It’s great to hear of someone living out the ideas I’ve been considering and debating with myself (and others) for years, and trying to implement in some form or other.

I think that there are two dangerous lies that are currently being perpetuated that stand in stark contrast with your approach to the world. The first is the necessity of continuing exponential economic growth, globally – the world gets richer, forever. This is impossible in a finite earth. The second, which is closely coupled to the first, is continuing economic growth, locally, or on a personal level: to spend one’s life accumulating personal material wealth, and to spend lots of time doing so. The result of these two situations is that we apparently need to keep everyone employed full time to fund their mortgage and fancy cars and entertainment, the net result not being a happy society but an overworked, disconnected, stressed society that doesn’t understand why we’re not happy with all these luxuries. And in order to keep everyone employed full time and accumulate said wealth, we need to make and sell lots of junk, thereby using more than our share of the resources that the world can provide.

In contrast to this picture of rampant consumptive self-destruction, the simple life you have explained is a great picture of “less is more”: less work, less stuff to clutter up your life, less debt, less stress equals more happiness, more satisfaction, more chances to contribute to the world rather than taking from it, and more opportunity for others to live a life without daily struggle and grief.

The one question I have is this, the obligatory question of economists (though I am not one myself): if everyone in the Global North lived a life as you have described, what would happen to the local and global economy with the accompanying drop in trade? My simple, thinking-out-loud-late-at-night answer to that question is that it would collapse as it depends on growth for investment. But if our economy (”our” being both global and local, which for me is Australian) were more focused on balance and equality and sharing of wealth rather than growth, it might be possible. This would necessitate paying higher prices for material goods, which means fairer wages for all, simpler lives, and less work hours (as automated labour along with reduced consumption reduces the need for jobs). It would also require a greater shift toward non-consumptive, sustainable service-based economic activity, i.e. less people earning a living by selling useless stuff.

All that aside, it is a joy to live a life that is moving toward simplicity rather than complexity, giving away what stuff you have, catching the train, seeking a balance of life that is outward-looking and generous, and I am encouraged by your zeal and humility in aiming to be a positive, Godly, lightly-treading force in the world.

Keep up the faith.

Thanks,

Christopher
South Australia

p.s. your a hippy