the globally wealthy can consume less by substituting meaning for consumption

the globally wealthy consume less by substituting consumption for meaning

another part of the conversation i had last night with two friends, annemarie and louise (which also spawned this post) was about my strategy for social change (but also climate change and everything else).

right now, it’s pretty obvious to me that overconsumption and consumerism in the wets contribute an inordinate amount of environmental destruction. americans consume so much. and not only is waste generated in the production of the things we want massive, but then we tend to dispose of the things themselves at alarming rates. honestly, i think it’s because people have a core set of needs, including needs to love and be loved, but consumerism has tricked us into thinking that those needs can be met by consuming. however, after we’ve done the consuming (and earn the corporations their profits), we find that the need isn’t met. and yet, instead of changing tactics, we dive deeper into our consumption. which is crazy. and yet we still do it.

so my theory, which isn’t unique or probably even mine, is that we actually need to focus more concretely on meaning as a way to reduce consumption.

i can think of so many friends who have salaries of over $100k (some even over $200k) who live unhappy and/or unfulfilled lives. if those people could just get off the consumption drug (fueled by their exorbitant incomes), not only could they make more space for meaning (and also meaningful work), but they would free up resources for people who are actually under-consuming (i.e. the poor).

in a post-work society, roles in community will be much more important

last night i had a really nice convo with two friends (annemarie and louise) in nyc. during our wandering conversation, we got on the subject of work and the problems with “following your passions.” as most people know, there are are many structural problems with trying to make a living out of your passion. some of them are because of the structure of our economies. we economically value things that don’t line up with the passions of people. in fact, some of the most highly paid work doesn’t add value to anyone’s life other than generating more money. and other work that actually is valuable is undervalued (art, for example).

there are many more, but one of the more fundamental problems we discussed is how strongly people in america tie their identity to their work/job. we need a cultural shift to get away from this. i’ve written about my alternatives to the “what do you do” question and hope that that can be part of the shift.

but i also believe that we are going to need other things to identify with when we stop relying on work so heavily. the vision i mapped out during the conversation was something along these lines (and inspired by boggs’ thinking her book the next american revolution):

• young people in any society should be supported to be visionary and imagine what’s next. because they haven’t existed or been shaped by existing systems, their dreams should shape where we’re going.
  
• elders, having seen a few generations of people and change should be repositories of history and information. as knowledge bearers, they should be guiding  (but not controlling) the progress of society with their wisdom and experience.
  
• middle-aged people should act as bridges between the young and the elders. having the most amount of energy and just the right ability to understand the elders and the youth, they should be tasked with building and evolving societal systems.

ok. that’s all i got for now.

lessons from the five stages of relationship

this blog post is effectively a paraphrase of the brilliance in this point on love at first fight by bruce muzik.

there are five phases/stages in all romantic relationships. this may apply to even non-romantic relationships, but i haven’t thought that out really. the five phases are:

1. romance
2. power struggle
3. stability
4. commitment
5. co-creation

the best way to get a full run-down of each stage is in bruce’s post. in this post i just want to highlight some of the takeaways that resonated with me the most.

the romance phase

• the romance phase is effectively the only phase you can observe in popular media. most romance movies that i’ve seen barely make it through the romance phase. and even if they do, it’s a pretty superficial progression.
• the feelings experienced during the romance phase are great AND strategic. your body literally produces chemicals that make you ignore the parts of someone that would normally repel you. i believe this is an evolutionary tactic designed to help us form close bonds for the purpose of creating and raising children. however, our societies are changing much faster than our physiology can and so our bodies still do things that our society has evolved past… (there are many implications of this, but that’s for another time).

the power struggle phase

• most relationships in the us end in the power struggle. muzik calls this phase the love hangover. basically, all the chemicals have worn off and we start to recognize that the person we fell in love with doesn’t exist. once that sets in, we start doing all sorts of crazy things that don’t make sense. if we’re unable to recognize what’s happening, we tend to end things. either because we’ve hurt each other enough to make it not worth it or because we realize that what we thought we had, we didn’t actually ever have.

the co-creation phase

• almost every relationship mentor i’ve ever had was in the co-creation stage. in this stage, a partnership ceases to be inwardly directed and becomes outwardly directed. this doesn’t mean there isn’t energy spent inwardly (date night, communication, mutual appreciation and support, physical attention, etc.). what it means is that the purpose of those things is to allow the individuals and the couple as a unit to be loving outwardly as well as inwardly.

overall

• the phases aren’t always linear. sometimes couples cycle back to the power struggle phase repeatedly. other times, life changes (adding kids, losing kids, job changes, location changes, parent care-taking, whatever) can push a couple into a different phase. having a shared language and consciousness of the phases, where you are, where you’ve been, and how to move towards the co-creation phase is super important.

ok. that’s all i got.

if this stuff is interesting, really really check out the original post from which i learned most of these lessons.

turns out, you can't be good friends with everyone (aka the hardest lesson i've learned this year)

i’m sure this lesson is a composite of many different things i’ve read and heard and learned from people wiser than me. but over the course of the last two years (and really mostly this year), it’s become very clear to me that it’s actually a terrible idea to try and operate at the same level of friendship with everyone.

there was an episode of some podcast (i’m thinking it was a ted radio hour) where they were discussing the failure of community in retirement homes. the operators of the facility tried everything to get people to make new friends. when they finally figured out why people weren’t interested in the community-building activities, it boiled down to one simply quote:

“realistically, there isn’t enough time to make another life-long friend and i’d rather spend time with the few i have left than try and make new ones.”

that lesson has really stuck with me.

additionally, as i continue to build out my personal system, it’s clearer and clearer to me that “the trouble is you think you have time” (jack kornfield’s fake buddha quote). so, i’m still looking for the balance, but i’ve just come to settle in the reality that i can’t be close with everyone. and there are actually some really good benefits to knowing that and acting on that knowledge.

the upsides of this lesson:

• i am now several years into relationships that (i hope) will be with me for the rest of my life. in pragmatic terms (which isn’t actually how i evaluate relationships), the value of a conversation with someone who has known me for years, is WAY more meaningful than a million conversations with people who barely know me. of course, that doesn’t mean i avoid new people and it doesn’t at all mean i don’t love new people in my life less, but i don’t give them the same priority. it might sound harsh, but if you think about it, it’s actually pretty straightforward and logical.
• going deep with a few friends means i actually have people i can count on. when i come to town, or need a hug, or need a couch to sleep on, i know who’s in my corner. always. i heard about a study the other day that discussed how many americans didn’t feel like they had one real friend they could count on in an emergency. of course, that’s a very particular stat, but still, the point is that putting a conscious effort into your friendships is beneficial. 
• i have learned to feel 100% fine saying no to random hangout meetings. i feel fantastic about saying no most of the time because i know that i’m making sure that, by conserving my energy, i can show up fully for my close friends.

the downsides of learning this lesson:

• often i have to say no to people i love.
• sometimes people get upset when i don’t want to hang out with them.
• i generally have a weaker sense of everything that’s going on around me.

but still, all that said, i’m pretty confident in my belief that friend time (and all energy) is limited. i’m committed to not wasting it on vague social networking. of course, i still meet new people and stuff, but my priority is my close friends. after i’ve made time for those folks will i fit in random stuff.

being conscious (and explicit, at least with yourself) about who your inner circle might sound mean, but it’s actually sane. i often think social networks (facebook, twitter) have made us forget that we actually need close friends and friendships.

it’s really sad that even though many of us are more “connected” than we’ve ever been, we feel more alone than ever before.

the fix is easy: pick your friends and commit. it’s not pretty (based on our current societal norms), but it’s healthy. and good.

academia is a crock: part 2

on sunday i explained my evolving theory about why so many crazy people end up in academia. this is all grounded on a piece i heard by alain de botton (which i wrote about here) and my ongoing conversations with jason spicer.

when spencer and i talked, i broke the reality up into phases 1-5.

1. academic jobs are attractive because you get to read, write, and do awesome research all while having absolute job security.
2. the attractiveness created a massive demand problem. too many people wanted too few jobs.
3. as a result, academic institutions have, over time, instituted a crazy gauntlet (the phd process) that is predicated on weeding people out. as phds have become more and more rigorous, fewer people make it through. in some ways, this balances the supply and demand.
4. however, what the phd process has now become is insane. for years, you are continually training to critique everyone’s ideas (including your own) ruthlessly and without shame. then, after reading and critiquing everyone else in your field, you are left essentially on your own to come up with your own ideas.
5. by the time you’re ready to apply for one of the few jobs in your field, you have been pruned and preened to destroy everyone and everything around you (via critique and your well-refined ability to go it alone) to achieve your goal.

and yet we wonder why so many professors and academic departments are fucking insane…