When it Comes to the Environment, Enough is Enough

"If we "needed" less stuff, if we wanted less stuff, there would be more
resources to share and more goods to go around, which would buy more
time to discover technological fixes."

That's right - the way to solve poverty is by buying less. Ask the workers who depend on your (and all of our) "excessive" consumption for their daily bread if they agree?  

Buying a lot and concentrating it in the hands of a few doesn't seem to
be alleviating the problem of poverty either. This is a
multi-dimensional issue which needs a multi-dimensional solution:
First, less stuff in my closet doesn't mean less stuff
everywhere. It means less stuff in *my* closet and ideally more stuff
to go around elsewhere without unsustainably raiding the world's
resources. Second, it also means re-evaluating an economy that can only
be said to be healthy if it is forever using and selling and therefore
trashing more stuff. Third, what if people made money more from
relationship jobs than making and selling stuff. Jobs like helping each
other in times of need, teaching, nursing, driving for one another,
tending to others' children, to others' aging parents, shopping for
each other, cooking for each other, etc. instead of making things we
don't need and selling them to strangers. What if we took the money we
don't spend on tchotchkes and too-many dresses and ties and wrapping paper
(thereby saving billions of dollars annually) and instead spent it on
repairing bridges and roads and schools and hospitals What if we were
more a society of services than goods? The workers would earn a living
wage and society would be better off. Fourth, all these issues need to
be viewed through a social justice lens. We cannot save the world while
impoverishing and starving others. But that doesn't mean conducting
business as usual, which is managing quite well to neither save the
world nor spare billions from poverty and hunger.

The capitalist system does indeed do the best job. Not perfect, just better than socialism. Command economies don't work. Social justice is about letting the common man participate in capitalism. Socialism and command economies are feudal and unproductive. No honesty, just "who's your cousin". Laziness and exploitation result. People without the right cousins become the underclass. Voting democracy, rule of law, and MODIFIED free markets - those are the conditions that work. Modified - meaning, help those in need, but not full-blown socialism. The US has the balance pretty well right. Most of humanity would like to live in the US if it could. There are good reasons for that. It's not crankiness, restlessness, or unpleasant inlaws that make people emigrate from where they have always been, abandoning the graves of their ancestors.

It's good not to have too much stuff. You are right. It's good to pare down and be choosy. We are going to learn how to cook; that saves a ton of money. We are going to take our lunches to work. But afford a child? No. We are leaving that to the really poor. They like that kind of thing. Do you have kids, Rabbi?

Great concept. Simple weddings, at the local synagogue. A used gown bought on the internet. Home schooling. Shabbos dinner at my house next week, "bring something", such as a bag of apples, a red cabbage, sorbet for dessert, grapes, raisins, or nuts. Ask the elderly hippies around you. They know how to live simply. They own only washable, black, clothes and everything goes with everything.

Rabbi Cardin

you sound exactly like my Rabbi, which is why I have to disagree with you!

There's a point to be made that we should avoid placing too much of an emphasis on material possessions because they distract us from more important things in life, or because we should save our money for the future - but those reasons are about making wise personal choices, not living an good life.

If resources really were scarce, the idea that westerners are hogging all the stuff would make sense - but that's not the case.

As it is, the best thing we can do for the worlds poor is to buy the things they make - so they will have the income to buy the things they need.

And as for the natural world - most of the destruction we do seems to be in getting to places we need to go (like work and school, and to visit loved ones), heating our houses, and eating. You can ask people to cut corners with these necessities - walk to the store, turn down the thermostat, and eat less imported food - but do you really think buying fewer pants is going to help?

I respect where you're coming from - in that obsessive materialism is indeed a character flaw - but if you want to make a change in the world (rather then just in the hearts of your readers) a little economics would do you good.