Perhaps one of the greatest fallacies in human history
that seems to have affected nearly all cultures is the mistaken belief that
money is somehow a sign of success or even intelligence. Money is a universal
means of exchange of goods and services. Period. If it is not being exchanged
but hoarded, then it serves little purpose for society or the economy in
general. It is not like stockpiling foodstuffs in case or famine, since in
times of famine there is no food to buy.
When the
agricultural scientist Jack Harlan studied the life of hunter-gatherers such as
bushmen, he was astounded at the findings. The average hunter-gatherer spends only
twenty hours a week working. Contrary to popular belief, they fully
understand agricultural techniques such as planting, pruning, protecting plants
and harvest times. The only difference is that they don’t stay in one place but
move around according to the seasons. Their diet is also very healthy due to
its great variety, and they suffer less chronic illnesses and tooth decay than
in the developed world. Obviously I am not suggesting that society should
return to its hunter-gatherer origins, but it is a sobering thought that our
pre-historic cave-dwelling ancestors probably enjoyed far more leisure time
than our modern, industrialised society. Where did we go wrong?
It
has now been widely accepted by most of the developed world that we cannot
continue to consume our planet’s resources at the same accelerating rate,
coupled with a similar rate of rising human population and global warming from
the industrial activity needed to meet this consumption. The US already consumes
five times more than the earth can withstand if everybody did so, with Chindia
catching up fast in their zeal to match the level of consumption they see in
the West. Yet it is also widely accepted that for an economy to do well it must
be constantly growing and therefore consuming. The more we consume, the more
jobs we create to provide the goods and services we consume. So, how do we
solve this vicious spiral towards the destruction of all life on earth?
Well, some tentative steps towards
mitigating the situation have been made, such as recycling, although the fact
is that not everything can be recycled, and everything that can be recycled cannot be recycled ad infinitum. Then there are examples
such as digital media, gradually replacing cassettes, CDs and paper books, although
this also shows how the material things we create and consume soon become
obsolete. What do we do with the things that become obsolete but can’t be
recycled? We throw them away — but of course, there is no away from our planet,
except possibly Mars as a gigantic, expensive dump.
Clearly,
the problem is not so much the fact that we consume
too much, provided this consumption is renewable, but that we throw away too much. The only feasible solution
possible is to stop consuming or throwing away so much and to halt the rise in
human population if we are to avoid the fate of the Easter Islanders. I am not
going to go into the need to reduce the world’s population or halt its growth, because
the answers to this are obvious: contraception, war or genocide. Take your
pick.
Instead,
I am going to look at a way to reduce material consumption and waste without
scuppering the economy. Again, there are some obvious possibilities, such as
educating society to simply consume less, thereby reducing the need to produce so
much and thus working fewer hours to do so. It’s no secret that we already have
the capacity to feed, clothe and house the world’s population several times
over. That said, we generally don’t want to return to the lives of
hunter-gatherers, but want to continually advance technologically for a better material
standard of living, healthcare etc., which will always require a certain amount
of economic competition and consumption. So, how do we get people to reduce
their consumption while maintaining their same material standard of living?
Well, the answers are all around us.
Take
a look around your own home. How many things do you own that you use only once
or twice a year? Apart from that horrendous shirt you’ve never worn at the back
of the wardrobe that you could perhaps recycle, what about the other objects
cluttering up your living space? As I’ve said, the old cassettes, CDs and paper
books have an obvious solution. But what about the rest? A look around my
study, kitchen and living room is very revealing. Compared to most people in
the developed world, I live rather frugally. Even so, I live alone but have
seven chairs, a sofa and two beds. I have some scuba-diving gear that I use
once or twice a year. In the kitchen, in addition to the usual cleaning
products I have some specialised ones I use just as infrequently. I have a food
blender I hardly ever use and a washing machine I use twice a week, not to
mention enough cutlery and crockery to cater to a whole army. But let’s look at
the bigger stuff.
Since
I started working from home, I use my car maybe twice a month. My mountain bike
has been sitting rusting on my balcony for three years since a public bike hire
system began in my city — tens of thousands of bikes parked at regular stations
around the city that you take out using a card paid for yearly and which you
park at the destination station of your choice, 24 hours a day. (Incidentally,
I believe a city of about a million people is about the perfect size to cater
to all our needs without creating the traffic congestion and pollution
associated with bigger cities, and my city is of a geographical size to be able
to entirely cross it easily by bike in under an hour). However, I keep my
mountain bike for when I decide to go for a ride in the mountains...which I
haven’t done for three years.
