In Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, “The Bean Field”, he talks more about the agriculture he is planting at Walden pond, it is more of an art form than just farming for him. Thoreau also relates himself to the nature he sees while he is working on the bean-field, “I watched a pair of hen-hawks circling high in the sky, alternately soaring and descending, approaching and leaving one another, as if they were the imbodiment of my own thoughts.” (Thoreau, Page 150). This shows the more spiritual side of Thoreau’s experiment because he is connecting himself to the beings around him in incredible ways. “The Village” is about his leisure day, when he visits the village and is bombarded with attractive consumerism. Once again, he is noticing a lot of animals and nature around him, he also makes his way home at night since becoming more familiar with the way home. “The Ponds” is about his time spent on the pond. He meets a fisherman who he spends some time with. He also describes romantic nights to himself fishing at midnight. Also, in this chapter he gives a deeper description of Walden pond that is almost symbolic. “Baker Farm” is about places Thoreau visits, some areas being around the outskirts of Walden pond, with specific trees that he calls his “shrines”. He also mentions John Field, or the Irishmen in this chapter, him and Thoreau had some disagreements on what you can get out of living in America. The Irishmen likes America for the readily available global goods, and Thoreau feels kind of bad for him because he works so hard to spend all his money on products. Lastly, “Higher Laws” is about animals, and higher “spiritual” laws. He talks about God, purity, and holiness, and how our human nature is disgraceful, and he wants to separate his animalistic feelings from his higher power feelings.
Question: Why does it seem that Thoreau’s most romantic and spiritual experiences with nature happen at night? The way he describes nature at night/his experiences at night are a lot more visual and painted as spiritual experiences such as when he goes fishing at midnight.
In House Warming of Walden, Thoreau speaks of preferring to stay in the rays of the fall sun versus warming by the ‘artificial’ fire (pg 231). Yet, he also speaks of ideas of building a chimney for his cabin. This speaks to Thoreau’s doubleness within his human nature, which he speaks about in a different chapter, as he is only human so he too experiences these parts of human nature. He can criticize an aspect or element of nature or society even, but turn around and take part or indulge in the very same thing he once criticized. This is often called hypocrisy, but can also be put in terms of the duality of life. Humans have duality and are ever changing, and imperfect. Thoreau again shows this, in Baker Farm (pg 200), where he makes many a negative comments about the Fields family who had welcomed him into their home, comments about the status of their well, saying it is in overall bad condition, and even comments about the mother and the infant, yet he still asks for a drink of water from them. To me, this level of interacting and dealing with other people, is one of the most acute situations of this kind of hypocrisy, or duality, in the book, because a place can just be a place, but people make the place. The people in Thoreau’s life experiences are not always so appreciated, and overall Thoreau gives a sense that he pushes people away or almost shuts them out. His actions do not always line up with his thoughts. In Baker Farm, he even admits to faking his manners (pg 200).
What would have been Thoreau’s thoughts on balance? Balance between self-reliance and working with others instead of harboring such negative thoughts towards them? Or just finding balance in general between his radical thoughts and his actions? Upon leaving the woods did he discover some kind of balance?
First of all, I enjoyed your critique of Thoreau, his notions of morality, and how you have drawn to the theme of duality. I would like to ask a question with a sense of humor and also raise a point. If Thoreau did not construct the chimney, then would Thoreau have been able to live near Walden Pond throughout the year? I think we can arrive at a point of asking to what degree of survival skills Thoreau would have required to endure the brutal Concord, Massachusetts winters without a chimney or a fireplace. On the other hand, I might just agree with Thoreau and his thoughts about how the warmth of the fall sun can indeed be more meaningful than the warmth of an artificial fire. Was Thoreau really advocating for the self-restraint of enjoyment from the warmth of artificial fire, or was he implying some greater virtue of drawing near to nature, oneself and the land, or both?
Thoreau was an individual I thoroughly enjoyed trying to learn about and decipher. After uncovering many aspects and motives of his writings it’s clear to see there is a lot more going on in his life than meets the eye. One of the things I admire most about Thoreau was his determination to find answers and prove or disprove things, but the intent or reasoning behind this was more important to me. Thoreau experiments with the pond and finding the deepest point, it’s interesting because the townsfolk believe it is a bottomless pond. This is symbolic for the longing hope that man has for eternal life or understanding what comes after death. But for Thoreau, he is able to find this elsewhere and doesn’t feel the need to receive it from the pond.
My question is what can be taken away from the Walden experiment and incorporated into the lives of the mass of men?
In class on Tuesday we discussed how Thoreau might disapprove of No Impact Man, Colin Beavan, because he was doing his experiment for the wrong reasons. This made me think of their motives. Sure, Beavan was driven by selling his book, but wasn’t Thoreau as well. Thoreau did rise to fame after the publishing of Walden. One of the many differences here is that Thoreau’s lived in isolation and very rarely socialized during his time. Beavan not only was living in the middle of New York City and having a regular social life, he also went on many TV and radio shows, blogged about it, and had a documentary filmed while writing his book. For a man who titles himself so boldly he had the intentions of making quite an impact. Trying to see it from both sides, I would say that Beavan had some good intentions as well. He mentioned that if he could prove to the world that one can make such a small impact and do it comfortably, hygienically, and happily maybe more people would want to live similarly. I believe that is a noble cause, trying to show the mass consumers of today that they can be happy without the “comforts” of every day life like plastic bags, toilet paper, and modern transportation. Thoreau also wanted to convey that to his readers. He says, “The necassaries of life for man in this climate may, accurately enough, be distributed under the several heads of Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel: for not till we have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success.”
My question seems to be is if Beavan participated in his experiment more privately, but still published his book would we feel like his positive motives are genuine? Do you think that Beavan would have done the experiment if it wasn’t public?
Thoreau begins the Conclusion of Walden by suggesting to the audience to go farther beyond their work and thought. He questions, and would like for us to question why we are here, and why on Earth we choose to practice the behaviors and thoughts that we do. He wants for the reader to connect with themselves and the place where they are on a far deeper level than what is typical in the modern world. On page 300 he writes, “Nay, be a Columbus to whole new continents and worlds within you, opening new channels, not of trade, but of thought.” He seems to be explaining how humans have the tendency and the convenience of living day to day through monotonous routines and it is so easy for us to not think deeply about what the grand purpose of life is. Why are we here? Thoreau’s writing encourages the reader to go outside of their path most traveled and to make a purposeful and deeply thoughtful meaning for themselves. The purpose, as noted by Thoreau, is fluid and dynamic, “I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one” (302). Did Thoreau reach the peak of his knowledge at Walden and realize there was more to uncover elsewhere?
Thoreau concludes with an uplifting and utterly inspiring message. He writes, “I learned this, at least, by my experiment; that if one advances confidently in the direction of their dreams, and endeavors to live the life which they have imagined, they will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.” However, is Thoreau really telling the reader to specifically go off in the woods by themselves? In my opinion, his writing can be viewed in the context of pursuing your inner passion to the extent of going to the end of your very own physical abilities and beyond social constructs to achieve your own highest capabilities in a field of knowledge and more.
My questions for you are, does Sustainable Development embody the critical views of deeply questioning purpose as written by Thoreau in Walden? Why is Thoreau so keen on discovering greater fields of knowledge?
In conclusion Thoreau questions the way typical Americans are living. These overzealous lives Thoreau laments makes me think he would look unfavorably on the movie “No Impact Man”. The progression of American consumerism has gotten to the point that it would probably be incomprehensible. Thoreau says on page 305 “Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed, and in such desperate enterprises? It can be argued that the no impact family was in the enterprise of writing a book and going on various TV shows to promote what they are doing. Many people think this is disingenuous because the father is a writer so obviously he had intentions to perform the experiment to make money. I do think Thoreau may disagree with the no impact family because the experiment was flawed from the start because the structures the family used such as the apartment, heat, and farmers market were already in place. While Thoreau had help he did much more on his own such as building his cabin, not simply turning a switch and then using the neighbors for heat. Lastly as far as the disingenuous argument of the no impact family is concerned I think it was. However I think that to become a mainstream topic in the media you have to be a bit over the top and overall that is a good thing because it gets a good message across to a lot of people who before may not have realized living more sustainable was an option.
“The town’s poor seem to me often to live the most independent lives of any. Maybe they are simply great enough to receive without misgiving. Most think that they are above being supported by the town; but it oftener happens that they are not above supporting themselves by dishonest means, which should be more disreputable. Cultivate poverty like a garden herb, like sage. Do not trouble yourself much to get new things, whether clothes or friends. Turn the old; return to them. Things do not change; we change. Sell your clothes and keep your thoughts. God will see that you do not want society.” – 307
Thoreau repeatedly praises the lives of the poor, claiming that they have been dealt the most independent and the most freeing lifestyle. He tells his audience to “Love your life, poor as it is” and not to be envious of lifestyles of the upper class (307). I think Thoreau has a romanticized vision of poverty, going so far as to say “Cultivate poverty like a garden herb,…” (307). It is clear that Thoreau admires the simplicity of a life of poverty, believing that nature and simple work ought to be fulfilling enough for a person and their wellbeing. Although there are several different forms of poverty, poverty today is often constructed and maintained through political and social limitations that work to segregate the poor from the middle and upper classes. Thoreau seems to feel as if poverty is the key to living a life of simplicity and achieving the standards of “the good life”.
If living a life of poverty, or simplicity, is Thoreau’s answer to achieving “the good life” what constraints exist today that would make this difficult to implement and achieve? Can a person’s physical and social well-being be enhanced through simplicity in situations of extreme poverty? One theme within sustainable development involves the amount of goods and services consumed by middle and upper class families. Is poverty today, specifically poverty in urban settings, still as independent and freeing as previously thought by Thoreau?
