I am left speechless by this New York Times article about an environmentalist couple who have given up even toilet paper in order to “save the planet.” It is a “lifestyle experiment they call No Impact. Its rules are evolving…but to date include eating only food (organically) grown within a 250-mile radius of Manhattan; (mostly) no shopping for anything except said food; producing no trash (except compost); using no paper; and, most intriguingly, using no carbon-fueled transportation.”
How exactly could one parody this?
(Link via Drudge.)
{ 27 comments }
It just goes to show that every era has had their ascetics (and the holier than thou that goes with it).
It is also true that eras where asceticism was in high currency were the eras of little or no overall advancement (in terms of plenitude of food, clothing, peace etc etc).
It should be titled “Minimal Impact”. They clearly are using some electricity (not sure if they have a solar panel or windmill on the side of the building, but I doubt it. Also, one supposes the place is heated.
However, they are free to do as they please, which is the beautiful thing about liberty.
Hopefully by showing something close to the logical conclusion of the environmentalist’s movement’s views other people may not be so sympathetic to its cause.
One plus is that the price of toilet paper should go down… and that means more for me!!!
Yancey, I agree with everything that you just wrote.
It should also, as always, be noted that a lifestyle like this is only possible because of the complexity of the capitalist society. In what other age could you write full-time (in such specific areas) and rely on income from the masses rather than patronage from a noble?
Where did the complexity of New York city come from that allows them to live in a huge apartment complex, to be served by every manner of merchant (think about the specialization that they require in their shopping list!), etc.
I found particular pleasure in seeing that, in order to embark on a year without buying any factory-produced stuff, the Mrs. went on a shopping binge. It’s the environmentalist’s equivalent of a ‘Fat Tuesday’, I suppose. The message seems clear enough: the way to combat global warming is to be wealthy enough to make conscience payments. Like Al Gore, the rest of us peons need to find a way to assuage our piece of the collective, societal guilt . . . with money, of course.
250 miles….that seems like a random number. The proper way to do this would of course imply bringing food with horses, so that should reduce the milleage by a good 100-150 miles if you still want to keep the food fresh and “affordable” (hah!).
I live in town so I usually walk and bike for groceries. I am just now nearing the end of the tank of gas I put in my Honda Civic 8 weeks ago. I live in a mild climate on the California coast where air conditioning is unheard of, our warmest day on the North Coast is in the 70′s. In the winter we see the 40′s at night. My power bill for my small but adequate home runs $50- $65 per month. I have installed florescent lighting because it lasts longer than incandescent. Keeps me off the ladder.
I grow a lot of my own produce, thereby converting carbon dioxide to oxygen as well as getting exercise. I have installed high efficiency appliances in my rentals and home as a matter of good business practices. I can pay myself or pay the power, water companies and the appliance repairman. So, as a good capitalist, where is my carbon credit?
AWC
The reason why there are so few conservative comedians is because it’s impossible to make leftists sound any funnier. Did you cover the Lego ban in Seattle?
Re Dan Coleman’s post.
You are right. This story reminds me of an observation made of Mahatmat Gandhi: ‘It costs a great deal of money to keep Gandhi living in poverty.’
Re ‘Fat Tuesday’, is that a American term for Shrove Tuesday?
What wimps. This is like Marie Antoinette playing at being a shepherdess in the Petit Trianon. Why aren’t they living in a village or an urban slum in an LDC? Then they’d _really_ experience ‘Low-Impact Living’.
Ms. Shenoy,
Brilliant analogy… So true and funny!
Sudha Shenoy,
Thank you for the best laugh of the month, perhaps the year.
“How exactly could one parody this?”
One may wonder about this post as well, which seems to be an excellent self-parody.
So a left-leaning writer, with support from his wife, embarks on entrepreurial experiment to try to better put his ideas about community and the environment into practice in his own life. From this bastion of libertarianism, what does he earn?
Scorn, with nary a mention of crunchy cons, or of how individual choice drives the market. How funny!
Geez Louise, does every single post to a libertarian blog have to contain the “anything peaceful is OK” caveat? Can’t we take that for granted and move on? Isn’t it possible to find these people’s bizarre behavior and ideology noteworthy — and, yes, stupid and ridiculous?
Tom, well said.
But are you simply continuing the self-parody?
Is the related behavior noted here also bizarre, stupid and ridiculous?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/opinion/26mon4.html?th&emc=th
http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/dining/02litch.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/business/24humane.html?ex=1319342400&en=d40400549b62870d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.
I have always appreciated how Austrian economics has respected the individual’s subjective valuations and preferences. What reason is there to be contemptuous of others who value things differently, if they are not trying to impose their values on us?
I, for one, do not find the notion of eating organic and local food stupid and ridiculous. In fact, I am trying to do more of that nowadays.
