Week 3 and the joy of - Alternative approaches to Sustainable Consumption, which I definitely subscribe to!

To me it seems clear that governments should pursue gross national happiness, since I argue that the pursuit of the gross national product without regard to national happiness is pointless and, as we are all only too well aware, the main driver behind the problems our planet faces through climate change and finite resources. The reason behind the pursuit of an ever increasing gnp originally was because it was assumed that achieving it (and by extension an ever increasing standard of living), was tantamount to achieving happiness, and it was not even at that time considered that world resources were finite with relation to human production.

Research into our feelings of well being and contentment show that our happiness quotient has not altered much in the UK since the 1960s, while our gnp has continued to rise decade by decade. Perhaps our time should be viewed as an era of enlightment in that after centuries of seeing happiness as an inevitable result of all we could want with regard to material goods, (marrying the prince or princess as the triumphant finale in the medieval fairytale), we realise that we are a little more complicated than that, and have mental and emotional needs at least as important to our feelings of well being (and so didnt need to trash the planet in our attempts to be happy after all!)

Ideally when governments are aiming to deliver a state of contentment for most if not all people sustainably, they should be concentrating on delivering peaceful conditions in which to enjoy food, shelter, health care, education and a feeling, psychologically, of being connected to and worthwhile to family and community and no more than that. Since it appears that the breakdown of family and local communities typical of the modern era in some affluent Western societies has been instrumental in leaving people feeling discontented and disconnected, and that no amount of material ownership can replace the 'feel good' factor which comes from feeling a useful and an appreciated member of your own society/world, the latter is perhaps as much a challenge for our governments as the provision of clean water, sufficient food, healthcare and education may be for the leaders of non industrialised and war ravaged peoples elsewhere.

I suggest that governments should do the research into what does make people feel happy and content in order to devise successful policies that will encourage and sustain that mindset even as they work towards the limiting of production targets and achieving the necessary drop in what we have called the "standard of living" to bring about sustainability. Working towards achieving the latter without understanding how to deliver the former might well bring about total chaos in society up to and including civil unrest, something that was mentioned byProf. Tim Lenton in his presentation at the UEA Court in May 2009. Conversely, by not working towards increasing the potential for society to rediscover its own, natural sources of contentment, divorced from material goods, it is clear why governments are only attempting mainstream solutions, which, I firmly believe, cannot deliver the scope of necessary adjustment in our unsustainable lifestyles in the short time frame left to us before reality addresses the issue for us with potentially catastrophic consequences.

One issue that stands out for me is the success of feeling part of a wider group in society in fostering feelings of happiness. The stress/unhappiness of continuous competition as an individual is high while the sense of security and self esteem from being with like minded people is very significant (why disaffected teenagers join gangs), and could be fostered by government devising and giving initial support to community projects towards sustainable living,(thus delivering a double whammy!) such as group allotments growing organic food, or applying home insulation systems, (the latter are already being given half fee grants in this area but there is no community element involved). By keeping all schemes local the carbon footprint is automatically cut through distances travelled being kept to the minimum for everyone involved. This means in effect that small local community ventures would be the best to work through and a general move away in policies from either centralisation or individualisation would be most effective in delivering, both psychologically(the contentment factor) and sustainably (the planet factor).

Maybe this was what Buddha meant when he talked about the middle way?......discuss....

Finally, while local projects are the best way to bring about sustainable consumption nationally I dont believe we should turn our backs and fail to offer any support we can to the nations on the other side of the economic scales. We do live in a Global Village, and it would be both unethical and ineffective to ignore this reality in the long term; those scales have to be brought into balance somehow and we can certainly afford to give aid to those nations who need our help. The greatest challenge is how best to do this, not in the short but in the long term when climate change is bringing about conditions such as failed harvests and flooding to add to the challenges these people already face.

Its obvious really since our survival is linked inextricably to the health of the planet that our happiness will be long term what is best for the planet; there is no choice to agonise over, we just have to commit to delivering the alternative plan in time.....





.