Why? Summarizing the 100 Thing Challenge... again

Back in June, I summarized the 100 Thing Challenge. That was a few days after Time Magazine wrote about it and only a few weeks before things really started getting crazy. Now, months later, the 100 Thing Challenge has made it into newspapers and radio programs internationally. And I have an agreement with Harper to write a book about it. But what the blazes is the 100 Thing Challenge?

At its core, the 100 Thing Challenge is my attempt to challenge consumerism. I worry that the predominant narrative of our culture is the story of stuff. I worry that has been the main story of my life. It feels like a worn out tale, and I'd like to stop the plot before it gets any more dismal.

But consumerism is like a magical book. Once you start turning the pages, you cannot stop. (Remember that cursed book Ron Weasley told Harry about that you cannot stop reading once you start? Consumerism is like that.) So the 100 Thing Challenge is my (perhaps silly) way of jerking my nose out of the book. I am ready for a new narrative.

I do believe that for anyone caught in a dysfunctional situation, the first step is to mentally assent to the problem. As you can tell by reading this blog, quite a few people do not think that consumerism is a major problem. I disagree. The second thing people need to do to correct a dysfunctional situation is physically act. In the case of consumerism, my own personal feeling is that all of us who are caught up in the dysfunction of consumerism need to make our first action reducing our stuff. We just need to get away from the paralysis of being stuck in stuff. Granted, the 100 Thing Challenge is a bit radical. Hopefully it makes a point - we need to radically reduce our desire for and dependence on stuff.

What do I personally hope to get out of this project? Well, you'll just have to read the book. Ha ha.

But for now, I'll let you know that in addition to starting the 100 Thing Challenge in a couple of weeks, I am also in the midst of a major life and entrepreneurial realignment. I'm on a little journey to not only get away from consumerism, but also on an effort to live and work in such a way that is neither desirous of nor dependent on our consumer culture. Phew! More on that soon.

Comments

[MB]

Hi, Dave,

So is the idea that you will live with the same 100 things for a year? Or are you allowed to swap, exchange, etc., so long as you never have more than 100 things at one time? If one of your 100 things breaks, are you allowed to replace it? If you've answered these questions elsewhere, forgive me for asking!

You say that you want "to live and work in such a way that is neither desirous of nor dependent on our consumer culture." That might seem possible on a local, individual level—but you might also consider the bigger picture. Your very presumption that you can choose your lifestyle and your occupation is grounded in the philosophy of Western liberalism. This philosophy both assumes and depends on economic freedom; and healthy economies depend ultimately on the demand for goods and services. Note that in countries without economic freedom—such as North Korea—people do not have much freedom when it comes to choosing how they live their lives.

As for work, most people ultimately find themselves producing a good or service that is demanded—and ultimately paid for—by others who themselves earning an income by producing goods and services. Even if one is providing a public service (e.g., a social worker), that service is ultimately paid for by tax dollars garnished from the forces of supply (e.g. wage taxes, corporate taxes) and demand (e.g., sales taxes) that drive the consumer economy. So to assume that one's occupation can be free from dependence on consumer culture takes a somewhat narrow view of the macroeconomy, in my opinion. Just my two cents!

Good luck with your 100 Thing Challenge!
--MB

[Somebody]

MB, I humbly suggest that you may have it partly backwards.

Namely that economy and economic freedom primarily depend on philosophic freedom, not the other way around.

I'll start by saying that you're of course right, we all (practically all, few are Robinson Crusoe's) depend on the exchange of goods and services with each other. That, which might be called "consumer culture". (Or "consumer-producer culture", "culture of exchange", etc.) But, and this is the crucial point, what the content and manner of that exchange is, only *we* can decide. And not only can, we must.

As I understand his ideas, what Dave writes of is specifically "*our* (current) consumer culture", which emphasis you may / seem to, at times, miss. This, to me, implies questioning, specifically, the ways of our "consumerIST" culture, that is *how* we conduct this business of exchange, not the fact that we do. In other words, how we create (or destroy, but I'll avoid this digression for now) "value", i.e. that which is important for *us*.

(As an important aside, also public services of course create value, things that are important to us (and that many are willing to pay for, through taxes, but this is a separate point). Conceptualizing these as costs only (or primarily), paid for by income from the real value creating economy - perhaps not your intention, but that which carries through - is one-sided.)

Consequently, I, for instance, appreciate the economic freedom you cherish (there are, as you will no doubt have noticed, differences in degree :-), but it remains in second place for me. It doesn't hold any intrinsic value.

The liberty you speak of is ours, inherent.

We do not exist to serve the economy, but instead we conduct exchanges so that the economy might serve us.

(What exactly this might mean, for him, Dave is clearly on a journey to find out. Just like all of us are, whether we approach the question as purposefully as Dave or not.)

[MB]

Hi, Somebody,

You're correct that as people conduct economic exchanges, the free economy they create comes to serve all of them. But I don't agree that one can so easily disentangle philosophical liberty from economic freedom. The two have such a close relationship that one cannot be labeled primary or "inherent," with the other relegated to "second place." It is more correct to say that philosophical and economic freedoms work in tandem, reinforcing and bolstering each other.

Economic freedom naturally gives people such as Dave the option to consume very little, just as it gives other people the option to consume a lot. It respects individual choice through the invisible hand of the market. But I note that discussions about how the economy should "serve us" are often double-edged. A free economy serves us by enhancing our freedom and expanding our choices. But others would like to see the economy "serve us" by giving greater control of the economy to the state, so that the state can distribute its proceeds for the so-called greater public good. For a greater understanding of the logical fallacies in this beguiling position, I would highly recommend that you read *The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism" by F. A. Hayek. It is a brief but powerful critique of the socialistic imagination in the twentieth century, and is every bit as relevant now as when it was written.

You are not clear about what "question" you believe Dave is approaching. I see Dave as attempting to demonstrate that he can live with only 100 personal possessions for one year, excluding the family home, his book collection, and anything that is owned or jointly owned by his wife or another member of his family. With all due respect to Dave and his project, that's not an especially difficult challenge. I myself have traveled for extended periods with only a few changes of clothes, basic toiletries, a cell phone, and a few books. It wasn't a problem; and I could have continued indefinitely in that manner if I'd had to. You just adjust to living with what you have, quickly finding that you really don't "need" all the other stuff you thought you needed. But I don't think I solved any great philosophical question! The *real* question for me is how does one resolve ascetic, minimalist personal approaches with the very real need to maintain a healthy macroeconomy and geopolitical order.

All best,
MB