The Personal and Collective Benefits of Frugal Living

An introduction to Ecofrugality

Photo by Julien-Pier Belanger on Unsplash

I’ve been thinking about the following questions for years:

What are the biggest problems in the world? What are the fundamental issues at the root of those problems? What solutions would address these fundamental issues?

In a nutshell, I believe that the biggest problems are environmental and economic; that the root of the problem is a certain cultural attitude toward money; and that a popular movement toward frugal living is our best shot at fixing the problem holistically.

Allow me to walk you through my thought process!

1) The biggest problems in the world

To figure out what the biggest problems are, we have to consider our universal goals and what’s getting in the way of them.

There are a vast number of diverse perspectives about the world, informed by religion, culture, nationality, and many other demographical factors. It’s hard to figure out exactly what we all have in common and what goals we share as a species.

On a basic level, though, most of us can agree on the following: humanity has come a long way, and we don’t want to go extinct yet. We all want the freedom to survive into the future indefinitely. And, as we do so, most of what we do is ultimately aimed at improving the quality of life for ourselves or others — because we know that our lived experiences have intrinsic value, and we seek to avoid needless suffering as much as we can.

So, the biggest problems are the ones that threaten our survival as a species, and the ones that cause the greatest suffering.

As far as avoiding extinction goes, there are certain risks we don’t have control over right now — stray asteroids, gamma ray bursts, and other cosmic wild cards. We should continue to work on safety measures against these, perhaps by developing robust systems to protect against collisions, creating a Mars colony as a backup, or even figuring out interstellar travel.

However, on a long-term scale, those events are relatively rare. We’re unlikely to face an asteroid threat anytime soon.

What’s much more likely to trigger our extinction in the next few hundred years are the threats brought about by humans, such as climate change, ecosystem collapse, and nuclear warfare. Our first priority should be to avoid self-destruction because, collectively, we have the power to avert these problems right now.

In the last 100 years our world has shifted dramatically as a result of increased economic activity, technology, and population. The total amount of resources we consume has exploded. We’ve extracted and burned so much fossil fuel that we’re causing our planet to warm up. Our insatiable demand for material goods is destroying earth’s ecosystems and the biodiversity that we depend upon for our existence.

I trust that you are familiar with these widely-discussed issues. The point of this publication is not to reiterate scientific consensus.

As for the other problem — unnecessary suffering — this is another vastly complicated topic with a wide range of possible answers. War, disease, famine, human trafficking, hatred. There are a lot of serious problems to address.

By volume, as far as I can tell, the worst problems all boil down to resource distribution. Many people are slowly dying from starvation, unclean drinking water, and lack of access to treatment for diseases. Those resources exist abundantly on earth, but many people cannot access them because they don’t have enough money.

Many of the other human welfare issues like war and slavery are affected by economics and capitalism, as well.

In conclusion, the problems that Ecofrugality seeks to address are climate change and poor wealth distribution.

2) The root of the problem

Why do we continue to accelerate resource extraction in the face of extinction-level consequences? Why do people retain so much more money than they need, despite the masses of people who are dying without it?

Because it is profitable to do so. Because there is a demand for more. Because we have accepted that “success” is an individual endeavor to accumulate as much wealth as possible — and that this is a moral good that outweighs existential threats to our species and vast amounts of suffering.

Why do the richest 26 individuals hold the same amount of wealth as the poorest 50% of the world’s population? Greed is lawful; hoarding is rewarded by society. Systems designed to extract wealth from masses of poorer people and concentrate them on one CEO are praised. Those who are the most wealthy also have the most power to shape society to perpetuate their gain, through political bribery and mass advertising.

The root of the problem is our constant lust for more. We fail to find contentment in what is already a luxurious, miraculous life compared to centuries past.

This failure not only destroys the environment, threatens our future, and creates suffering for many millions; it also kills our own happiness and sense of meaning and connection. It distracts us from the most beautiful parts of life.

The constant striving to increase what’s already excessive creates suffering for everyone involved.

3) Solving the problem

To solve the two main problems of climate change and wealth concentration, humans need to consume less, and they need to share with each other more.

If we raise up the poorest people so they can afford basic health and stability, they will also consume more resources in general — so it’s hard to solve both of these problems at the same time. Their growth needs to be more than offset by a reduction in the extravagant lifestyles of the wealthiest 10%, including many middle to upper class Americans.

Wealth needs to move from the hands of the top 50% to the bottom 50%. What might surprise you is the median income level that divides these two groups. If you are an American with an individual income exceeding $3,000/year, you are in the top 50%.

If it sounds like I’m suggesting communism, I kind of am, in a sense. The difference is that I don’t think we can force it on anyone. When wealth redistribution systems are enforced in an authoritarian way, it tends to backfire and create a lot more suffering. I don’t advocate for that.

What’s needed is a change of a heart, deep down. We need a shift toward voluntary communism. We need a movement of globally-wealthy people who are willing to become smaller so that their consumption does not threaten the environment, and so that those who are suffering can be lifted out of poverty.

How can this become a reality? What would ever motivate wealthy people to stop chasing money and change their ways?

A lot of people are realizing that more money doesn’t buy more happiness, past a certain level of security. Money is one way to acquire a level of comfort that can promote happiness, but it isn’t the same thing as happiness itself. It isn’t worth trading away all your free time and missing out on human connections in order to be rich. In the balance between time and money, we ought to place a higher value on time.

Real success is leading a life that you find enjoyable and meaningful, and seeking wealth is often counterproductive to that goal, or inefficient at best. That’s why spending too much time in the office is such a common deathbed regret.

If we can demonstrate that true joy, purpose, and connection are often found on a smaller budget with more time to focus on relationships and creative pursuits — maybe then we can shift the common perception that wealth is synonymous with success. Maybe wealth starts to look more like a disease, a tumor growing out of control. Maybe more people will recognize the true value of living within modest means: the freedom to focus on what really matters to you, rather than being trapped inside a game someone else invented.

I want to live in a society that prides itself in its long-term wisdom and its efforts to end needless suffering. As more and more people drop out of the rat race, the engine of destruction loses steam.