On page 272, in the chapter “The Pond in Winter”, Thoreau writes, “If we knew all the laws of Nature, we should need only one fact, or the description of one actual phenomenon, to infer all the particular results at that point…Our notions of law and harmony are commonly confined to those instances which we detect; but the harmony which results from a far greater number of seemingly conflicting, but really concurring, laws, which we have not detected, is still more wonderful.”
This passage speaks of relinquishing control and order and instead embracing chaos and the things we cannot control in nature. Humans inherently try to control everything around us, especially nature. To Thoreau, ultimately finding harmony is finding it in the ways that nature is not concrete and orderly.
Is giving up our tendencies to control part of Thoreau’s strive for the “good life”? Is ultimately putting our trust in the ways of nature and letting nature’s laws do as they will what Thoreau’s “good life” is about?
At the beginning of the chapter “Conclusion,” Thoreau feels that instead of exploring distant lands one should instead explore the lands within. He feels that everyone should follow their own course which is why he left Walden. He had “several more lives to live” and by leaving he is giving himself the opportunity to explore them. Towards the end of the chapter Thoreau compares life to a bug that lived in a table for many years and was thought to be dead but then emerged. This bug demonstrates resurrection and immortality. He feels that man needs to try to renew himself due to the fact that he can never know when new life will emerge from him. This last chapter carried out the theme that has been ongoing throughout the book that one should live life simpler and make their own path. Overall throughout the story, Thoreau feels that living life more simply would be almost more satisfying. Without material items, a person would have to work less in order to support themselves.
To Thoreau, how would you spend your life in order to make it the most fulfilling?
I think it is quite fitting that Thoreau ended his book with Spring. It shows the cyclical nature of the existence, and the good old fashioned wisdom of “the end is just another beginning”. In the previous chapter “Former Inhabitants; and Winter Visitors”, Thoreau writes of the former residents of Walden Pond, and how little to no traces of these inhabitants have been left behind over the years. Thoreau himself only knows of these people because of his own personal history with the land. Despite all the human activity in the area over the years, his most constant companions are the animals that currently call the area their home. The mass continuity of animals seems to overshadow human development in this microcosm. Standing on the frozen lake must have been a powerful experience. Even though hundreds of men haul away hundreds of thousands of gallons of ice from the lake, Thoreau realizes that most of the ice still melts, and ends up right back in the lake again, cancelling out man’s efforts in a way.
My question of the week: What would Thoreau think of the No Impact Family’s experiment? Would he applaud their efforts to simplify? Or would he mock their efforts as misguided?
On page 262 of “Conclusion,” Thoreau offers the reader an explanation as to why he left the wood, “I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one.” He then goes on to explain how he had fallen into a routine while he was living at Walden. However, throughout the book Thoreau seems to frown upon being a working member of society. He often expressed that being self-reliant is the ideal way to live a good live, for example how Thoreau saw himself as being better than any farmer in Concord. But, how can you not fall into a routine when you are living on one’s own? Aren’t the things that Thoreau did everyday necessary to maintain his well-being? Would the Walden experiment have been considered successful had Thoreau been miserable?
Throughout the book and especially in the last few chapters, Thoreau discusses the value of living in the present. On page 294, Thoreau says, “We should be blessed if we lived in the present always, and took advantage of every accident that befell us,…and did not spend our time in atoning for the neglect of past opportunities, which we call doing our duty.”. He seems to truly value living in the present and forgives himself for the past. I think one reason Thoreau is able to do this is because of his closeness with nature. The morning sun seems to remind him that every day is new and that the past is nothing to fixate over. His ability to live in the present moment and to forgive himself and others of faults is a kind of peace that I really strive for. Thoreau’s fixation with morning time and his view of the sun as a renewing and reviving soul is something that seems to bring him a lot of peace. My question is, How would Thoreau perceive someone who is a “night owl”? Does he have a negative view of the night time or why does he find the morning so much more significant?
In “Small is Beautiful” the chapter “The Greatest Resource- Education” Schumacher talks about how knowledge gets passed down and later cemented through four generations (95). Someone starts in their Dark Ages of childhood and adolescence where they are collecting knowledge, before they are able to produce their own ideas. Ideas initially are just a result of thinking, but for the third and fourth generations, according to Schumacher, they are cemented and control society by becoming part of the hegemonic discourse. He says this is why we are hungry for education right now to get out of the mindset of the 19th century and that the issue is our philosophies. He also talks about positivism replacing metaphysics (97), and how this has led to the current state of western thought.
The first part reminds me of the idea that nothing has changed as history repeats itself. When I hear that I agree, but also am inclined to consider the work that has been done and the changes in society that have occurred small bits at a time. This is a divergent issue. How is it that social structures/practices/ideas stay the same, while constantly changing?
How does positivist thinking play into the way that we might think through these issues?
While reading the first chapter of Small Is Beautiful, I found a lot of insight in E.F. Schumacher’s words. I really thought his messages concerning the problems of production were parallel with mine. Schumacher says “The illusion of unlimited power, nourished by astonishing scientific and
technological achievements, has produced the concurrent illusion of having solved the problem of production.” This way of thinking is plaguing our society today, we all think that we have enough income items (cash) to make up for the rapid loss of capital items (resources), but what happens when we run out of this capital? What will our income be worth with nothing left to spend it on?
Schmuacher talks about how we assign values to everything, and goes onto say that all the things we find valuable we have made ourselves and everything natural, society has deemed as “valueless.” I thought his opinion was very empowering to say the least. Schumacher says that whether we are young, old, powerful, not so powerful, influential or not, we all share the responsibility for the way our society functions; he says we all must understand the problem in order to fix it and evolve new lifestyles designed for permanence.
Schumacher also talks about our needs versus our accessories in the chapter “A Question of Size.” He says that high culture things like space exploration and modern physics are cool and all, but not really what our society needs right now. The author highlights the fact that masses of people have fled rural America and made their ways to big cities, leaving the rest of the nation to become engulfed in industrial agriculture. In this same chapter our author questions the importance of large internal markets. “The successful province drains the life out of the unsuccessful. and without protection against the strong, the weak have no chance: either they remain weak or they must migrate and join the strong, they cannot effectively help themselves.”
Question: How do we achieve this system of importance put on the people instead of on the goods?
In the beginning of “Higher Laws,” Thoreau comes across a woodchuck and immediately thinks of devouring it raw. He then uses the event to open up a line of thought about hunting and “the wild” – he says that he does not want to eat the woodchuck out of physical hunger, but rather out of hunger for “that wildness which he represented.” He talks about an inclination towards the spiritual, and then of an inclination towards a “primitive rank and savage [life],” thus setting up a clear distinction between the spiritual and the “savage.” In a telling sentence, he says “I love the wild not less than the good.” What do these quotes and the following discussion about hunting say about Thoreau’s views of human life? How is he classifying human behaviors? Why does he understand the spiritual and “civilized” as different than “the wild.” What values are embodied in this point of view? And how does this point of view mesh with the rest of Thoreau’s writing about the world?
Thoreau then goes on to talk about eating meat, and how “…every man who has ever been earnest to preserve his higher or poetic faculties in the best condition has been particularly inclined to abstain from animal food, and from much food of any kind.” (147 in my book). He also says that there is something “essentially unclean about this diet and all flesh.” In this way, he continues to position meat consumption as a “lower” and unclean way of life. While personally I choose not to consume animal products of any kind, it’s jarring to see Thoreau directly state that eating meat is a mark of the “uncivilized,” and “unclean.” What are the implications of these statements for every other person on Earth who eats meat? What is Thoreau saying about them?
In the rest of chapter, Thoreau continues to mark a distinction between the “animal” within humans and the “higher nature” within humans, thus drawing a line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom and larger ecosystem. How does Thoreau’s understanding of human presence in relationship to other living things impact his writing and philosophy?
In the “Conclusion” of Walden, Thoreau says that one doesn’t need to travel around the country or world, as long as you get to know where you are at already and become and important part of your community, that is all that is important. You can delve deep into what your immediate surroundings have to offer you. But he than later goes on to ask why we tolerate dullness in our everyday lives when there are so many incredible things in the world for us to experience. If we are to stay in one place our entire lives and become an integral part of our community, wouldn’t it all become very dull and repetitive after a while? I ask, is it more important to stay rooted in your community and full fill yourself in that way, or would it be better to travel the world and see all of what is out there to full fill yourself? What would Thoreau believe is the better choice?
In “Small is Beautiful” I found Schumacher’s work profoundly visionary. Schumacher is not only suggesting that modern neoclassical economics is no longer adequate because it prioritizes individualism but also that this widespread attitude that “man” can control nature–this independence from nature– has spread into our everyday worldview and economic way of life and this view will be the demise of humanity, that is, if we don’t shift our thinking to interdependence with nature and community. Moreover, Schumacher suggests that the free-market model assumes that all people care about is buying more stuff. It ignores all the important things that psychologists have told us to make us happy, such as the fact that we really care about our relationships. We care about raising healthy children. We care about contributing to our communities. These are the things that create a meaningful and happy life, but, in free-market economics, helping others isn’t part of the model.
I enjoy the philosophical quality within the questions that Schumacher asks in each chapter, for example in the chapter “The Proper Use of Land” Schumacher asks an interesting question on land ethics. “One of the most important task for any society is to distinguish between ends and means-to-ends and to have some sort of cohesive view and agreement about this. Is the land merely a means of production or is it something more, something that is an end in its self?”
