iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
John Jackson

John Jackson

Posted: October 25, 2010 05:58 PM

Could we 'Have' Less and 'Be' More?

What's Your Reaction:

"It's a story about us -- people -- being persuaded to spend money we don't have, on things we don't need, to create impressions that won't last, on people we don't care about." This is how Tim Jackson, the UK government's sustainable development commissioner, summed up what drives us and our economy. It's a view that has been emerging from fields within economics, neuroscience and philosophy.

The LSE's Professor Richard Layard has found that people in the West over the last 50 years have become richer, have longer holidays, travel more, live longer and are healthier. But they are no happier. He has an incredible amount of data to back up the claim too. It's a shocking fact that should drive our public policy debates but does not.

According to the Buddhist atheist scholar Stephen Batchelor there are two fundamental dimensions to our existence, 'to have' and 'to be' which reveal two distinct attitudes to life. With 'having', life is experienced as a horizontal, as we attempt to be fulfilled by what we amass, we chase an ever-receding horizon of additional newer things. 'Being' is experienced in its vertical depths as those things that are more meaningful, fulfilling and longer lasting. The more you chase the ever-receding horizon the further the vertical fades into the distance.

Those who are poor tend to have greater increases of happiness from each increase in wealth. However, after our basic material needs are met, any further increases in material wealth fail to bring significant increases in happiness. This is because it's not a matter of what you have, but what you have in relation to what others have. The problem is that addiction to status must have its losers. You can only have higher status relative to someone else being lower in the ranking. There is the additional problem of habituation. Once you reach an increased level of material wealth, you very quickly become used to it and it is no longer satisfactory. You need another fix. Basically it's a rat race keeping up with the Jones'.

What makes us happy? Across almost every society for which there is data, human beings derive most happiness from relationships, community, a sense of purpose and job security. Given this, could the recession provide an opportunity for us to re-balance 'having' and 'being'. Could we 'have' less and 'be' more? Will the shift towards access rather than ownership, to borrowing, renting and sharing rather than acquisition, increase our possibilities for 'being'? Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers, suggest in their new book that a new Collaborative Consumption is helping to build and strengthen communities and trust between individuals. Botsman tells the story of an older couple that participate in a land share scheme in the UK. They allow a group of local young people access to their garden to grow food, and in return receive some of the vegetables grown. But the most rewarding part for the couple is that their neighbors have become new friends.

It's a mammoth task to re-direct our economies towards something more human-centered, it means having to go against many attitudes bred into us from a very early age and reinforced throughout our lives. So how do we wean ourselves off a consumption-fueled economy? We don't have all the answers, but we have two compelling reasons to try, the avoidance of climate chaos and the chance of longer-term happiness.

As Batchelor suggests: "Instead of living in order 'to have' more abundantly, it is necessary to live in order 'to be' more abundantly."

 
 
 

Follow John Jackson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnjackson5

 
 
  • Comments
  • 6
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:19 PM on 10/27/2010
It's not necessarily a zero-sum game and even if higher status for you means lower status for someone else, I think we can all agree that if everyone's standard of living goes up it's a win-win. The desire to achieve more and do more are generally good traits but it's important to pay attention to the end game.

A focus on obtaining material goods that really do make your life better (and you happier) is a good thing, even if that's another $300 pair of shoes. Some people are able to "be" more when they "have" more - that doesn't have to be to the detriment of everyone else. If my material desires manifested themselves in solar panels for my house wouldn't that satisfy my own happiness and help avoid climate chaos?
09:15 AM on 10/28/2010
I think you're right that the desire to achieve is a good trait, but achieving is not synonymous with having. I'm not saying that we go back to the land, of course we need material goods and of course we get both use and pleasure out of those goods. But there comes a point that what you own, owns you. That in the desire to 'keep up' or 'stay ahead', it is possible to lose sight of things which will give you more meaning and longer term happiness. In the current definition of status, which i agree can be re-defined if we choose, higher status implies being above another status and often connotes wealth and power. I would be happy if we redefined it, but that needs a value and perspective change. This is why many people have driven themselves into debt buying consumer products that were as much about status as utility, working more, spending less time with their loved ones and missing out on some of the more fulfilling aspects of life. I'm talking about a re-balancing, not a denial of material needs or pleasures, but a perspective on them. So please go ahead and buy the solar panels, i'll even help you fit them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rainkitty
02:45 AM on 10/27/2010
Some are human "beings", some are human "doings".
08:56 AM on 10/26/2010
Less is more. Finding ways to do more with less will give a person fufillment. But within our modern society, the only way men have an urgency to do more with less is when they're forced to have less. When they become forced to have less, they all of a sudden find ways to do more with it, out of necessity, not desire. The problem with modern society is that men want convenience, and doing more with less is not apparently convenient. What is the solution?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Karen McCaughan
"Cogita ante salis."
11:45 PM on 10/25/2010
Another reason compelling reason to try to wean ourselves off a consumption-fueled economy is that we gain by helping others...giving to others. When we forego that $5 coffee in favor of a charity or even dropping it in a homeless person's hand, we become more alive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Reno Fickler
Head Lifeguard/Dead Sea Marina
08:31 PM on 10/25/2010
A sliver of reality in an insane world. Consumerism can be credited with the present situation as much as sub-prime loans. The creation of the 'Gotta-have-it-NOW' society exactly matched the issuance of Credit Cards. 25% interest???? Assured disaster is anything over 10%; know that for years.
Learn how to say, "NO", and say it often. Your kids will live no matter whose name is on their jeans.
Everyone has too many electronic devices. Hell, you don't know how to work the ones you have now.
Spend CASH. Nothing else. Cash is money, signing that slip means nothing. Except for food, have a week moratorium on EVERY purchase. See if you still want it in 7 days. Probably not.
You CAN get out of debt and live within your means. But you have to want to.