A popular lifestyle trend, advocated by many who profess to
live responsibly, is the voluntary simplicity movement. In its raw form, minimal living requires that
we eschew material wealth, and look to a standard of living that involves the
least amount of possessions. Simultaneously,
the environmental movement demands that we create the smallest
eco-footprint that we can, guarding the environment preciously. Both lifestyles
appear to have much in common, yet, oddly, there is only a nominal effort to
blend the two together.
There is vociferous opposition to the eco-friendly concept
by those that seek to deny the reality of climate change. The anti-tree hugger groups gravitate toward
the argument that, since global warming is a myth (or, at best, not caused by
human actions), there is no need to spend effort on protecting the ecology of
the earth. These people miss the point
of being eco-friendly.
I live a modest lifestyle, yet do not begrudge those that
have wealth and show it. The premise
built into the anti-environment people’s argument is that, if what they do will
cause no serious harm, then there is no reason to discontinue being
disrespectful and selfish regarding pollution problems. Extrapolating that
argument to the middle/upper income situation then, I should be able to simply
take what I want from those who have affluence, simply because it will have no
monetary impact on them. Even more to
the point, I should be able to walk into the anti-climate change proponents’ homes
and dump whatever garbage and pollution I want in their back yard, because the
filth will not impact on the environment.
The fact is, whether or not my actions harm the environment, I should
act responsibly as much as possible, including taking care to not impact on
others’ enjoyment of the world around them!
Living a green lifestyle simply says that I want to enjoy
this earth, but that I do not need to be wasteful to do so. I want to take only what I need on this
globe, not what I want. I choose to live
cleanly and simply, as much as possible.
Those that embrace the minimalist approach to living often
are labelled as harshly as “tree huggers” by those that think that we choose to
live this lifestyle because we have nothing, and want others to do the same. I
have been told that most of us choose this way of living because, if we have
little in the way of material wealth, we don’t have to work as hard to get
it. In essence, I am being told that I
choose voluntary simplicity because I am lazy!
It is an intriguing label, given that a) I have developed multi-million
dollar businesses for others, b) have owned (and sold for pennies) a business
that grossed $1.6 million in its second year of business, and c) living
minimally takes a lot of conscious effort and (the horror!) work. Voluntary simplicity says that I do not need
material wealth to generate huge enjoyment out of life. Indeed, it offers a richness for which money
cannot be bartered.
Both minimalism and environmentalism seek to embrace living
consciously and enthusiastically, but without taking huge bites out of that
which is available to consume. By doing
so, more is left for others to enjoy.
This idea that “lean” is an ideal to aim toward is not radical, nor
impossible. It is realistic, and hugely
gratifying. Similarly, “going green” is
a fantastic journey, allowing us to take Robert Frost’s road less travelled. He
was so correct when he claimed that doing so “has made all the difference.” Will the world be greener because of me? Who knows?
Will my efforts at living with less pay dividends for others? Possibly not.
Neither matters. The lean and
green living concept offers an option that combines, for me, the epitome of
what I see is my duty. Nothing more,
nothing less.