Is Schumacher suggesting that our ultimate means are not products created through human or automated production but instead are the ecological services provided by nature? Can or should we calculate the health of the world ecosystem in which we derive are raw material as key factors of production? How does this relationship of land health and economic production intertwine with the health of people?
In the first chapter of Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” The Problem of Production, Schumacher discusses many things that I feel like should be common knowledge. Natural capital shouldn’t be used as income, it’s an inefficient system. Endless production and the transfer of technology are no way to develop and have a functioning society/economy.
My question is in what ways can we address the change in societal values needed to shift away from endlessly using natural capital as an income?
Schumacher begins “Small is Beautiful” by claiming Westernized civilizations have become to believe the problem of production has been solved. He writes how this idea of the problem of production as being solved makes it inherently hard to change the system we live in now. Schumacher says the way this belief came to be is due to our relationship with nature, and since the process of Westernization is spreading, the more people are also beginning to believe the problems of production have been solved. He writes that our issue in our economic system is that we view fossil fuels as income rather than capital and if we viewed things like coal, similar to how we view money in only using what we need to sustain its self before we need more. Instead we use fossil fuels as income and we keep taking and taking to make “income” without viewing the consequences. Due to the taking of fossil fuels we now are facing destruction of our planet and in response we talk about “education for leisure” and transfers of technology instead of focusing on redesigning our production system.
Through these first two chapters I felt like Schumacher was hinting the blame towards those who are in systematic control, and scientists and technologists. He says we aren’t being told of the possibilities of wind and solar but we are being told we are going into the Nuclear Age. When reading this I question who his directed audience is for this book, and if his intentions were to awaken society in hopes of over throwing our current economic system and beliefs.
In Schumacher’s “Small Is Beautiful” he writes in the first chapter that “one of the most fateful errors of our age is the belief that the problem of production has been solved(13).” It can be understood that he sees the means of production in today’s capitalistic society as harmful and the cause of many other issues. My question is if the problem of production has not been solved, which clearly it has not, how can we go about solving it? The United States and the western world are clearly a large super power with a clear idea of how production should work so how do you create this idea of how production should actually operate and make it marketable to where it would actually be able to be enforced in a country such as the US.
In Schumacher’s first chapter he seems to be introducing the idea that there are issues in production and that problem is that man has fought against nature, detached from it and become less dependent on it and more dependent on technology. He makes the point that if man “wins” his battle against nature, he would still be on the loosing side.
My question is this, have we become so dependent on technology that is has become the marker of a developed and modern society? Should the technologies that exist be what allows a society to be considered modern and developed?
So far, “Small is Beautiful” is my favorite books about economics- frankly, it is the only economics book that I have positive feelings about. It is an especially interesting read in its nature, being one that feels extremely relevant in today’s time, yet written in 1973, as the foreword by Bill mentions. It appears we are re-living that time where being ‘green’ is the new move, directions towards sustainability are being more widely accepted, and global climate change is a very present and creeping fear.
It is also an interesting switch from reading Thoreau, where his practices of living are more romantic, per say, and maybe even a little ‘extreme’ for a society of today, but at the same time, probably the way that the Earth prefers us to go, but most will not (or maybe they will, in a sort-of modern, Beavan family style). But so far in this read by Schumacher, it feels like he is calling for a more ‘realistic’ way of everyone to live an equitable life that accords with Nature as well. Not that the life that Thoreau chose to live out in his days at Walden is not admirable, or should not be sought out, but it is not one that an average, consuming American would say, ‘ok yes I’ll do this!’ to, at least not unless they were forced and then would that really be achieving anything?
So, my question is, applying Schumacher’s principles, do you think that if we establish a society based on equity and responsibility towards the Earth, would people start to appreciate living in a way that achieves ‘Thoreauian’ goals of being closer to Nature, and appreciating the Earth more? Or would that still be exclusive to the few hippies that have come to appreciate it on their own terms/paths of life? Do you think Thoreau would be happy in the ‘Small is Beautiful’ economy? Or would he still seek to escape that society and write about its ills in his abode by the lake?
“Next to family,it is works and the relationships established by work that are the true foundations of society.” (p.38, Schumacher) In the chapter Peace & Permanence, Schumacher makes a claim that our approach to peace (that it requires prosperity as a precursor) is flawed and within that thesis he lists out ways that technology should serve the global population. He says that technology should leave space for human creativity, lest men become “machine minders” (p.37). He says that the work of a person, mindful work that is, and that person’s family is the foundation of society. This can be read in a way as anti-Thoreau. Thoreau places his emphasis on individual development as a way to inner peace and writes that being attached to work and family is not the way to fulfillment and certainly wouldn’t say that it is the “true foundation of society.” Are Schumacher and Thoreau even having the same conversation? They both speak of the good life but they seem to use such different examples and land in different places that it is hard to compare them, so should we? Is it worth it to draw connections or point out differences between the authors? Or do they stand alone as two different accounts on two different subjects wholly.
In “Small is Beautiful” Schumacher starts his first chapter by saying, “Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that, if he won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side”. (14) Schumacher introduces this book by talking about the problem with production and how we believe we have solved this problem. The first thing I thought of when reading this chapter was the time period it takes place in. Schumacher mentions the impacts of fossil fuels and the changes that need to happen to preserve these nonrenewable fuels. This book was published in 1973 and it seems like not much has changed, which is obviously very concerning. He mentions the year 2000 multiple times making me think he was hoping major change would take place by then, but with it being 2018, it seems like not enough has happened when looking at the transitions from nonrenewable energy to renewable energy. Schumacher writes about how at least most people in rich countries have become so comfortable with their lives that we haven’t stopped to think about the consequences that come with our actions. I think we are more aware of these consequences in todays world, but I believe many in power are still too comfortable to make the major changes that are need when it comes to our environment.
Question: What will our future look like 30 or 40 years from now? Can we as a society make the major changes that are necessary to move away from our current collision course or will we be in the same situation we’ve been in for years?
The issues that Schumacher delves into in these first chapter are those of ethics, metaphysics, policy, and progress. I was interested especially in the chapter “The Greatest Resource-Education”, in which he talks of “reconciling opposites”, our divergent issues in which there are no plain solution. These issues call upon “not merely the employments of his reasoning powers but the commitment of his whole personality” (104). Many of the issues we see with production and globalization, he says, lead back to education; not only is the application of it not focused on, but the content as well. It may not be our solution, but it is entirely part of our problem. “Problem” as in the furthering of western-colonial ways of thinking. The distancing from the metaphysical-identifying the human condition and clarifying our convictions- is what has led education to be too focused on the objective sciences and still heavily influenced by positivism (93). I would like to know how this change in education begins, especially in our era where people younger and younger are having access to the internet, where they can observe information they may have not seen at that point in their life otherwise, as well as ways of thinking and being- all information without being taught in a classroom. As well, is such progress towards the metaphysical better developed through daily practice-as we have read from Thoreau in Walden-or is it through change in education policy?
Schumacher does not waste any time in his book and delves straight into issues regarding economic theory versus real-life application. These economic structures were created in the west, for the west. It is undeniable that these ideals are problematic, even in the global north. Schumacher focuses on the issues that arise from western economics, modes of production, and technologies being necessary within the global south to promote “proper development.”
There are plenty of reasons why this is problematic, but he starts out by pointing out the issues with the way people in the global north view their relationships with nature. He points out that, “modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature, but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it.” It is certainly fair to say that we have at least partially conquered nature, if you think about how much destruction we have caused since the industrial revolution. We certainly have the capacity to destroy nature, and we have been for centuries. Our violence towards nature is often misunderstood. Humans live within nature, even if we cover it with concrete and asphalt to make it feel like something new and different. This leads people to fall under the assumption that anthropogenic activity does not necessarily harm nature, and that nature cannot harm humans. This is inherently wrong. When we destroy nature it tends to react in ways such as natural disasters, droughts, and climate fluctuation. Scientists have known of these potential symptoms of environmental destruction for quite some time, and now we are truly starting to see them play out because humans did not listen to the warnings.
How can the western world think that we have perfected the art of production when we are still destroying our environment in the process? What can we learn from what some in the west would call “under-developed countries” when it comes to living *with* the land, rather than off of the land? Do they have more to offer us than we have to offer them?
The association of “largeness” and “prosperity” is heavily interwoven in a mass consumerist society. In “The Question of Size”, Schumacher addresses the efficiency of smallness as well as the need to measure appropriate scales for whatever is being assessed. “What I wish to emphasize is the duality of the human requirement when it comes to the question of size: there is no single answer. For his different purposes man needs many different structures, both small ones and large one, some exclusive and some comprehensive” (70). The appropriate scale must be established to best suit what is trying to get accomplished, such as in a teaching scenario or the size of a city, these could be large or small, depending on the circumstance. No precise answer can be achieved but certainly an estimate that is efficient can be concluded. An issue that has arisen from not applying appropriate scales to systems in place and thus disproportionally affecting groups of people has been poverty. Large scaled powers, such as mass production sites, have led communities to lose livelihoods and thus live in poverty. These powers become richer while the poor become poorer, leading communities to move to large cities in search of livelihoods. If these sites of production could become decentralized and moved down to an appropriate scale, a more equitable world could be shaped. “Therefore we must learn to think in terms of an articulated structure that can cope with a multiplicity of small-scale units. If economic thinking cannot grasp this it is useless” (80). These small-scale units would be suitable to promote human-centered economics, these systems’ priorities being centered around peoples’ struggles and happiness rather than analytical rates and capital accumulation. The question I am asking now is if we start to set these appropriate scales, what would it take or what barriers must we place for those with power and wealth to not sabotage these scales for their own benefit or must we start afresh as Schumacher has suggested?