I’m obviously not saying that eating organic food is stupid and ridiculous. I’m saying that, oh, not using toilet paper is pretty idiotic.
TT,
This article and the articles you linked are NOT the same idea. Preference for the quality of local produce and a concern for the humane treatment of the meat you ingest (okay, I consider that last statement a bit nutty, but I’ll let it go) are more-or-less expressions of rational self-interest. But to stop using toilet paper? That’s the point at which it becomes silly.
Presumably, they eat foods from local producers to cut down on the fuel used to transport it. So where does the animal feed and fertilizers used by those producers come from? Local as well? Not to mention the fact that they treat a single meal out as some kind of sin, and send back their daughter’s paper cups unused (and thrown away regardless) to “cut down on trash”.
The point is that these people are chasing a dead-end philosophy. If everyone miraculously started to follow their example tomorrow, they would be quickly out of a job and starving in their beloved Manhattan apartment. It’s nothing less than self-flagellation for the modern environmentalist.
Oh, and criticizing this type of ideology is no different from criticizing people who endorse protectionism. They are free to do as they wish, but when they become activists (as this couple has), it behooves the rest of us to oppose them if they are wrong, as they clearly are in this case. When we expose their flawed thinking, it helps others to see and avoid their mistakes.
Scott D,
How can you determine what is in another person’s “rational self-interest”? How can you absolutely know that the another person would be better off not using toilet paper?
If everyone started doing the same thing ANY one person does, it would wreak complete havoc with our economy. For example, I generally don’t like to use pharmaceutical drugs. If everyone followed my suit, that would throw a lot of people out of work, right? Does that mean that I should be subject to ridicule? Can you really know for sure what would happen if a lot of people started to follow this couple’s path? Perhaps the mass market would notice and start to do a better job of catering to their concerns and the marketplace would be ultimately improved.
Tom’s criticism has nothing to do with protectionism since this couple is not advocating state intervention.
And back to my main point. What constructive purpose does it serve to show contempt for people who have different preferences than your own? Does it further the acceptance of Austrian economics? Or does it alienate people who might otherwise be sympathetic to that approach? How do you react when others show contempt for your ideals and preferences when they don’t really know where you are coming from?
So when I observe that it’s a little strange for people to forswear the use of toilet paper, I’m potentially alienating future supporters of Austrian economics? Are you saying this with a straight face?
It isn’t that they have their preferences and I have mine, and therefore that libertarians can have nothing to say here. Their preferences are based on faulty assumptions and an anti-human ideology that if taken seriously would destroy the division of labor. And the division of labor is kind of something that Austrian economists care about.
The back-and-forth that I see in this thread, in my opinion, is akin to many debates I’ve witnessed that use appeals to ‘free speech’ as ammo in a debate.
Let’s say that a comedian makes an outrageous statement. Amidst all of the critiques on an internet discussion board, someone is bound to note that the man has free speech, after all, and so that it must at least be recognized that he is free to make a bigoted / offensive / whatever statement. The typical response goes something like “I am not debating his right to free speech — besides, don’t I have the right to free speech, and so can’t I use that freedom to criticize his exercise of free speech?”
The counterargument to this, of course, is “Hey, I’m not saying you don’t have a right to free speech, I’m just pointing out his right to free speech, and further I’m using my free speech to criticize your free speech criticizing his free speech,” and so on ad infinitum.
Get off of the moral high horse in critiquing Mr. Woods. The couple in the article clearly assert that they are acting out of firm moral convictions and do so in contrast to your average American. And Mr. Woods is justified in pointing out that the content of these beliefs are clearly out-there — and, well, downright incorrect — when economics are considered.
No, they aren’t forcing these beliefs on anyone, but isn’t it relevant on an economics blog to point out bizarre situations of people acting on blatant economic fallacies (e.g. the high morality of supporting local farmers, or the economic benefits of no toilet paper)?
Where does Mr. Woods say to lock them up? How is his critique of their lifestyle any more ‘harsh’ than the couple’s implicit and explicit critiques of the average American?
Saul:
“How can you determine what is in another person’s “rational self-interest”? How can you absolutely know that the another person would be better off not using toilet paper?”
Because they effectively say, “I would be better off if I used toilet paper,” but then choose to do the opposite. If they said, “Oh, we always wanted to forswear toilet paper but could never find the time. Now we can do that and help the environment too!” I would be more amenable to your argument.
“If everyone started doing the same thing ANY one person does, it would wreak complete havoc with our economy.”
You’re absolutely right, and I agree. Here’s the thing. The logical chain of thinking that comes from this article is that if we ALL were as socially conscientious as Mr. Beavan and family, our lives would be better. On the other hand, if only a few dozen (or hundred, or thousand) people are enchanted by this idea and choose to adopt this lifestyle, it makes absolutely NO difference to their “No impact” cause. Therefore, what they are doing is irrational.
