An attitude to life which seeks fulfillment in the single-minded pursuit of wealth – in short, materialism- does not fit into this world, because it contains within itself no limiting principle, while the environment in which it is placed is strictly limited. – E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful
This may seem like an argument pitting materialism with conservation, socialism versus capitalism, greed versus sacrifice. But this is really a question about what makes us happy and how that effects our environment.
In the preamble to our Declaration of Independence, we are endowed with the right to the pursuit of happiness.
The image of happiness impressed upon us has been, at least since the 1950s, living in a suburban home with 2.5 children, having a nice car, a beautiful spouse and a well-paying job. Most of those qualities are material. Our idea of success is easily quantifiable – how big is your paycheck?
In our modern capitalist system, we can keep consuming and consuming because the more we consume the better our economy becomes.
Indeed, after the terrorist attacks on September 11 our president, George W. Bush, asked us to go to shopping malls and spend money. Well, he wasn’t so glib. But in past times of crises leaders have asked us to sacrifice, to save, to conserve, to donate, to volunteer. Why is it that a president would make a consumerist call to action?
According to Bush, it helps the economy grow and we get stuff. Getting stuff equals instant happiness. In order to be happy, we have to consume. It’s a never ending cycle. Our consumption knows no bounds!
But this boundless pursuit of happiness has tremendous pitfalls.
Adam Smith, the father of capitalism said in The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another…Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice…
Although Smith and Schumacher have differing economic philosophies, both recognize that greed and avarice leads to the destruction of societies and peace.
So what does all this high-minded babble have to do with solar energy?
Before we can move forward into the argument for renewable energy, we have to come to terms with limitations to our happiness and redefine what fulfillment means to us. (Some would argue that limitations could even make us happier.)
Would you pay more in the short term for a lifetime supply of energy? Would you invest time and money into a technology that could better our environment? Would you sacrifice a shingled roof for silicon solar cells?
What do you value more – the permanence of the sun or the ease of coal?
What would make us happy?
October 23, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Interesting article to begin with, but #1 you kind of .. sideline it with solar energy and #2 if the focus on the article itself is to be solar energy, why solar over other forms such as geothermal or wind which are also present in Nevada? Not that solar isn’t, but what distinguishes it specifically?
Also, the way you are asking the questions – open-ended without conclusions frustrates me to o end. Yes, the solutions are difficult, but perhaps a discussion about what they are/may be would be more helpful instead of dropping us into the middle of an informational abyss?
October 23, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Well, my idea of a blog is a series of conversations, thus the open-ended question. I’m inviting everyone to tell me what they value more – permanence or immediate satisfaction? This will help start the conversation of why solar is one of the best options for Nevada.
The focus of this post isn’t solar energy itself but what value we place on renewable energy, specifically solar energy. Further blog posts will explore the economics, infrastructure, etc needed to rely more heavily on solar energy.
November 5, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I think it would be a waste of money to invest in solar right now. In the future solar will probably be cheaper and more efficient. It is like plasma TV’s; they are about 10 times cheaper today than when they were first introduced. The technology behind them is much better as well. Also I think that burning coal for a little while longer while it is cheap will have negligible effects on the environment.
November 10, 2008 at 3:28 pm
That depends on what you are looking for in terms of investment and what is more valuable to you.
“A little while longer” when it comes to coal could be detrimental – 6,000 Chinese miners died in 2006 alone. How do you feel about the coal from these mines powering the manufacturing plants that make our toy trains? What about all the mercury pollution entering into the oldest river in U..S from these coal powered plants and coal mines?
Also – the high cost of solar is much more complicated than simply waiting for better technology. That’s now how plasma TVs got cheaper. I’ll devote a blog post to that very concept in the near future.