When Schumacher published “Small is Beautiful” in 1974, our society had already become reliant on technology due to the use of fossil fuels – even though industrialization had only occurred a few years prior. Schumacher calls for a radical transformation “to get off our present collision course” (21). In 2018, how have we made positive changes and technological advancements to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels? Are any of these innovations relevant or have we passed the point of being able to thrive in a system that is not completely dependent on fossil fuels?
Schumacher spends much of the chapter The Role of Economics, explaining why something may be considered uneconomic or economic. He also uses this chapter to note that while some activity might be considered uneconomic, there are other reasons outside of economy why one may partake in said activity. Schumacher goes on to explain the role of price in our daily lives and at one point admonishes economics in saying “there can be nothing sacred in something that has a price”.
Is Schumacher right, that price and physical value ultimately make something unholy? How do we attempt to reconcile the privatization of beach and mountains and beautiful places? Is it wrong to attempt to protect an area by charging admission (Grandfather mountain for example?)
Throughout this whole book, I could not get over how pretentious Thoreau sounded when describing his endeavors and his musings on society and the human condition. Upon reading the conclusion, however, I realized the reason I was so critical of Thoreau was because his experiment at Walden pond and the subsequent thoughts about how humans should live their lives made me uneasy and caused me to reflect on how I live my life. His thoughts about being true to ourselves, pursuing our own path, and stepping outside of boundaries established by society resonated with me and yet I chastise people who disrupt the status quo (while silently wishing I could do the same). The quote that stuck out to me most was: “The surface of the earth is soft and impressible by the feet of men; and so with the paths which the mind travels. How worn and dusty, then, must be the highways of the world, how deep the ruts of tradition and conformity!” (214). American society is marked by its obsession with maintaining freedom, but how much freedom do we truly have? Is breaking free from social constraints only to be (potentially) ostracized by those around you too much to ask of an individual, even for the sake of “self discovery”?
The final chapters of “Walden” contain themes of renewal, revitalization, and even revolution. Thoreau reflects on Spring as a time where he feels that we can let go of past ill will and begin anew. Spring is a universal time to start with a fresh, blank slate. Thoreau urges the reader to confidently pursue the “direction of his dreams” while seeking what is worthwhile rather than superfluous. He asks us to examine our lives and be critical of our “civilized” lives and find our truest selves and meaningful existence.
Throughout the end of the book, Thoreau utilizes the themes of spring to encourage the audience to start fresh and adopt meaningful ways of living. The author invokes a strong sense of agency in the reader to abandon frivolities… and hints at perhaps the dawn of a new chapter in human civilization if we are to come to our senses quick enough.
Since this is one of the few works I have read by Thoreau, I question what he did with his life after Walden. Did he fall back into our capitalist, consumer trap or was he able to persevere with is values unscathed (or fall somewhere in between like all of us)?
In order to fully realize self-reliance, Thoreau plants a large plot of bean plants, as well as a smaller amount of other crops, such as potatoes, turnips, and peas. And while he does achieve a certain amount of independence, he still does choose to trade and participate in a market type system to a minimal degree, but he claims that this not not important, as the real value of his actions is the lessons in transcendence and self discipline of himself rather than the actual cultivation of crops and sustenance. This only strengthens his earlier points that living a life focus on self reliance and necessity will offer up ample opportunity to reflect and improve ones self. The necessity of these daily tasks is stressed even further upon the arrival of winter, during which Thoreau shifts from harvesting to gathering wood for fires in order to stay warm. This is a turning point in the book, as Thoreau reflects on how winter is affecting every aspect of the land around walden pond; from the fish being trapped under the frozen lake, to the mammals preparing for hibernation, to the geese migrating south toward warmer weather; nothing can escape the influence of winter, just like no man, whether poor or privileged, can escape the powers of the environment, and are all equally subject to its tendencies.
My question is, while self-reliance is obviously a key theme throughout Walden, is there really such a thing? Thoreau is heavily dependent on nature, and although this is not the dependency he refers to when he considers self-reliance, isn’t it still the same? And even if he is reliant on nature, is there anyway to move around this since nature is an overarching, all powerful force?
In the first chapter of Small is Beautiful, Schumacher claims that “one of the most fateful errors of our age is the belief that ‘the problem of production has been solved” (13). He further attributes the prevalence of this belief to our rapidly diminishing attitude towards nature, particularly in “Western” countries. We no longer experience ourselves as part of nature, Schumacher says, but rather a force destined to conquer it (14). As such, we have no regard for the natural limits imposed by nature, and continue to take without giving back. In explaining the value of natural resources as capital instead of income, Schumacher provides an extremely logical comparison to how a business that is spending capital at an unreplenishable rate would acknowledge a problem with production. This is how we need to treat natural resources. Fossil fuels, for example, are not renewable resources and will thus one day run out. In a society whose dependence on fossil fuels cannot be overstated, it would only make sense for us to first focus on conserving these resources and then, inevitably, funding research and creation of renewable energy sources–“If we squander our fossil fuels, we threaten civilisation; but if we squander the capital represented by living nature around us, we threaten life itself (17)…the modern industrial system, with all its intellectual sophistication, consumes the very basis on which it has been erected” (21).
One essential value of Sustainable Development is meeting the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations. The foreward to this book includes a bit of insight into previous presidential attitudes towards production and consumption limits, emphasizing the Reagan administration which set the precedent for the current American attitude which completely disregards the natural limits of the environment for an arbitrary measure of success. Economist Larry Summers said “There are no…limits to the carrying capacity of the earth that are likely bind any time in the foreseeable future…the idea that we should put limits on growth because of some natural limit is a profound error” (xiv). I don’t want to say this guy is stupid, but either way he doesn’t directly face the beginning of climate change consequences today and surely won’t experience the worst of it in coming years.
I guess my question is, how do we return to a positive, mutual, sustainable relationship with nature? How do we incentivize sacrificing convenience and luxury to reduce problems that the average American doesn’t and will never experience? Is reducing consumption possible within a capitalist system that is based on unlimited economic growth (aka environmental exploitation and degradation)?
Small is Beautiful by Schumacher challenges the current systems we have in place, exposes wrongs in our lifestyle choices, and shows the opportunity for better alternatives. This was my favorite book of the semester and it was very clear to me the issues being described and the way of thinking we should take for addressing the changes we can impose for bettering our economy, and in turn helping people rather than hurting. Schumacher addresses how western globalization and capitalism rule the world economic system and encourages a lifestyle that is excessive and exploitive and unequitable.
Like with the film on Bhutan’s economy and the drive for GDHappiness, Schumacher shows how there is equilibrium in a market defined by fair consumption and sustainable practices that value people and the environment for their true, priceless worth. “No serious exception can be taken to these statements if we adopt, as the experts have adopted, the metaphysical position of the crudest materialism, for which money costs and money incomes are the ultimate criteria and determinants of human action, and the living world has no significance beyond that of a quarry for exploitations” (119). He exposes how we currently prize inhumane paces of growth and that we do not address the necessary means of allowing people and the planet to be put at the top of our priorities. Our lifestyles then reflect not our own interests, but the interest of those who benefit most from the actions of the majority.
The consequences of these interests that are rooted in solely wealth and power cannot allow for a true democracy to be in effect because when the negatives are contested, the power gained suppresses voices and continues harm. From Small is Beautiful, we can see that when we realize that there are better ways to our development and economic practices, we can take the next step to act holistically in a way that holds the needs of people and the environment first rather than putting production and growth as the ideals to chase. My question is how would Schumacher address at this current time the consumption patterns of the western world verses forty years ago, and would his approaches to alternative methods and a push for changes be more, less, or the same intensity as when he wrote this book in the 70’s?
“Modern man does not experience himself a a part of nature, but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it…He even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that if he won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side”. (Schumacher, 21)
Schumacher’s take on resource exploitation should be shouted from each corner of the world, but loudest in America. This logic is so well put, and so deeply relevant in our time of mass exploitation, for the immediate gratification of wealth and the slow violence that entails. Schumacher places the root of the blame of this illusion, or delusion, to our [modernized man] inability to acknowledge the irony of the industrial system. The practice demolished the very basis of which this system has been built on.
How is this logic not acknowledged in the United State’s policy making? Is there a real argument that technology has the ability to overcome the fact of this?
Small is Beautiful by Schumacher conceptualize a change that is needed in society. He focuses on how mass consumption and economies based on peoples singular interest are not allowing for the positive growth that is needed. “For every activity there is a certain appropriate scale, and the more active and intimate the activity, the smaller the number of people can take part” (70) This brings the notion of size of all thing are very important.
Should there be a focus on small scale economic to allow every person to benefit the way that is human right? Would smaller governmental regions allow for this change to occur?
In the chapter Peace and Permanence, Schumacher talks about how it is a common thought that the way to peace is to “follow the road to riches” (23). This way of thinking promotes mass consumerism and the assumption that everyone can actually achieve prosperity. However, both mass consumerism and prosperity for all isn’t possible on a finite planet. Despite this, economists continue to see the world through the lens of virtually limitless goods and services. In my opinion, this way of thinking is dangerous in two ways, number one it promotes the exploitation of the environment, and it provides false hope to those who have been fed the idea that everyone can prosper (monetarily speaking).