So, I
was considering selling this mountain bike and gaining some space in my home,
since I must be able to hire one when I really want to go mountain-biking. Then
I started applying the idea of rental for all
of those goods and services I only use once in a while. Take the car. We all
know car hire companies exist, though we only seem to use them when we’re on
holiday. How about if people started using them as often as the public bike
hire service in my city, to go to work every day? Nothing too unusual there;
it’s just one step away from car-sharing schemes, with the difference that you
don’t have to pay for repairs. Repairs: another disadvantage of possessing
things instead of hiring them is that we have to pay for them to be repaired.
But what if we start looking at everything
we own not from the perspective of possessing
the object but of using the services
it provides for us? Need a bike? Hire one; it doesn’t matter how often or for
how long. You can hire it for a year and pay a little extra for the
manufacturer or owner to repair it. Need a car for work every day? Hire it all year. Again, you can pay a little
extra to cover possible repairs for wear and tear. And what happens next year
if you’d like an upgrade? Hire the latest model or hire the old one for less.
Manufacturers could even cut out the go-betweens and hire directly to customers, producing modular vehicles whose faulty
parts can simply be replaced when necessary. But since you, the customer, are
paying for the service of using a car
instead of paying to possess the car
itself, the manufacturer replaces the one you’ve hired if it breaks down (as
some companies already do if it’s under guarantee).
So
far, this doesn’t sound too radical. But let’s apply it now to much smaller,
day-to-day perishable objects, and much larger, more permanent objects.
Take
the specialised cleaning products in my house. Instead of buying lots of spray
cans etc. which have a use-by date, why don’t I just buy the amount of product
I need, paying for the small amount of liquid I’ll need, and refilling the
manufacturer’s canisters from their containers in the local supermarket? Want a
bottle of cola or milk? Fill up the bottles from the containers in the same
supermarket (as is already done in some fast food chains), which you’ll then
take back to get your deposit back on the bottle to be sent back to the
producer for cleaning and re-use (as some of us used to do as kids). Throwing a
dinner party once or twice a year? Hire out the latest chairs of your choice
from the local furniture store.
The
fact is, the manufacturer does not make less profit from hiring as from
selling, since they will be constantly hiring out their products on a daily
basis. The only difference is that these objects won’t be cluttering up your
home when you’re not using them and you can choose a different model every
time. The principle of competition and innovation between manufacturers will
continue to be fed. As for recycling, the manufacturer will do this themselves
with their own returned products in order to cut down on their own
manufacturing costs.
And
what about the biggest, most permanent product of all, which people all over
the world buy — housing? At this point, I’d like to remind you of the main
reason behind the last, deep, global economic recession: toxic assets held by
banks, basically in the form of mortgages that homebuyers could not pay off.
Take note: I said homebuyers. Why
were so many people convinced that they needed to take out a mortgage to buy a house instead of renting it? The
main reason is that people saw it as an investment, not just a functional place
to live. They believed that house prices would always go up, so it became a
form of saving for some, and for others a desperate rush to get on the
speculation bandwagon before the prices got so high that they could never
afford one. It’s not the first time such an economic bubble has grown and
burst, nor will it be the last if we continue to think in terms of possessing objects as opposed to simply using the services they provide.
Admittedly, housing speculation can also exist in a market based entirely on
renting, but it will mostly be borne by the owners or builders who rent them
out. For the average citizen, it is far easier to get out of a tight economic spot
by simply moving to cheaper rented digs. Not to mention the fact that they can
change their home several times if they like or if their employment mobility
requires it.
Another bonus
of shifting to an economy based on renting instead of possession is that the
builders themselves, and manufacturers, will be far more interested in
producing houses and goods that last much longer, and modular products whose
parts are interchangeable and recyclable. Galvanised cars do not rust, yet car
manufacturers very rarely galvanise their cars. Ever wondered why? Programmed obsolescence becomes pointless in
a rent-based economy. The longer the product lasts, the more times the
manufacturer can rent it out and the less it has to spend on repairing it (which
is now the responsibility of the manufacturer, who is also the owner).
But what about
the shopaholics, those modern hunter-gatherers who simply love shopping and
consuming? Well, they can now give free reign to their addiction by hunting
down the latest product every week.
And remember,
hunter-gatherers only work twenty hours a week.(c) Glokalize
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario