Talk:Simple living/2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Bias? 2 Stumbling toward (some kind of) useful truth 3 Where to put "simple living" 4 "The neutrality of this article is disputed" 5 Unabomber

[edit] Bias?

I have done a bit but this article is hopelessly biased, and appears to have only had imput from politically motivated editors. For a start most voluntary simplicity is religious but here there is a strong fiocus on first world green thinking voluntary simplicity with all its baggage. No serious attempt has been made to explain why some people oppose simple living ( because of its economic effects), the variety of motivations that attract people to simple living, etc. All in all a rant for a particular political viewpoint, which wikipedia should never be, SqueakBox 15:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The historical grounding of the article notes that the movement is often expressed religiously, but if you look at the context in which this religious expression emerged, that was also often political. Sumptuary laws and vows of poverty in religious orders were often political movements within the ecclesiastical structure, so in this sense all voluntary poverty is political. Is there really an argument against simple living which isn't a shrill partisan call to privatize or monetize everything, co-opt the commons and move toward global mercantilism? No history or philosophical assertion is every completely free of politics. Shumacher's chapter on "Buddhist economics" at the beginning of E. F. Schumacher's book Small is Beautiful nicely notes this. I don't see the article as written as promoting simple living but just as noting its history, development and current proponents without politicization. Perhaps add a paragraph in here about how some thinkers within neoliberalism oppose such non-cash decisions as seditious? Rorybowman 21:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree the article could be expanded. Simple living has been consciously practised for over 6,500 years, so there is much data to pull on. However, I am not sure bringing in the economical and political views against simple living will improve the article. That is kind of the point of simple living, it does not require vast economic systems or governments (as we have today). Individuals can live simply and self-sufficiently (a sort of modern day Garden of Eden) without the need for earthly authority. Some may view this as Heaven, some may view this as Hell. --nirvana2013 11:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that would be true if simple livers lived in a vacuum, or, as at present, there are just too few to make a difference, but the logical consequences of mass simple living in developed western economies (in countries like where I live the majority live very simple lives anyway from poverty) would be economic shrinkage and possibly collapse leading very quickly to a nightmare scenario that could extend itself worldwide with the collapse of the international banking system. On the other hand many scientists think that if we continue on our present course where a substantial minority live consumptious lifestyles then we will have to face the consequences of global warming, and that the only real solution top that is simple living. Myself, I want a balanced neutral article, SqueakBox 16:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just had a whack at this in the first paras in an attempt to make a more balanced and inclusive opening statement. I will not cry if you chose to zap it. But that is the direction in which I believe this really very useful topic should be going, and is the best way to avoid the “unbalanced” label which it has attracted (and which is not entirely undeserved, I might add.)ericbritton 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stumbling toward (some kind of) useful truth

I sympathize with your editing problems here (and I can see the result of your hard work), and indeed with your general attitude about the article as it stands being ‘un encyclopedic’ and once sided. Yes, as it stands. But is it not possible to give this good person and/or group of people a chance to revamp. Simple living, voluntary simplicity and the rest are important themes in our overheated society. And as Diderot pointed out an encyclopedia is produced by many kinds of people, each with their own views, tastes and limitations. Moreover since we are here in this wonderful peer-editing context, I would like to think that there is life after this first rough round of ‘simple living’. (That’s a kind of joke?). ericbritton 18:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important to express all views, which is why a much sharper focus on religious simplicity would really improve the article. I am not saying that the green view shouldn't be taken into account merely that it should not be allowed to dominate. Please don't think I am anti simple living, I would call myself someone who deos live simply, SqueakBox 18:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where to put "simple living"

If the goal around here is to create more light than heat, I would suggest that we leave this rich topic on its own and let the thoughtful people around here to fill it out, and where necessary to rectify any eventual bias, political motivation, whatever.

And BTW, when I went over to the mentioned [WikiProject Energy development] page, I encountered a hot house of views, opinions and prejudices that in my view have no place here. Unfocused, uninformed, empassioned, Worse than useless. ericbritton 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I was a bit surprised to see this article tied into that project, and don't think the article should particularly be changed to match any particular category. The topic deserves attention in itself, separate from outside projects or agendas. Rorybowman 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "The neutrality of this article is disputed"

And to my mind rightly so. Pity too because this is an important concept that needs to be properly understood in our overheated age, so we need to do what we can to keep it on track. We are not, I believe, here to please our selves or folks who may think like us. As the man says: Neutral point of view.

Latest example of what I see as our underlying problem tilt here: Top para. I have re-inserted last sentence which 'Nirvana' has axed in preference for a more mystic take. Which is, in my view, a part of the problem. We are warned dear colleagues: “The neutrality of this article is disputed.” I take this seriously and as I read it, the offending and most un-encyclopedic element is the precisely the otherwise delicious mystic tilt which Nirvana2013 most recently explicitly urges us toward. Now if this were a Gaia-pedia, I might be all for it. But here we live in a strict encyclopedic world in which the rules of discourse are writ large; so let’s be strict with ourselves (me included, natch).

The cut sentence reads: “Some proponents may emphasize their explicit rejection of "western values", while others chose to live more simply for reasons of personal taste and a sense of fairness and personal economy.” Of course if others of you agree that this kind of thinking has no place here, well then you take it out. But perhaps someone else the next time? And perhaps too with at least a tad of explanation? ericbritton 11:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just like to add that as per my comment in article history, consumerism is not a Western world phenonomen, so the article should not go down the Americanism v Anti-Americanism, Christianity v Islam, or capitalism v communism paths. It is currently going on in all corners of the world (Saudi Arabia and China for example) and has been for thousands of years (see History of Egypt and Babylon). Consumerism and simple living are at least as old as the first civilizations. Simple living is a personal choice by an individual rather than initiated by governments, monarchies or commerce. --nirvana2013 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well until the present moment at any rate, though of course people have different ideas of simple living. I think having no car but having a computer is simple living (given other factors) whereas others reject computers for being very much not a part of simple living, SqueakBox 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Are we done with the NPOV thing yet? If so, could the individual who flagged this article (SqueakBox?) rescind? If not, what remains to be done? Rorybowman 20:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The only thing remaining to be done is the technology section. i will do it now and remove the tag this afternoon, SqueakBox 20:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unabomber

Given Theodore Kaczynski's strong practical advocacy of simple living it feels appropriate to include his POV which he is not alone in having, SqueakBox 20:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'll stay out of Politics and let you finish this one to your satisfaction re NPOV. Thank you, sir! Rorybowman 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)