My question is, How can we (people in the first world) change our ideas of prosperity so that we don’t focus on monetary success, while still living in a consumerist society?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, “The Bean Field”, he talks more about the agriculture he is planting at Walden pond, it is more of an art form than just farming for him. Thoreau also relates himself to the nature he sees while he is working on the bean-field, “I watched a pair of hen-hawks circling high in the sky, alternately soaring and descending, approaching and leaving one another, as if they were the imbodiment of my own thoughts.” (Thoreau, Page 150). This shows the more spiritual side of Thoreau’s experiment because he is connecting himself to the beings around him in incredible ways. “The Village” is about his leisure day, when he visits the village and is bombarded with attractive consumerism. Once again, he is noticing a lot of animals and nature around him, he also makes his way home at night since becoming more familiar with the way home. “The Ponds” is about his time spent on the pond. He meets a fisherman who he spends some time with. He also describes romantic nights to himself fishing at midnight. Also, in this chapter he gives a deeper description of Walden pond that is almost symbolic. “Baker Farm” is about places Thoreau visits, some areas being around the outskirts of Walden pond, with specific trees that he calls his “shrines”. He also mentions John Field, or the Irishmen in this chapter, him and Thoreau had some disagreements on what you can get out of living in America. The Irishmen likes America for the readily available global goods, and Thoreau feels kind of bad for him because he works so hard to spend all his money on products. Lastly, “Higher Laws” is about animals, and higher “spiritual” laws. He talks about God, purity, and holiness, and how our human nature is disgraceful, and he wants to separate his animalistic feelings from his higher power feelings.
Question: Why does it seem that Thoreau’s most romantic and spiritual experiences with nature happen at night? The way he describes nature at night/his experiences at night are a lot more visual and painted as spiritual experiences such as when he goes fishing at midnight.
In House Warming of Walden, Thoreau speaks of preferring to stay in the rays of the fall sun versus warming by the ‘artificial’ fire (pg 231). Yet, he also speaks of ideas of building a chimney for his cabin. This speaks to Thoreau’s doubleness within his human nature, which he speaks about in a different chapter, as he is only human so he too experiences these parts of human nature. He can criticize an aspect or element of nature or society even, but turn around and take part or indulge in the very same thing he once criticized. This is often called hypocrisy, but can also be put in terms of the duality of life. Humans have duality and are ever changing, and imperfect. Thoreau again shows this, in Baker Farm (pg 200), where he makes many a negative comments about the Fields family who had welcomed him into their home, comments about the status of their well, saying it is in overall bad condition, and even comments about the mother and the infant, yet he still asks for a drink of water from them. To me, this level of interacting and dealing with other people, is one of the most acute situations of this kind of hypocrisy, or duality, in the book, because a place can just be a place, but people make the place. The people in Thoreau’s life experiences are not always so appreciated, and overall Thoreau gives a sense that he pushes people away or almost shuts them out. His actions do not always line up with his thoughts. In Baker Farm, he even admits to faking his manners (pg 200).
What would have been Thoreau’s thoughts on balance? Balance between self-reliance and working with others instead of harboring such negative thoughts towards them? Or just finding balance in general between his radical thoughts and his actions? Upon leaving the woods did he discover some kind of balance?
Meredith,
First of all, I enjoyed your critique of Thoreau, his notions of morality, and how you have drawn to the theme of duality. I would like to ask a question with a sense of humor and also raise a point. If Thoreau did not construct the chimney, then would Thoreau have been able to live near Walden Pond throughout the year? I think we can arrive at a point of asking to what degree of survival skills Thoreau would have required to endure the brutal Concord, Massachusetts winters without a chimney or a fireplace. On the other hand, I might just agree with Thoreau and his thoughts about how the warmth of the fall sun can indeed be more meaningful than the warmth of an artificial fire. Was Thoreau really advocating for the self-restraint of enjoyment from the warmth of artificial fire, or was he implying some greater virtue of drawing near to nature, oneself and the land, or both?
-Jack
Thoreau was an individual I thoroughly enjoyed trying to learn about and decipher. After uncovering many aspects and motives of his writings it’s clear to see there is a lot more going on in his life than meets the eye. One of the things I admire most about Thoreau was his determination to find answers and prove or disprove things, but the intent or reasoning behind this was more important to me. Thoreau experiments with the pond and finding the deepest point, it’s interesting because the townsfolk believe it is a bottomless pond. This is symbolic for the longing hope that man has for eternal life or understanding what comes after death. But for Thoreau, he is able to find this elsewhere and doesn’t feel the need to receive it from the pond.
My question is what can be taken away from the Walden experiment and incorporated into the lives of the mass of men?
In class on Tuesday we discussed how Thoreau might disapprove of No Impact Man, Colin Beavan, because he was doing his experiment for the wrong reasons. This made me think of their motives. Sure, Beavan was driven by selling his book, but wasn’t Thoreau as well. Thoreau did rise to fame after the publishing of Walden. One of the many differences here is that Thoreau’s lived in isolation and very rarely socialized during his time. Beavan not only was living in the middle of New York City and having a regular social life, he also went on many TV and radio shows, blogged about it, and had a documentary filmed while writing his book. For a man who titles himself so boldly he had the intentions of making quite an impact. Trying to see it from both sides, I would say that Beavan had some good intentions as well. He mentioned that if he could prove to the world that one can make such a small impact and do it comfortably, hygienically, and happily maybe more people would want to live similarly. I believe that is a noble cause, trying to show the mass consumers of today that they can be happy without the “comforts” of every day life like plastic bags, toilet paper, and modern transportation. Thoreau also wanted to convey that to his readers. He says, “The necassaries of life for man in this climate may, accurately enough, be distributed under the several heads of Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel: for not till we have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success.”
My question seems to be is if Beavan participated in his experiment more privately, but still published his book would we feel like his positive motives are genuine? Do you think that Beavan would have done the experiment if it wasn’t public?
Thoreau begins the Conclusion of Walden by suggesting to the audience to go farther beyond their work and thought. He questions, and would like for us to question why we are here, and why on Earth we choose to practice the behaviors and thoughts that we do. He wants for the reader to connect with themselves and the place where they are on a far deeper level than what is typical in the modern world. On page 300 he writes, “Nay, be a Columbus to whole new continents and worlds within you, opening new channels, not of trade, but of thought.” He seems to be explaining how humans have the tendency and the convenience of living day to day through monotonous routines and it is so easy for us to not think deeply about what the grand purpose of life is. Why are we here? Thoreau’s writing encourages the reader to go outside of their path most traveled and to make a purposeful and deeply thoughtful meaning for themselves. The purpose, as noted by Thoreau, is fluid and dynamic, “I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one” (302). Did Thoreau reach the peak of his knowledge at Walden and realize there was more to uncover elsewhere?
Thoreau concludes with an uplifting and utterly inspiring message. He writes, “I learned this, at least, by my experiment; that if one advances confidently in the direction of their dreams, and endeavors to live the life which they have imagined, they will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.” However, is Thoreau really telling the reader to specifically go off in the woods by themselves? In my opinion, his writing can be viewed in the context of pursuing your inner passion to the extent of going to the end of your very own physical abilities and beyond social constructs to achieve your own highest capabilities in a field of knowledge and more.
My questions for you are, does Sustainable Development embody the critical views of deeply questioning purpose as written by Thoreau in Walden? Why is Thoreau so keen on discovering greater fields of knowledge?
In conclusion Thoreau questions the way typical Americans are living. These overzealous lives Thoreau laments makes me think he would look unfavorably on the movie “No Impact Man”. The progression of American consumerism has gotten to the point that it would probably be incomprehensible. Thoreau says on page 305 “Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed, and in such desperate enterprises? It can be argued that the no impact family was in the enterprise of writing a book and going on various TV shows to promote what they are doing. Many people think this is disingenuous because the father is a writer so obviously he had intentions to perform the experiment to make money. I do think Thoreau may disagree with the no impact family because the experiment was flawed from the start because the structures the family used such as the apartment, heat, and farmers market were already in place. While Thoreau had help he did much more on his own such as building his cabin, not simply turning a switch and then using the neighbors for heat. Lastly as far as the disingenuous argument of the no impact family is concerned I think it was. However I think that to become a mainstream topic in the media you have to be a bit over the top and overall that is a good thing because it gets a good message across to a lot of people who before may not have realized living more sustainable was an option.
“The town’s poor seem to me often to live the most independent lives of any. Maybe they are simply great enough to receive without misgiving. Most think that they are above being supported by the town; but it oftener happens that they are not above supporting themselves by dishonest means, which should be more disreputable. Cultivate poverty like a garden herb, like sage. Do not trouble yourself much to get new things, whether clothes or friends. Turn the old; return to them. Things do not change; we change. Sell your clothes and keep your thoughts. God will see that you do not want society.” – 307
Thoreau repeatedly praises the lives of the poor, claiming that they have been dealt the most independent and the most freeing lifestyle. He tells his audience to “Love your life, poor as it is” and not to be envious of lifestyles of the upper class (307). I think Thoreau has a romanticized vision of poverty, going so far as to say “Cultivate poverty like a garden herb,…” (307). It is clear that Thoreau admires the simplicity of a life of poverty, believing that nature and simple work ought to be fulfilling enough for a person and their wellbeing. Although there are several different forms of poverty, poverty today is often constructed and maintained through political and social limitations that work to segregate the poor from the middle and upper classes. Thoreau seems to feel as if poverty is the key to living a life of simplicity and achieving the standards of “the good life”.
