Piers Fawkes on "Less But Better"
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 01.30.07
For quite a while we have promoted the idea that "less is the new more" and "small is the new big" and how the key to living with less is good design. Now Trendwatcher Piers Fawkes at PSFK jumps in with "Less But Better: It's a simple idea but it's difficult to see how the idea would spread among the majority of Americans.....I'd bet that many of these people consider themselves pro-American and are concerned by the impact by their country's dependance on foreign oil. So, what would happen if we sold them the idea that if they consumed less, their country would be safer and stronger?
Forever the marketer, Piers suggests a method: " We could kick start this easily: just ask Oprah to put a 'Less But Better' ribbon sticker in every one of her magazines for each and every reader to attach to the rear of their cars - just by their 'Support Our Troops' ribbon sticker."
Read it all at ::PSFK
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Sustainable Design Festival in Buenos Aires this Weekend
- Thanksgiving: So Much to be Thankful For
- Buy Nothing Day 2008 Has a Hollow Ring
- Santa Clara to Governator: We See Your RE Standards and We Raise You
USDA Investigates Cornucopia Allegations Against Wal-Mart
|
Satori: Two Pushing for a Conscious Design
|
Seems hard, as an outsider I tend to see the USA as a place that enjoys and celebrates abundance.
Selling Americans on "Less" of anything is a real challenge. We've been trained on the idea that even when you want to do the right thing, you do it by over-consuming the "right" products. Living a minimalist lifestyle is one we've been trained against from a very young age. We are truly a materialist society in that we define our self worth by the products we own (whether they be a Hummer or a Prius with supplemental battery-pack mod). The easiest call to action that you can make to an American is to ask him to consume MORE of the RIGHT products. Asking him to just consume LESS (period.full stop.) is a real challenge.
Seems like a hard sell to me. There's nothing morally wrong with abundance. So many cultures have been marked by privation and suffering for so long now that the past century of abundance feels like a hard-won privilege. Never mind that the current generations alive today did little to nothing to win that privilege -- one always wants one's children to have an easier, healthier life of abundance and joy -- and so our parents and grandparents who labored to give us what we have now are probably satisfied.
Seems obvious to me that the question is not about "less", the question is about "abundance". Less junk food is better when you are well fed, but what about when you are hungry?
The thing that (still) makes America marvelous is the ability to choose your own form of abundance. Sure, it means that lots of people will be starved for physical affection but rich in cable channels, but isn't it the individual's responsibility to shape one's life as one sees fit? Does it work to sell wisdom and personal reflection on a bumper sticker?
um... I'd have to agree, this will be a hard sell. You've seen the reaction from folks who are actually treehugger readers already. If they can't be convinced, it's definitely going to present a challenge.
Yep, everyone in the world is also being encouraged to consume from a young age. While it's quite disappointing that folks don't find it morally wrong to use 6 times their sustainable share of the worlds' resources, they seem to already believe it's one of their rights now, and that's hard to turn back.
Sure, it would be fine if 'abundance' in one country didn't amount to a 'shortage' in another, but when folks fail to calculate the impact of their lifestyle on others, or simply don't care, what can you do? ....buy a piece of land with a defense system in the mountains and watch the show as their kids float past, I guess.
Well, it's arguable that more junk food can ever be better for a starving person. Junk food would just make the person hungrier, while not giving out much nutrients.
Honestly, is Pierre actually saying anything new? Most of us treehuggers know by now that "less is better" and that if we all consumed less, bought less, ate less, the world would be a better place and we'd probably be a whole lot healthier.
What's the point of posting about him saying something unless he actually has a real plan to back it up?
And is there something wrong with Typekey on here? Everytime I try to comment on a new post, it tells me to sign in again.
Canada is neither hot nor humid. It also happens to be, by far, the single largest foreign source of oil for the United States.
The U.S. cutting back on foreign oil imports propably wouldn't do much to their economy, but it would certainly kill Canada's economy.
You may be surprised at how this angle could work. I wouldnt discount it as a hard sell. Lets be optimistic. Alot of right-wing Americans are concerned about buying only American made products, especially older people. And its not only the lefts that are noticing how things are running afoul in the US. In fact, it could be a perfect way to help left and right meet in the middle. Great angle. Keep it up!
" We could kick start this easily: just ask Oprah to put a 'Less But Better' ribbon sticker in every one of her magazines for each and every reader to attach to the rear of their cars - just by their 'Support Our Troops' ribbon sticker."
Less Oprah? Yes, that would be better!