit, water, food, shelter, health care, security. ("Four freedoms" stuff, to boil the list down.)

Though this could be shoe-horned into a "yes" on the question you asked, I suppose, my phrasing leads to entirely different conclusions on what to do; conclusions I feel are far better suited to reducing the volume of misery on the planet than those of the hair-shirt brigade.

-- Steve is not willing to get by with less, right now, because he's treading water and "less" means the materialistic version of drowning. Talk to him later, after he can afford a car or a house or frickin' cable TV, and maybe the answer would change.

[andrewducker]

I suspect that there'd be plenty of stuff for everyone if some people weren't hogging most of it...

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Answered no to the last question because I'd want to know what I was giving up first before I made a bargain.

[zz]

For #2, I'm considering "more" to be land/power/etc causing wars and their effects, not an individual wanting more money.

For #3, I'd need the benefit quantified and proven possible before I'd be willing to sacrifice.

[darkoshi]

Based on the responses, I take it "I want more than I have" only refers to things like money and physical goods? Not things like love and happiness and excitement? Or even sex?

If it regards physical things, my first instinct is that I would choose Yes for the 3rd question. But on thinking about it, it depends on how much less. If it were in the long term benefit for everyone that we all do without electricity and the internet and plumbing, for example, then I'm still would be not willing to do without them. Give up the internet one day a week? That I could handle. Plumbing or toilet paper? I don't think so.

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

If we assume that we're discussing finite resources & therefore broadly a zero sum game, I am willing to be mindful of my consumption, but this is mostly about sustaining resource, rather than redistribution per se.

On a global scale, I'm a bit more careful. Power grants us the luxury to control our consumption. If there resource is inadequate, or open to exploitation / greed, I'd think very carefully about any action that reduces that power. I don't have great faith in humanity on this one :)

With the current global population, I often find myself thinking that those on the far left regarding equality & consumption across nations should be careful what they wish for. Unless you produce more, I doubt very much that everyone could have what we in the west regard as a reasonable standard of living, simply by giving up the luxuries.

I don't think we'll reach a utopian solution, so if there will always be winners and losers, I'd rather be on the lucky side. Within that, I'm happy to acknowledge I'm lucky and be mindful of my consumption.