If living a life of poverty, or simplicity, is Thoreau’s answer to achieving “the good life” what constraints exist today that would make this difficult to implement and achieve? Can a person’s physical and social well-being be enhanced through simplicity in situations of extreme poverty? One theme within sustainable development involves the amount of goods and services consumed by middle and upper class families. Is poverty today, specifically poverty in urban settings, still as independent and freeing as previously thought by Thoreau?
On page 272, in the chapter “The Pond in Winter”, Thoreau writes, “If we knew all the laws of Nature, we should need only one fact, or the description of one actual phenomenon, to infer all the particular results at that point…Our notions of law and harmony are commonly confined to those instances which we detect; but the harmony which results from a far greater number of seemingly conflicting, but really concurring, laws, which we have not detected, is still more wonderful.”
This passage speaks of relinquishing control and order and instead embracing chaos and the things we cannot control in nature. Humans inherently try to control everything around us, especially nature. To Thoreau, ultimately finding harmony is finding it in the ways that nature is not concrete and orderly.
Is giving up our tendencies to control part of Thoreau’s strive for the “good life”? Is ultimately putting our trust in the ways of nature and letting nature’s laws do as they will what Thoreau’s “good life” is about?
At the beginning of the chapter “Conclusion,” Thoreau feels that instead of exploring distant lands one should instead explore the lands within. He feels that everyone should follow their own course which is why he left Walden. He had “several more lives to live” and by leaving he is giving himself the opportunity to explore them. Towards the end of the chapter Thoreau compares life to a bug that lived in a table for many years and was thought to be dead but then emerged. This bug demonstrates resurrection and immortality. He feels that man needs to try to renew himself due to the fact that he can never know when new life will emerge from him. This last chapter carried out the theme that has been ongoing throughout the book that one should live life simpler and make their own path. Overall throughout the story, Thoreau feels that living life more simply would be almost more satisfying. Without material items, a person would have to work less in order to support themselves.
To Thoreau, how would you spend your life in order to make it the most fulfilling?
I think it is quite fitting that Thoreau ended his book with Spring. It shows the cyclical nature of the existence, and the good old fashioned wisdom of “the end is just another beginning”. In the previous chapter “Former Inhabitants; and Winter Visitors”, Thoreau writes of the former residents of Walden Pond, and how little to no traces of these inhabitants have been left behind over the years. Thoreau himself only knows of these people because of his own personal history with the land. Despite all the human activity in the area over the years, his most constant companions are the animals that currently call the area their home. The mass continuity of animals seems to overshadow human development in this microcosm. Standing on the frozen lake must have been a powerful experience. Even though hundreds of men haul away hundreds of thousands of gallons of ice from the lake, Thoreau realizes that most of the ice still melts, and ends up right back in the lake again, cancelling out man’s efforts in a way.
My question of the week: What would Thoreau think of the No Impact Family’s experiment? Would he applaud their efforts to simplify? Or would he mock their efforts as misguided?
On page 262 of “Conclusion,” Thoreau offers the reader an explanation as to why he left the wood, “I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one.” He then goes on to explain how he had fallen into a routine while he was living at Walden. However, throughout the book Thoreau seems to frown upon being a working member of society. He often expressed that being self-reliant is the ideal way to live a good live, for example how Thoreau saw himself as being better than any farmer in Concord. But, how can you not fall into a routine when you are living on one’s own? Aren’t the things that Thoreau did everyday necessary to maintain his well-being? Would the Walden experiment have been considered successful had Thoreau been miserable?
Throughout the book and especially in the last few chapters, Thoreau discusses the value of living in the present. On page 294, Thoreau says, “We should be blessed if we lived in the present always, and took advantage of every accident that befell us,…and did not spend our time in atoning for the neglect of past opportunities, which we call doing our duty.”. He seems to truly value living in the present and forgives himself for the past. I think one reason Thoreau is able to do this is because of his closeness with nature. The morning sun seems to remind him that every day is new and that the past is nothing to fixate over. His ability to live in the present moment and to forgive himself and others of faults is a kind of peace that I really strive for. Thoreau’s fixation with morning time and his view of the sun as a renewing and reviving soul is something that seems to bring him a lot of peace. My question is, How would Thoreau perceive someone who is a “night owl”? Does he have a negative view of the night time or why does he find the morning so much more significant?
In “Small is Beautiful” the chapter “The Greatest Resource- Education” Schumacher talks about how knowledge gets passed down and later cemented through four generations (95). Someone starts in their Dark Ages of childhood and adolescence where they are collecting knowledge, before they are able to produce their own ideas. Ideas initially are just a result of thinking, but for the third and fourth generations, according to Schumacher, they are cemented and control society by becoming part of the hegemonic discourse. He says this is why we are hungry for education right now to get out of the mindset of the 19th century and that the issue is our philosophies. He also talks about positivism replacing metaphysics (97), and how this has led to the current state of western thought.
The first part reminds me of the idea that nothing has changed as history repeats itself. When I hear that I agree, but also am inclined to consider the work that has been done and the changes in society that have occurred small bits at a time. This is a divergent issue. How is it that social structures/practices/ideas stay the same, while constantly changing?
How does positivist thinking play into the way that we might think through these issues?
While reading the first chapter of Small Is Beautiful, I found a lot of insight in E.F. Schumacher’s words. I really thought his messages concerning the problems of production were parallel with mine. Schumacher says “The illusion of unlimited power, nourished by astonishing scientific and
technological achievements, has produced the concurrent illusion of having solved the problem of production.” This way of thinking is plaguing our society today, we all think that we have enough income items (cash) to make up for the rapid loss of capital items (resources), but what happens when we run out of this capital? What will our income be worth with nothing left to spend it on?
Schmuacher talks about how we assign values to everything, and goes onto say that all the things we find valuable we have made ourselves and everything natural, society has deemed as “valueless.” I thought his opinion was very empowering to say the least. Schumacher says that whether we are young, old, powerful, not so powerful, influential or not, we all share the responsibility for the way our society functions; he says we all must understand the problem in order to fix it and evolve new lifestyles designed for permanence.
Schumacher also talks about our needs versus our accessories in the chapter “A Question of Size.” He says that high culture things like space exploration and modern physics are cool and all, but not really what our society needs right now. The author highlights the fact that masses of people have fled rural America and made their ways to big cities, leaving the rest of the nation to become engulfed in industrial agriculture. In this same chapter our author questions the importance of large internal markets. “The successful province drains the life out of the unsuccessful. and without protection against the strong, the weak have no chance: either they remain weak or they must migrate and join the strong, they cannot effectively help themselves.”
Question: How do we achieve this system of importance put on the people instead of on the goods?
In the beginning of “Higher Laws,” Thoreau comes across a woodchuck and immediately thinks of devouring it raw. He then uses the event to open up a line of thought about hunting and “the wild” – he says that he does not want to eat the woodchuck out of physical hunger, but rather out of hunger for “that wildness which he represented.” He talks about an inclination towards the spiritual, and then of an inclination towards a “primitive rank and savage [life],” thus setting up a clear distinction between the spiritual and the “savage.” In a telling sentence, he says “I love the wild not less than the good.” What do these quotes and the following discussion about hunting say about Thoreau’s views of human life? How is he classifying human behaviors? Why does he understand the spiritual and “civilized” as different than “the wild.” What values are embodied in this point of view? And how does this point of view mesh with the rest of Thoreau’s writing about the world?
Thoreau then goes on to talk about eating meat, and how “…every man who has ever been earnest to preserve his higher or poetic faculties in the best condition has been particularly inclined to abstain from animal food, and from much food of any kind.” (147 in my book). He also says that there is something “essentially unclean about this diet and all flesh.” In this way, he continues to position meat consumption as a “lower” and unclean way of life. While personally I choose not to consume animal products of any kind, it’s jarring to see Thoreau directly state that eating meat is a mark of the “uncivilized,” and “unclean.” What are the implications of these statements for every other person on Earth who eats meat? What is Thoreau saying about them?
In the rest of chapter, Thoreau continues to mark a distinction between the “animal” within humans and the “higher nature” within humans, thus drawing a line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom and larger ecosystem. How does Thoreau’s understanding of human presence in relationship to other living things impact his writing and philosophy?
In the “Conclusion” of Walden, Thoreau says that one doesn’t need to travel around the country or world, as long as you get to know where you are at already and become and important part of your community, that is all that is important. You can delve deep into what your immediate surroundings have to offer you. But he than later goes on to ask why we tolerate dullness in our everyday lives when there are so many incredible things in the world for us to experience. If we are to stay in one place our entire lives and become an integral part of our community, wouldn’t it all become very dull and repetitive after a while? I ask, is it more important to stay rooted in your community and full fill yourself in that way, or would it be better to travel the world and see all of what is out there to full fill yourself? What would Thoreau believe is the better choice?
In “Small is Beautiful” I found Schumacher’s work profoundly visionary. Schumacher is not only suggesting that modern neoclassical economics is no longer adequate because it prioritizes individualism but also that this widespread attitude that “man” can control nature–this independence from nature– has spread into our everyday worldview and economic way of life and this view will be the demise of humanity, that is, if we don’t shift our thinking to interdependence with nature and community. Moreover, Schumacher suggests that the free-market model assumes that all people care about is buying more stuff. It ignores all the important things that psychologists have told us to make us happy, such as the fact that we really care about our relationships. We care about raising healthy children. We care about contributing to our communities. These are the things that create a meaningful and happy life, but, in free-market economics, helping others isn’t part of the model.
I enjoy the philosophical quality within the questions that Schumacher asks in each chapter, for example in the chapter “The Proper Use of Land” Schumacher asks an interesting question on land ethics. “One of the most important task for any society is to distinguish between ends and means-to-ends and to have some sort of cohesive view and agreement about this. Is the land merely a means of production or is it something more, something that is an end in its self?”