“Tom’s criticism has nothing to do with protectionism since this couple is not advocating state intervention.”
Think “buy American” to arrive at my point. In the case of protectionism, not only is the analysis wrong, but so are the actions people take to try to correct the “problem”. That’s the equivalence I’m trying to get across.
“What constructive purpose does it serve to show contempt for people who have different preferences than your own?”
A preference is one thing. These people are trying to make a statement quite publicly–and they’re wrong. If you want to set up a shrine to Karl Marx in your basement, go right ahead. But if you start a blog exhorting the wonderful insights you’ve had from the labor theory of value, I’m going to criticize your thinking and try to persuade you and others that you are wrong. That is the nature of human interaction. Staying silent will be taken as tacit agreement.
Tom,
You stated: “So when I observe that it’s a little strange for people to forswear the use of toilet paper, I’m potentially alienating future supporters of Austrian economics? Are you saying this with a straight face?”
No, I did not make my comment in connection to the above statement. I made it primarily in regard to this one: “Isn’t it possible to find these people’s bizarre behavior and ideology noteworthy — and, yes, stupid and ridiculous?” And yes, I do believe that this type of statement can alienate potential students and supporters of Austrian economics. Personally I have a high regard for Austrian economics and I still find this display of contempt alienating.
You say that their preferences are based on faulty assumptions. But how can you be sure that their assumptions are wrong? Maybe mankind would be better off if people ate more organic, locally-grown foods. And even if they are wrong, in whole or in part, is it not precisely this type of attitude which logically leads to the welfare state? After all, if people are too deluded or irresponsible to make the right choices, it then opens the economy’s door to “experts” and central planning. I don’t mean to suggest that you are advocating this or that you would support this, but can you see how the 2 phenomena go together?
Finally, you say that their preferences and ideology, if taken seriously, would destroy the division of labor. But how can we know that? Maybe lots of people would follow them, the price of their foods would become prohibitive, and the trend would reverse? Or maybe farmers and food companies would find better ways to meet their needs within the global economy. We can never know. If, on the other hand, they were lobbying for these changes to take place through law, there would be good reason for concern.
I understand your concerns about what this couple is doing and believe that this could have been a great opportunity to show how they may be on the wrong track. But can’t this be done with civility?
Bizarre, ridiculous, and full of self-conceit. The farmer driving 250 miles is using carbon-fueled transportation – as is his tractors, etc., the waste water treatment center is powered by carbon-based fuels, and the couple themselves are burning carbon fuels – carbohydrates – even as they pridefully resist wiping. These are two folks whose hands I hope I never shake. Yuck.
Tom:
“Environmentalism = Primitivism?”
“Their preferences are based on faulty assumptions and an anti-human ideology that if taken seriously would destroy the division of labor.”
What’s “anti-human” about recognizing that we are now born into tremendously complex and frequently alienating societies on which we can individually exert very little influence, while still trying to find ways to wrest a small measure of control over it?
If anything, this couple’s experiment is profoundly human, and mirrors a dissatisfaction with mass society that can be seen globally.
Rather it is your shallowly reflexive scorn (and concern that their efforts pose a risk to society!) that seems ridiculous and unjustifiedly alarmist, if not misanthropic.
The couple make it clear that they have no answers, but simply concerns and a willingness to make an effort to address them. In many ways they are swimming upstream (and are in a privileged position to do so), and they may find that various aspects of their efforts to be quixotic or counterproductive. But it seems clear that the effort is already paying them dividends in increased satisfaction with life in the big city:
“But then Michelle surprised herself by loving her walk to and from the office. It gave her back something she missed since becoming a mom: time alone. … Having perennially struggled with finding time for the gym to wrestle off our middle-aged midriffs, a couple of pounds immediately dropped off us both. Who needs a gym when you’re riding bikes and refusing lifts in elevators and walking everywhere?
“In that one week, we discovered that, without transportation to rush us around and junk-food media to steal our time, there is a different, calmer life to be had right here in Manhattan. No TV to oppress you with news of Britney’s failure as a mother. No concerns that charging another pair of Diesel jeans might be declined by Amex. No worrying that the bad cooking oil from the Chinese takeout is clogging your coronary artery. …
“We got the glimpse of a life with an entirely different rhythm. We began to think that, by depriving us of our Madison Avenue addictions, the no impact experiment might actually make us happier. It was only a seven-day experiment, but it convinced us that living no impact can be done, it can be done pleasantly, and that we could conceivably end up happier rather than sadder–which is why, God help us, we’re in it for a year.”
http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/the_personal_im.html
Care to actually try to work through what most bothers you? How do a few inconsistently Luddite greenies threaten either civilization or your view of it?
I ran across this little counter-take in response to reactions to this story.
Food for thought.
http://www.dohiyimir.org/2007/03/beyond_parody_i.html.
Comments on this entry are closed.