This topic tends to activate the negativity bias in many people. As you read, be mindful of this. Observe any moments when your thoughts veer towards feelings of loss or despondency.

The discussion centers on asceticism and the misconception that its core principle is renunciation.

Firstly, it's indisputable that science has shown the challenges we face: escalating population numbers, increased consumption, and the diminishing availability of finite resources.

Our lifestyles must change for our survival. Even a brief examination of the facts supports this. Keyword: Anthropocene. The issue? Overconsumption by a swelling global population.

Some, like John von Düffel, suggest a seemingly straightforward solution to this intricate problem: asceticism.

This entails reducing our consumption and, over time, ceasing the use of many items. Rather than depending on manufactured necessities, we should turn to genuine needs grounded in mindfulness and nature's rhythms.

Consuming less means there's no need to produce items deemed superfluous.

A decline in consumption leads to reductions in manufacturing, transport, retail, energy use, and waste.

Consequently, GHG emissions will decrease.

However, this also heralds economic contraction, a serious concern given its broad implications.

A government that pushes its citizenry towards employment not only benefits from job-related taxes but also from the taxes on subsequent consumer expenditures. This boost in revenue supports sectors like health, education, infrastructure, and defense.

Mass-adapting a philosophy like asceticism that transforms public mindset — leading to desires for smaller living spaces, fewer purchases, and less work (given reduced expenses and monetary needs) — will contract the economy and, by extension, diminish a nation's power.

If you find these geo-political implications too far-fetched and for those skeptical about the drastic impact of altered consumer behavior, consider that consumer spending constitutes roughly 70% of economic activity in developed economies like the U.S.

Modern economies function similarly to factories, where workers are paid salaries which they then spend on products they've helped produce. This cycle, however intuitive, isn't without its pitfalls.
- The chief pitfall? Environmental degradation resulting from production, energy use, transportation, sales, advertising, and waste management. The absurdity of this model is magnified when one considers goods produced not out of necessity, but because of artificial desires cultivated by advertising.
- Moreover, this model consumes a precious resource: workers' time, which could otherwise be dedicated to healing, safeguarding the environment, nurturing societal bonds, and fostering family ties.
- Another offshoot is socio-economic disparity. The dominant economic model exacerbates inequality. Non-participants often slide into poverty, and as the wealthy amass more, their contributions to societal welfare (like taxes) dwindle.

A society obsessed with ever-evolving fashion trends, yearly phone upgrades, disposable toys, carbon-intensive travels, and processed foods can be likened to an heroin addict. Merely recognising these harmful patterns isn't sufficient for true rehabilitation.

If you find the comparison extreme, consider the charts in the Research section of this post.

Surprisingly, despite 70% of consumers feeling the need for prudent financial management, an average of $18,000 annually is splurged on non-essentials.

The predicament? The typical consumer among the bottom 60% earners outspends their income. The overpowering allure of materialism has made perpetual debt a norm.

Materialism isn't the answer.


Grasping the foundational philosophy of Ascetism is crucial.

Try persuading an average American to give up luxuries. What should they forgo? To what extent? When? Why?

The renunciation ideology seems flawed to me. Equating asceticism with renunciation is as misguided as associating consumption with happiness. I highly recommend delving into the works of John von Düffel, either by reading or listening to him.

TL;DR. The ascetic of tomorrow doesn't renounce but liberates himself from non-essentials.
It's a journey from material entanglement to essence.

A bit more detailed. For von Düffel, the question isn't about forsaking consumption but reassessing its magnitude. It's a matter of "how much," not "whether or not."

To name another impoirtant thinker of the last century. As Adorno noted, 'There is no right life in the wrong one.' Therefore, one must discern the wrong before transforming it. The goal is not just to rectify one's individual life but to progressively amend the broader circumstances. At times, this transformation might arise from renunciation, aiming for an authentically righteous life.

Von Düffel emphasizes the importance of discerning the essential from the non-essential. While a righteous life cannot fully emerge from flawed circumstances, there exists a correct path within the imperfections, as emphasized by Daoism.

Daoist principles suggest that the stream of a fulfilling life is unending. The challenge is to discover, nurture, and align with it, allowing oneself to flow effortlessly with its current, akin to water.

Choosing to prioritize the essentials or embracing renunciation can bring about profound feelings of satisfaction and joy. Importantly, renunciation paves the way for positive global transformations, especially from an ecological standpoint.

This philosophical perspective, to many, might seem more uplifting than delving into the toxic dynamics prevalent in our global ecosystem and economy. Yet, we are faced with the pressing question: In an age defined by excess and rapid evolution, what practices or mindsets must we relinquish?

Those blessed with abundance often face the challenge of substantial change. In contrast, possessing less often simplifies life, demanding fewer efforts and lesser sacrifices.