Is Schumacher suggesting that our ultimate means are not products created through human or automated production but instead are the ecological services provided by nature? Can or should we calculate the health of the world ecosystem in which we derive are raw material as key factors of production? How does this relationship of land health and economic production intertwine with the health of people?
In the first chapter of Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” The Problem of Production, Schumacher discusses many things that I feel like should be common knowledge. Natural capital shouldn’t be used as income, it’s an inefficient system. Endless production and the transfer of technology are no way to develop and have a functioning society/economy.
My question is in what ways can we address the change in societal values needed to shift away from endlessly using natural capital as an income?
Schumacher begins “Small is Beautiful” by claiming Westernized civilizations have become to believe the problem of production has been solved. He writes how this idea of the problem of production as being solved makes it inherently hard to change the system we live in now. Schumacher says the way this belief came to be is due to our relationship with nature, and since the process of Westernization is spreading, the more people are also beginning to believe the problems of production have been solved. He writes that our issue in our economic system is that we view fossil fuels as income rather than capital and if we viewed things like coal, similar to how we view money in only using what we need to sustain its self before we need more. Instead we use fossil fuels as income and we keep taking and taking to make “income” without viewing the consequences. Due to the taking of fossil fuels we now are facing destruction of our planet and in response we talk about “education for leisure” and transfers of technology instead of focusing on redesigning our production system.
Through these first two chapters I felt like Schumacher was hinting the blame towards those who are in systematic control, and scientists and technologists. He says we aren’t being told of the possibilities of wind and solar but we are being told we are going into the Nuclear Age. When reading this I question who his directed audience is for this book, and if his intentions were to awaken society in hopes of over throwing our current economic system and beliefs.
In Schumacher’s “Small Is Beautiful” he writes in the first chapter that “one of the most fateful errors of our age is the belief that the problem of production has been solved(13).” It can be understood that he sees the means of production in today’s capitalistic society as harmful and the cause of many other issues. My question is if the problem of production has not been solved, which clearly it has not, how can we go about solving it? The United States and the western world are clearly a large super power with a clear idea of how production should work so how do you create this idea of how production should actually operate and make it marketable to where it would actually be able to be enforced in a country such as the US.
In Schumacher’s first chapter he seems to be introducing the idea that there are issues in production and that problem is that man has fought against nature, detached from it and become less dependent on it and more dependent on technology. He makes the point that if man “wins” his battle against nature, he would still be on the loosing side.
My question is this, have we become so dependent on technology that is has become the marker of a developed and modern society? Should the technologies that exist be what allows a society to be considered modern and developed?
So far, “Small is Beautiful” is my favorite books about economics- frankly, it is the only economics book that I have positive feelings about. It is an especially interesting read in its nature, being one that feels extremely relevant in today’s time, yet written in 1973, as the foreword by Bill mentions. It appears we are re-living that time where being ‘green’ is the new move, directions towards sustainability are being more widely accepted, and global climate change is a very present and creeping fear.
It is also an interesting switch from reading Thoreau, where his practices of living are more romantic, per say, and maybe even a little ‘extreme’ for a society of today, but at the same time, probably the way that the Earth prefers us to go, but most will not (or maybe they will, in a sort-of modern, Beavan family style). But so far in this read by Schumacher, it feels like he is calling for a more ‘realistic’ way of everyone to live an equitable life that accords with Nature as well. Not that the life that Thoreau chose to live out in his days at Walden is not admirable, or should not be sought out, but it is not one that an average, consuming American would say, ‘ok yes I’ll do this!’ to, at least not unless they were forced and then would that really be achieving anything?
So, my question is, applying Schumacher’s principles, do you think that if we establish a society based on equity and responsibility towards the Earth, would people start to appreciate living in a way that achieves ‘Thoreauian’ goals of being closer to Nature, and appreciating the Earth more? Or would that still be exclusive to the few hippies that have come to appreciate it on their own terms/paths of life? Do you think Thoreau would be happy in the ‘Small is Beautiful’ economy? Or would he still seek to escape that society and write about its ills in his abode by the lake?
“Next to family,it is works and the relationships established by work that are the true foundations of society.” (p.38, Schumacher) In the chapter Peace & Permanence, Schumacher makes a claim that our approach to peace (that it requires prosperity as a precursor) is flawed and within that thesis he lists out ways that technology should serve the global population. He says that technology should leave space for human creativity, lest men become “machine minders” (p.37). He says that the work of a person, mindful work that is, and that person’s family is the foundation of society. This can be read in a way as anti-Thoreau. Thoreau places his emphasis on individual development as a way to inner peace and writes that being attached to work and family is not the way to fulfillment and certainly wouldn’t say that it is the “true foundation of society.” Are Schumacher and Thoreau even having the same conversation? They both speak of the good life but they seem to use such different examples and land in different places that it is hard to compare them, so should we? Is it worth it to draw connections or point out differences between the authors? Or do they stand alone as two different accounts on two different subjects wholly.
In “Small is Beautiful” Schumacher starts his first chapter by saying, “Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that, if he won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side”. (14) Schumacher introduces this book by talking about the problem with production and how we believe we have solved this problem. The first thing I thought of when reading this chapter was the time period it takes place in. Schumacher mentions the impacts of fossil fuels and the changes that need to happen to preserve these nonrenewable fuels. This book was published in 1973 and it seems like not much has changed, which is obviously very concerning. He mentions the year 2000 multiple times making me think he was hoping major change would take place by then, but with it being 2018, it seems like not enough has happened when looking at the transitions from nonrenewable energy to renewable energy. Schumacher writes about how at least most people in rich countries have become so comfortable with their lives that we haven’t stopped to think about the consequences that come with our actions. I think we are more aware of these consequences in todays world, but I believe many in power are still too comfortable to make the major changes that are need when it comes to our environment.
Question: What will our future look like 30 or 40 years from now? Can we as a society make the major changes that are necessary to move away from our current collision course or will we be in the same situation we’ve been in for years?
The issues that Schumacher delves into in these first chapter are those of ethics, metaphysics, policy, and progress. I was interested especially in the chapter “The Greatest Resource-Education”, in which he talks of “reconciling opposites”, our divergent issues in which there are no plain solution. These issues call upon “not merely the employments of his reasoning powers but the commitment of his whole personality” (104). Many of the issues we see with production and globalization, he says, lead back to education; not only is the application of it not focused on, but the content as well. It may not be our solution, but it is entirely part of our problem. “Problem” as in the furthering of western-colonial ways of thinking. The distancing from the metaphysical-identifying the human condition and clarifying our convictions- is what has led education to be too focused on the objective sciences and still heavily influenced by positivism (93). I would like to know how this change in education begins, especially in our era where people younger and younger are having access to the internet, where they can observe information they may have not seen at that point in their life otherwise, as well as ways of thinking and being- all information without being taught in a classroom. As well, is such progress towards the metaphysical better developed through daily practice-as we have read from Thoreau in Walden-or is it through change in education policy?
Schumacher does not waste any time in his book and delves straight into issues regarding economic theory versus real-life application. These economic structures were created in the west, for the west. It is undeniable that these ideals are problematic, even in the global north. Schumacher focuses on the issues that arise from western economics, modes of production, and technologies being necessary within the global south to promote “proper development.”
There are plenty of reasons why this is problematic, but he starts out by pointing out the issues with the way people in the global north view their relationships with nature. He points out that, “modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature, but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it.” It is certainly fair to say that we have at least partially conquered nature, if you think about how much destruction we have caused since the industrial revolution. We certainly have the capacity to destroy nature, and we have been for centuries. Our violence towards nature is often misunderstood. Humans live within nature, even if we cover it with concrete and asphalt to make it feel like something new and different. This leads people to fall under the assumption that anthropogenic activity does not necessarily harm nature, and that nature cannot harm humans. This is inherently wrong. When we destroy nature it tends to react in ways such as natural disasters, droughts, and climate fluctuation. Scientists have known of these potential symptoms of environmental destruction for quite some time, and now we are truly starting to see them play out because humans did not listen to the warnings.
How can the western world think that we have perfected the art of production when we are still destroying our environment in the process? What can we learn from what some in the west would call “under-developed countries” when it comes to living *with* the land, rather than off of the land? Do they have more to offer us than we have to offer them?
The association of “largeness” and “prosperity” is heavily interwoven in a mass consumerist society. In “The Question of Size”, Schumacher addresses the efficiency of smallness as well as the need to measure appropriate scales for whatever is being assessed. “What I wish to emphasize is the duality of the human requirement when it comes to the question of size: there is no single answer. For his different purposes man needs many different structures, both small ones and large one, some exclusive and some comprehensive” (70). The appropriate scale must be established to best suit what is trying to get accomplished, such as in a teaching scenario or the size of a city, these could be large or small, depending on the circumstance. No precise answer can be achieved but certainly an estimate that is efficient can be concluded. An issue that has arisen from not applying appropriate scales to systems in place and thus disproportionally affecting groups of people has been poverty. Large scaled powers, such as mass production sites, have led communities to lose livelihoods and thus live in poverty. These powers become richer while the poor become poorer, leading communities to move to large cities in search of livelihoods. If these sites of production could become decentralized and moved down to an appropriate scale, a more equitable world could be shaped. “Therefore we must learn to think in terms of an articulated structure that can cope with a multiplicity of small-scale units. If economic thinking cannot grasp this it is useless” (80). These small-scale units would be suitable to promote human-centered economics, these systems’ priorities being centered around peoples’ struggles and happiness rather than analytical rates and capital accumulation. The question I am asking now is if we start to set these appropriate scales, what would it take or what barriers must we place for those with power and wealth to not sabotage these scales for their own benefit or must we start afresh as Schumacher has suggested?
