11
support that primary decision or occur as a result of it. For instance, if we live in the
suburbs or in rural enclaves, we will need one or multiple cars. Some proponents of
a spatial solution to ecological problems argue for density, for living in cities. If you
live in city, you don’t need car. But we have look more closely. Cities typically provide more convenient access to a different, and often more varied, kind of goods and
experiences. Circumstances and proximity of neighbors, and the number of neighbors you have to compare to, tend to drive consumption to differentiate your “station” and require higher-order consumption. People in cities tend to go out more, to
partake in culture in different ways than those in rural or suburban areas may not.
These pursuits, supported by robust physical and information infrastructure, require
additional energy, which adds to the overall net expenditure of energy and also
increases levels of damage (within an economy that is not fully measuring or aligned
to measure damage).
While standard of living tracks certain material and quantifiable metrics, there is
no single objective “standard of living” against which the relative positions of all
people are measured. The term refers, rather, to “the amount and quality of material
goods and services available to a given population. The standard of living includes
basic material factors such as income, gross domestic product (GDP), life expectancy and economic opportunity (Silver et al. 2019). It generally refers to wealth,
material goods and necessities of certain classes in certain areas” (Fontinelle 2020).
Most of us in the United States are accustomed to a certain standard of living that
we would miss if it suddenly, or even gradually, disappeared. If forced to change
routines and habits overnight, so that we used only what we physically need to survive, the resulting social and political strain on the collective would be enormous
and could end in violent revolt. Turning the haves into the have-nots in order to be
able to reduce our collective ecological footprint and live sustainably on the one
planet we have generally works only when it is someone else who sacrifices and
goes without.
No matter where we live, we each have our individual routines and habits. We
each tend to procrastinate, deny, or resist when faced with the need to alter those
routines and habits, to give up the material trappings of our individual way of life.
When faced with making such potentially disruptive personal decisions, it is not
hard to see how protracting the debate on the roots of climate change receives tacit
support (Gutstein 2018). Some of us delay and hesitate to act. We wait for more
conclusive scientific evidence on the particulars, for a perfect and irrefutable computer model of the earth’s climate system, and for statistically certain methods with
more and more data to guide our decisions. Until we have perfect knowledge in
place, we can conveniently maintain and even expand the status quo that underpins
our established way of life.
Each personal decision on how to satisfy needs and wants sets in motion thousands of interconnected reactions. From the shoes we each wear to the video we live
stream, global markets anticipate and seek to satisfy these demands. The net result
from the constant subjective state of having or being less than ends in our making
more stuff to equip ourselves to better shield ourselves from threats, real and perceived, and constantly improve our living standards. Satisfying growing global
1.4 Relative Comfort and Quality of Life
support that primary decision or occur as a result of it. For instance, if we live in the
suburbs or in rural enclaves, we will need one or multiple cars. Some proponents of
a spatial solution to ecological problems argue for density, for living in cities. If you
live in city, you don’t need car. But we have look more closely. Cities typically provide more convenient access to a different, and often more varied, kind of goods and
experiences. Circumstances and proximity of neighbors, and the number of neighbors you have to compare to, tend to drive consumption to differentiate your “station” and require higher-order consumption. People in cities tend to go out more, to
partake in culture in different ways than those in rural or suburban areas may not.
These pursuits, supported by robust physical and information infrastructure, require
additional energy, which adds to the overall net expenditure of energy and also
increases levels of damage (within an economy that is not fully measuring or aligned
to measure damage).
While standard of living tracks certain material and quantifiable metrics, there is
no single objective “standard of living” against which the relative positions of all
people are measured. The term refers, rather, to “the amount and quality of material
goods and services available to a given population. The standard of living includes
basic material factors such as income, gross domestic product (GDP), life expectancy and economic opportunity (Silver et al. 2019). It generally refers to wealth,
material goods and necessities of certain classes in certain areas” (Fontinelle 2020).
Most of us in the United States are accustomed to a certain standard of living that
we would miss if it suddenly, or even gradually, disappeared. If forced to change
routines and habits overnight, so that we used only what we physically need to survive, the resulting social and political strain on the collective would be enormous
and could end in violent revolt. Turning the haves into the have-nots in order to be
able to reduce our collective ecological footprint and live sustainably on the one
planet we have generally works only when it is someone else who sacrifices and
goes without.
No matter where we live, we each have our individual routines and habits. We
each tend to procrastinate, deny, or resist when faced with the need to alter those
routines and habits, to give up the material trappings of our individual way of life.
When faced with making such potentially disruptive personal decisions, it is not
hard to see how protracting the debate on the roots of climate change receives tacit
support (Gutstein 2018). Some of us delay and hesitate to act. We wait for more
conclusive scientific evidence on the particulars, for a perfect and irrefutable computer model of the earth’s climate system, and for statistically certain methods with
more and more data to guide our decisions. Until we have perfect knowledge in
place, we can conveniently maintain and even expand the status quo that underpins
our established way of life.
Each personal decision on how to satisfy needs and wants sets in motion thousands of interconnected reactions. From the shoes we each wear to the video we live
stream, global markets anticipate and seek to satisfy these demands. The net result
from the constant subjective state of having or being less than ends in our making
more stuff to equip ourselves to better shield ourselves from threats, real and perceived, and constantly improve our living standards. Satisfying growing global
1.4 Relative Comfort and Quality of Life