
I have accumulated quite a stack of "Yoga Journal" magazines. Since I'm on vacation this week and have no trip to take, I'm spending time de-junking and the magazines have to go. I'm keeping them because each has an article or two that has information I want to keep. Last night I took an Exacto Knife and went to work reducing an 18 inch stack of paper to less than 1/4 inch.
One of the articles I wanted to keep was one on "Simple Living". I believe a good portion of my "stuff" gets in the way of my happiness. One of the premises of this article was that most of us need to reduce the "things" in our lives and acquire/keep/maintain only those things that we truly love. Of course some things are not so much tangible things as they are thoughts, attitudes, relationships or other entities that take up our time and emotions; not just space.
Yoga has a set of foundational principles upon which the whole philosophy rests:
yamas (moral restraints) and
niyamas (observances). One of the yamas is
aparigraha,which means "greedlessness". But it can also be translated to include not keeping a lot of unnecessary things around you and not wanting what others have. (Thou shalt not covet... to us Westerners) The yama of aparigraha leads to the niyama,
santosha, which means contentment--being satisfied with what you have and not constantly desiring more. (Or as Paul put it in 1 Timothy 6:8, "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.") Both Paul and Patanjali, who wrote the Yoga Sutra, are agreed that materialism can eat our souls.
But you can go nuts with any good and true principle.
Proved by one of the article author's quoted "authorities". This guy suggests that our materialism doesn't just hurt us, it hurts others because we "take an unfair share of the world's resources, exploiting developing nations of cheap labor and destroying the environment."
Nice. First of all, for the most part the earth is a resource-
generator; it recycles and reproduces resources we use. There's even evidence that some non-renewable resources like oil fields are actually in a constant state of regeneration. So as long as we define our stewardship of the earth in terms of being conservationists, managing resources to provide an orderly, constant resupply, there is in this world "...enough and to spare." (Quoting God; a bigger authority than the guy quoted above." It's only when we look at stewardship of the earth in terms of environmentalism, which seeks to "freeze" the environment and create a museum out of it, with little or no human influence, that we arrive at the notion that it's a closed system with a finite pool of resources that can't be renewed once used.
As for exploiting developing nations for cheap labor--How the hell does this fruitcake think these nations are developing??? By staying in the stone age and not producing goods that others desire to purchase? These "exploited" people are for the first time in history moving beyond bare survival. Their children are being immunized against childhood killer diseases. They are being educated, exposed to news and ideas from around the globe, saving money for what to them is an entirely new concept: the "future". What these folks need right now is a little more "exploitation" until they enjoy the same standards of choice and pursuit of happiness that we "exploiters" have. I don't see many of these hand-wringers renouncing their residency in the United States to go live with the exploited who supposedly live lives we have no right to meddle in by providing a market for the things they produce.
I heartily agree that many things that we demand from China should never find a market in the USA. We should be more discerning than to buy some of the crap that finds its way over here. We should indeed buy less, demand more quality for the which we should expect to pay more. And in doing so, we would create markets for goods and services that producers could find more fulfillment in creating and delivering. But to suggest that developing nations are actually being harmed by our consumption is just wrong-headed.
Having fewer things, that meant more to us would benefit us and those who provided those few things. And paying for them when we buy them, as opposed to partnering with Visa & Mastercard to delay payment and place ourselves in perpetual indentured servitude as part of the deal, would be even nicer.