The impossibility of "Imagine no possessions" within our society

Recently I began riding my bicycle to work. Remembering being the one behind the wheel, I began by riding on the sidewalk, keeping out of the way so the cars didn't have to be inconvenienced by me. Then I realized, "Hey, I'm one person on this bike, and that is one person in that car. There is no more value to that person than me for being surrounded by a greater mass of metal, glass and plastic". But this concept is completely ingrained in us- the more stuff you have, the more you're worth. Then I thought maybe that's why we gather all these items to ourselves. The bigger our accumulation is, the bigger we feel we are in terms of impact and import. We want to stand out, be noticed. We want to drive a big vehicle so people get out of our way. We need to feel we are set above and apart from the masses.

Back when we lived in smaller scale communities like tribes, when communities numbered in the hundreds and not in the millions, we could be recognized for our talents and deeds. Everyone knew everyone else personally. The status symbols were feathers in a head-dress. We still send universally-understood signals of our status. But now our possessions signify our status. What do I mean by signals? Here are some assumptions made about the owners of an SUV and a McMansion: they must have some minimum level of intelligence or cunning since they must earn a pretty decent paycheck. Similarly, assumptions are made about the person riding the bike. They might be quite poor; homeless even. Maybe they've gotten too many DWIs and lost their license. Now if you want, you can buy expensive specialty gear to identify yourself as a "cyclist" versus a lowly bike rider. Assumptions you might make about a "cyclist" include that the person has some minimum level of athletic ability and motivation. And most likely they belong to a higher socioeconomic status because those people tend to do something like cycle during their leisure time as opposed to, say, selling crack on the streets. Please understand that I am not trying to validate these assumptions; only point them out.

My car is another example. To save money, and because I am trying to reduce the number of miles I drive for environmental reasons, I decided not to lease another new car. Having to drive a 16 year old Pontiac Sunbird is its own deterrent. I am not saying that anyone is wrong for making these assumptions. It is an excellent deduction that no one would voluntarily choose to drive a rusted-out car. Safety, reliability and comfort are qualities woefully lacking in such a vehicle. We do own one safe late model car for those reasons.

The point I am making is this: we have become a consumerist society because we have this fundamental human need for recognition and validation by others. We tend to identify with a group or type, and align our outward cues accordingly: dress, possessions. This is universally understood whether were are conscious of it or not. What signals am I sending here? In my concert T-shirts and sweats, I will probably never be mistaken for a "cyclist." And I will never be mistaken for a college graduate with a good job while driving my car. I know I am sending signals that cause people people to underrate my intelligence, ambition and ability to succeed. This bothers me to some degree, so I frequently find myself talking to those around me about the car and my bike riding to call attention to the disparity. I can take comfort from the fact that the people who know me have me categorized somewhat correctly. Since my "rides" and manner of dress are a matter of choice, not necessity, my self-esteem can remain intact. And I know that the times I've been stranded and locked out by rusty locks would have been dealt with with a lot less equanimity and good humor if I had no other choice but to drive a car like this.

I am not suggesting that I am an exception. I make my own assumptions about "yuppies," which is why I choose not to be identified with them. I think of them as materialistic and lacking depth. Over and over again, I have been surprised by how different someone is than I assumed once I get to know him or her. But that has not yet stopped me from making these assumptions.

The second reason that our societal structure contributes to excessive resource consumption is that we do not receive the support we need from our society. Once, the community cared for children and elders. Now most of us work at things which have little or nothing to do with food acquisition, shelter constuction or dependent care, all so that we have enough money for food, shelter and dependent care. AND we have to drive far from our homes to do it. When times get tough, our support comes from impersonal social programs rather than from our neighbors.

So in summary, the major problem is the difference in environmental and societal impact between a feather and an SUV. Between a tribal hunter and a VP of marketing. We are not more inherently flawed and destined to ruin the earth than a tribal culture. Humans of all sorts have the same needs. The problem is the system we happen to live in. This is also not necessarily anyone's fault. Those involved in the agricultural and industrial revolution did not set out to ruin the earth. It is called progress for a reason, and I for one could not imagine living without the comforts and medical advances we enjoy. And like Quinn, I am not suggesting that we go back to living in caves. I am just pointing out that we need to at least recognize this as a problem and find ways to solve it within the context of our "modern" civilization.

I could end this by saying that I will no longer measure my worth by the things I've accumulated. But it's too late for that now. I have already gotten to the top of the mountain. Achieved the house and 2 cars and 2 kids and 2 dogs. I struggled for 9 years with the feelings of inferiority from not having a house. Even if I were inclined to give it all up now, that may affect the way I am perceived by others, but it will not affect the way I perceive my self for having attained those goals. It is very true that the bigger our accumulation is, the bigger our impact. But the impact is leaving a crater-sized footprint on the earth

I would like to credit Daniel Quinn and Bill McKibben for many of the ideas here.
Books by Daniel Quinn: Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael, Beyond Civilization
By Bill McKibben: Global Warming Can't Buy Happiness Published on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 by The Los Angeles Times
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0321-22.htm