When Schumacher published “Small is Beautiful” in 1974, our society had already become reliant on technology due to the use of fossil fuels – even though industrialization had only occurred a few years prior. Schumacher calls for a radical transformation “to get off our present collision course” (21). In 2018, how have we made positive changes and technological advancements to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels? Are any of these innovations relevant or have we passed the point of being able to thrive in a system that is not completely dependent on fossil fuels?
Schumacher spends much of the chapter The Role of Economics, explaining why something may be considered uneconomic or economic. He also uses this chapter to note that while some activity might be considered uneconomic, there are other reasons outside of economy why one may partake in said activity. Schumacher goes on to explain the role of price in our daily lives and at one point admonishes economics in saying “there can be nothing sacred in something that has a price”.
Is Schumacher right, that price and physical value ultimately make something unholy? How do we attempt to reconcile the privatization of beach and mountains and beautiful places? Is it wrong to attempt to protect an area by charging admission (Grandfather mountain for example?)
Throughout this whole book, I could not get over how pretentious Thoreau sounded when describing his endeavors and his musings on society and the human condition. Upon reading the conclusion, however, I realized the reason I was so critical of Thoreau was because his experiment at Walden pond and the subsequent thoughts about how humans should live their lives made me uneasy and caused me to reflect on how I live my life. His thoughts about being true to ourselves, pursuing our own path, and stepping outside of boundaries established by society resonated with me and yet I chastise people who disrupt the status quo (while silently wishing I could do the same). The quote that stuck out to me most was: “The surface of the earth is soft and impressible by the feet of men; and so with the paths which the mind travels. How worn and dusty, then, must be the highways of the world, how deep the ruts of tradition and conformity!” (214). American society is marked by its obsession with maintaining freedom, but how much freedom do we truly have? Is breaking free from social constraints only to be (potentially) ostracized by those around you too much to ask of an individual, even for the sake of “self discovery”?
The final chapters of “Walden” contain themes of renewal, revitalization, and even revolution. Thoreau reflects on Spring as a time where he feels that we can let go of past ill will and begin anew. Spring is a universal time to start with a fresh, blank slate. Thoreau urges the reader to confidently pursue the “direction of his dreams” while seeking what is worthwhile rather than superfluous. He asks us to examine our lives and be critical of our “civilized” lives and find our truest selves and meaningful existence.
Throughout the end of the book, Thoreau utilizes the themes of spring to encourage the audience to start fresh and adopt meaningful ways of living. The author invokes a strong sense of agency in the reader to abandon frivolities… and hints at perhaps the dawn of a new chapter in human civilization if we are to come to our senses quick enough.
Since this is one of the few works I have read by Thoreau, I question what he did with his life after Walden. Did he fall back into our capitalist, consumer trap or was he able to persevere with is values unscathed (or fall somewhere in between like all of us)?
In order to fully realize self-reliance, Thoreau plants a large plot of bean plants, as well as a smaller amount of other crops, such as potatoes, turnips, and peas. And while he does achieve a certain amount of independence, he still does choose to trade and participate in a market type system to a minimal degree, but he claims that this not not important, as the real value of his actions is the lessons in transcendence and self discipline of himself rather than the actual cultivation of crops and sustenance. This only strengthens his earlier points that living a life focus on self reliance and necessity will offer up ample opportunity to reflect and improve ones self. The necessity of these daily tasks is stressed even further upon the arrival of winter, during which Thoreau shifts from harvesting to gathering wood for fires in order to stay warm. This is a turning point in the book, as Thoreau reflects on how winter is affecting every aspect of the land around walden pond; from the fish being trapped under the frozen lake, to the mammals preparing for hibernation, to the geese migrating south toward warmer weather; nothing can escape the influence of winter, just like no man, whether poor or privileged, can escape the powers of the environment, and are all equally subject to its tendencies.
My question is, while self-reliance is obviously a key theme throughout Walden, is there really such a thing? Thoreau is heavily dependent on nature, and although this is not the dependency he refers to when he considers self-reliance, isn’t it still the same? And even if he is reliant on nature, is there anyway to move around this since nature is an overarching, all powerful force?
In the first chapter of Small is Beautiful, Schumacher claims that “one of the most fateful errors of our age is the belief that ‘the problem of production has been solved” (13). He further attributes the prevalence of this belief to our rapidly diminishing attitude towards nature, particularly in “Western” countries. We no longer experience ourselves as part of nature, Schumacher says, but rather a force destined to conquer it (14). As such, we have no regard for the natural limits imposed by nature, and continue to take without giving back. In explaining the value of natural resources as capital instead of income, Schumacher provides an extremely logical comparison to how a business that is spending capital at an unreplenishable rate would acknowledge a problem with production. This is how we need to treat natural resources. Fossil fuels, for example, are not renewable resources and will thus one day run out. In a society whose dependence on fossil fuels cannot be overstated, it would only make sense for us to first focus on conserving these resources and then, inevitably, funding research and creation of renewable energy sources–“If we squander our fossil fuels, we threaten civilisation; but if we squander the capital represented by living nature around us, we threaten life itself (17)…the modern industrial system, with all its intellectual sophistication, consumes the very basis on which it has been erected” (21).
One essential value of Sustainable Development is meeting the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations. The foreward to this book includes a bit of insight into previous presidential attitudes towards production and consumption limits, emphasizing the Reagan administration which set the precedent for the current American attitude which completely disregards the natural limits of the environment for an arbitrary measure of success. Economist Larry Summers said “There are no…limits to the carrying capacity of the earth that are likely bind any time in the foreseeable future…the idea that we should put limits on growth because of some natural limit is a profound error” (xiv). I don’t want to say this guy is stupid, but either way he doesn’t directly face the beginning of climate change consequences today and surely won’t experience the worst of it in coming years.
I guess my question is, how do we return to a positive, mutual, sustainable relationship with nature? How do we incentivize sacrificing convenience and luxury to reduce problems that the average American doesn’t and will never experience? Is reducing consumption possible within a capitalist system that is based on unlimited economic growth (aka environmental exploitation and degradation)?
Small is Beautiful by Schumacher challenges the current systems we have in place, exposes wrongs in our lifestyle choices, and shows the opportunity for better alternatives. This was my favorite book of the semester and it was very clear to me the issues being described and the way of thinking we should take for addressing the changes we can impose for bettering our economy, and in turn helping people rather than hurting. Schumacher addresses how western globalization and capitalism rule the world economic system and encourages a lifestyle that is excessive and exploitive and unequitable.
Like with the film on Bhutan’s economy and the drive for GDHappiness, Schumacher shows how there is equilibrium in a market defined by fair consumption and sustainable practices that value people and the environment for their true, priceless worth. “No serious exception can be taken to these statements if we adopt, as the experts have adopted, the metaphysical position of the crudest materialism, for which money costs and money incomes are the ultimate criteria and determinants of human action, and the living world has no significance beyond that of a quarry for exploitations” (119). He exposes how we currently prize inhumane paces of growth and that we do not address the necessary means of allowing people and the planet to be put at the top of our priorities. Our lifestyles then reflect not our own interests, but the interest of those who benefit most from the actions of the majority.
The consequences of these interests that are rooted in solely wealth and power cannot allow for a true democracy to be in effect because when the negatives are contested, the power gained suppresses voices and continues harm. From Small is Beautiful, we can see that when we realize that there are better ways to our development and economic practices, we can take the next step to act holistically in a way that holds the needs of people and the environment first rather than putting production and growth as the ideals to chase. My question is how would Schumacher address at this current time the consumption patterns of the western world verses forty years ago, and would his approaches to alternative methods and a push for changes be more, less, or the same intensity as when he wrote this book in the 70’s?
“Modern man does not experience himself a a part of nature, but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it…He even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that if he won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side”. (Schumacher, 21)
Schumacher’s take on resource exploitation should be shouted from each corner of the world, but loudest in America. This logic is so well put, and so deeply relevant in our time of mass exploitation, for the immediate gratification of wealth and the slow violence that entails. Schumacher places the root of the blame of this illusion, or delusion, to our [modernized man] inability to acknowledge the irony of the industrial system. The practice demolished the very basis of which this system has been built on.
How is this logic not acknowledged in the United State’s policy making? Is there a real argument that technology has the ability to overcome the fact of this?
Small is Beautiful by Schumacher conceptualize a change that is needed in society. He focuses on how mass consumption and economies based on peoples singular interest are not allowing for the positive growth that is needed. “For every activity there is a certain appropriate scale, and the more active and intimate the activity, the smaller the number of people can take part” (70) This brings the notion of size of all thing are very important.
Should there be a focus on small scale economic to allow every person to benefit the way that is human right? Would smaller governmental regions allow for this change to occur?
In the chapter Peace and Permanence, Schumacher talks about how it is a common thought that the way to peace is to “follow the road to riches” (23). This way of thinking promotes mass consumerism and the assumption that everyone can actually achieve prosperity. However, both mass consumerism and prosperity for all isn’t possible on a finite planet. Despite this, economists continue to see the world through the lens of virtually limitless goods and services. In my opinion, this way of thinking is dangerous in two ways, number one it promotes the exploitation of the environment, and it provides false hope to those who have been fed the idea that everyone can prosper (monetarily speaking).
My question is, How can we (people in the first world) change our ideas of prosperity so that we don’t focus on monetary success, while still living in a consumerist society?