Talk:Simple living

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Christianity / Anabaptist (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Anabaptist work group (marked as High-importance).

Good article, in my view[edit]

A pretty good article in my view, but seems to miss the advertising angle. It is intuitive that simple living would put a serious dent in the profit charts the CEOs of many companies need to present to the boards each year and to do that there is need to "create demand" for more complex cell phones, etc. And advertising is a key way to shape that demand. I do not have time to work on these things, and I do not think there is an "official plan" in the advertising industry to curtail simple living, but I think what they do is inherently an attempt to create product differentiation through complexity, e.g. new multi-featured athletic shoes, etc. So I think a section on the media will be interesting. History2007 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Advertising is mentioned briefly on the section Simple_living#Reconsidering_technology. It does require expansion and citations though. Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo request[edit]

There are several good photos in this article at this point. If there is still interest in adding more, some suggestions would be helpful. First thing that comes to mind is model with simple homemade sack lunch. Need descriptive suggestions, please. Thanks, (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add images to the Category:Simple living or upload your own that meet Commons:Licensing. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section on "Increasing self-sufficiency"[edit]

I have reverted the recent removal of Simple_living#Increasing_self-sufficiency by Seraphimblade. If the section is not neutral please seek to improve it rather than blank delete. Increasing self-sufficiency/self-reliance is a key part of simple living. See Henry David Thoreau, Helen and Scott Nearing and Gandhi, for example. Nirvana2013 (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Flawed concept[edit]

Self-sufficiency and paucity of possessions are mutually incompatible. It takes a heap o' stuff to be self sufficient, since you are replacing remotely supplied services requiring offsite resources with local, personally owned gear/machinery/tools ("off-the-grid" electrical power generation, for example) . "Simple Living" as practiced or preached seems to actually refer to merely getting rid of all your stuff and sitting in an empty house doing nothing with nothing while feeling virtuous about it. Man is the animal who uses tools, be proud of your big brain and opposable thumbs.

I cannot, however, think of a way to incorporate this into an encyclopedia article that is essentially just a definition, even though it defines an illogical construct. Any suggestions welcomed.

Bogswoggle (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that a section on 'operational criticism of concept' is far better and less polemic than a section on 'flawed concept' (as suggested above). Where's the evidence that many humans cannot do better with less (andless superfluous gadgets)?
How to go about this?
Well, the concept of economic disparities and the growing body of data gathered around that concept (whether or not it really reflects what it purports to measure), etc.
However, the surfeit of disposed gadgets that break down and stop working (thus, they are thrown away - not merely at a cost for disposal, but at a cost to the earth) is not to be taken lightly. And massive amounts of packaging - and the ecological cost of producing 'stuff' for an economic system which thrives on profit generated by 'distributing' mass-produced stuff (error rates apply) for broad consumption - or at least, broad posession, as 'want' is 'manufactured' through advertising and marketing broadly across target populations of 'likely' purchases of products and services, many of which are not used, or not used very much (without much sense of sharing, as is done inside institutions or other 'communities'). MaynardClark (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick and thoughtful response.
I'm not challenging conservation, reduction of waste, or frugality, or even the idea of simplifying one's life (which is ultimately a personal spiritual choice and beyond criticism). I'm essentially in agreement with the concept but see a trend towards shallowness in its implementation. There's a magazine of the same name that is full of glossy photos of japonesque minimalist interiors, printed on expensive landfill-clogging coated paper and full of ads for $50 chopsticks and rice bowls to give the reader that delicious sense of forgoing materialism while wallowing in it at the same time.
I'm wanting to challenge a wholesale simplification that "less is better", and specifically the section about self reliance. There's nothing simple about self reliance except for the illusion of it.
My heading "flawed concept" is for the talk page only; I agree with your "operational criticism of concept" for the actual article.Bogswoggle (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

this whole section is inappropriate for a Wikipedia "talk" section. "talk" is not the place for an attempted (and in this case utterly uninformed) refutation of the subject of the main article. (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Michael Christian

et tu, Jesus?[edit]

"Jesus himself lived a simple life. In Mark 6,8-9 he tells his disciples "to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts—but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics."

I don't deny that Jesus may have lived a simple life, but any reader of the Gospels should recognize that Jesus is advising his missionaries to trust that the Lord will provide for their needs, as he does repeatedly, rather than that they should burden themselves with unneeded and troublesome luxuries. (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Michael Christian