What we demand most of all is oil. Earth Day came to be, in part due to the blowout of an oil platform off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif. In 1973, OPEC and allied oil producers in the Middle East showed how quickly they could derail international economies by withholding supplies. The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 demonstrated the damage crude oil can do to the environment. And now we have the Deepwater Horizon disaster on the Gulf of Mexico, spilling 5,000 barrels of oil into the sea each day, maybe more.

Will this latest disaster spur further efforts to wean the world off petroleum and toward the development of new sources of energy? History suggests not.

“We are absolutely addicted and we have no methadone. All we have is the hard stuff,” Larry McKinney, director of the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, told the Associated Press. “The reality is we’re on it, this incident has happened and what we have to do is figure out how we can move forward.”

In my opinion, we’re a long way from curing this addiction, but we have taken the first step of admitting it. This is more than an oil spill, it has to be. We need a catalyst that will bring about a significant change in the way we view how we live on Earth, and like the polluted waters of the Gulf Coast, the political systems and policies that surround the consumption and harvest of oil, must be cleansed.

Just what exactly are the tenants of the movement, and how does it seek to solve the problems we all see and experience in the present? It can be separated into a few ways of thinking.

Affluenza:

Affluenza is a term that deals with the concepts of materialism, debt, anxiety, waste and the problems that can stem from a deluded view of pursuing a lifestyle that cannot be reached. This idea also comes with the proponents of working overtime, adding stress and long commutes in pursuit of a job that pays a large salary or to even make ends meat. This comes after statistics show that the average GTA citizen spends 80 minutes on just one way to work. Affluenza focusses on the idea that wealth and material possessions do not add any value, happiness or core improvement in one’s life, and that the emptiness found in wealth leaves the individual searching for more and more, perpetuating the guilt and sacrifice that comes from the process of this greed. In Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic, the stated fact that $11 trillion in the U.S. economy is spent on consumer goods, and Americans spend 6 hours a week shopping and only 40 minutes a week playing with their children, is something that needs to be addressed immediately. Also, for instance, more recently online shopping has become a lucrative Affluenza “carrier.” The book also discusses the downfalls of credit and loans, the high expectations of “image” and the obsession with “stuff.” Voluntary Simplicity seeks to break down these concepts, bury them and empty them from our heads.

Downshifting:

“Downshifting” is a concept that parallels voluntary simplicity closely. Downshifting consumers are indeed less materialistic and brand-conscious; they also tend to practice political consumption, like boycotts or “buycotts.”  It is estimated that 19 percent of the U.S. population are simplifying their lifestyle, these are people who emphasize regaining balance in life (more leisure time, less work) by reducing clutter and emphasizing personal fulfillment and connections to others over economic success. As a result of reduced incomes or a desire for a less materialistic life, downshifters try to repair, reuse, share, and make goods rather than buy them. Instead of “getting and spending” to give lives order and meaning, downshifters may focus on civic reengagement. Downshifting is basically the core of the voluntary simplicity movement and combines with a few other ideas to hammer home how it all fits together as a viable option for sustainable living on earth.

Organic and Sustainable Lifestyles:

Voluntary simplicity is very difficult to sum up, and in combination with the idea of Affluenza, Downshifting, and a myriad of tendencies towards better living, the concept is quite complex. Lowered consumption, awareness toward natural foods and organically grown meats and vegetables, reduced clutter, recycling, cooperative enterprises, human sized living and working environments, compassionate living, closer human contact, changes towards sustainable transportation and the movement towards holistic health care, and the development of the full potential of the human mind and body are some of the many ideas that formulate how voluntary simplicity works in the eyes of its creators. This idea is not particularly a new one and has been relevant to the human consciousness for hundreds of years, the idea of living simply and the misdirection of life spent in the pursuit of material good and social status have been heavily debated. Voluntary simplicity involves limiting material consumption and seeking satisfaction through the noncommercial and nonmaterial aspects of life. Those who participate in voluntary simplicity question how modern society defines “the good life” and advocate for less materialistic lifestyles that are more “fulfilling, spiritually enlightening, socially beneficial, and environmentally sustainable.”

Why do we need Voluntary Simplicity? Will it Work?

The core problems of our global economy and the global environment all stem from the ways in which voluntary simplicity works. Over consumption is the crux of the major problems, and stemming form that; pollution, oil agendas, war, social injustice and habitat encroachment. There is also the influence of the mass media, which can influence people to “want” and consume goods that make no difference to their lives other than to clutter and make waste or clog laundry washers, closets, garages and landfills, and the environment itself. In the eyes of many observers, the problems of human environment relations are based solely around human beings, and voluntary simplicity seeks to begin to solve these problems from those roots. The burning question is; does the concept work?

One of the first aspects to look at when assessing the viability of VS is politics. Voluntary simplicity is not a typical left/right political position, and is seen for the most part as something like nonviolent activism, libertarianism, or leftist anarchism. These connotations do not do the movement justice in terms of how it is viewed by the general public of North America, and it is in North America where the movement must begin its branching out into the rest of the global society. This hurdle can also be viewed as a benefit though, as the idea of a lifestyle movement not being categorized politically, could in the future, help to bridge the gap between both sides. Economically speaking, how is it that an individual, or a family of individuals can go from an abundance of wealth that has spanned generations, to a less affluent and simple lifestyle? It is next to impossible. But it is very important to consider where the earth is headed. Elgin speaks of this situation and depicts it as the inevitable stage in human history where our economies and governments will fall, or end up in some sort of collapse. The Earth’s commodities and resources are running out and some will inevitably be depleted, and the most important commodity that we use and depend on most is oil. In the coming centuries, the human race will be without it and quite a lot of important supportive items when it’s gone. In addition, VS does not state that getting rid of everything all at once is the key; it is a movement towards a more balanced and conscious lifestyle.

Voluntary simplicity as a middle-class based idea is also a problem, as the rich or the wealthy can easily reach the milder goals of the idea. As one observer wrote: “It would not go over well to walk around the slums of Mumbai and tell people that they should practice the virtue of simplicity to help them free up time to pursue self-actualized states and activities.”   It goes without saying that the poor face different consumer decisions than the rich, and it seems clear that compared to rich people, poor people will more often be rationally justified, on moral grounds, to increase their consumption. Consuming less may allow the poor to stretch their limited resources further, to better support the flourishing of their families, BUT, consuming too much, in the absence of the safety nets safeguarding wealthier classes, may lead to disaster. So, simplicity arguably remains a virtue for the poor and the very poor.

Yet another problem might be the view that might claim materialism and high levels of consumption are necessary to the proper functioning of society, because they keep the economy growing. This argument lends itself back to the political side, and mostly an economical side of things. While most observers are not likely to raise this bold objection, it finds voice soon enough on those rare occasions when members of society debate the idea of limits to growth. But this is the inherent idea behind that of VS. Growth basically has nothing to do with material good and commodities in the movement, and to place this argument towards the movement problematizes how it works and makes it a complex and difficult issue to discuss, incorporating ideas about “steady-state economy” and “endless growth economy.”

Sustainable consumption requires not just consuming differently but also consuming less. The factors that most strongly facilitate the taking on of more frugal ways of living seem to be a decrease in personal materialism and in household income, whether voluntarily (downshifting) or involuntarily (a recession). This lends to a final point, voluntary simplicity is voluntary, and it is the inherent fact that people will not willingly decide to make these choices that have some disagreeing with the idea. Anyone can see it on the television, hear it on the radio or see it everyday when we walk past the people we share the sidewalk with or glance at the billboards and ads that fill up the available space, literally telling the average human being to move away and conform to the ideals and the norms of the majority of society. How can a grass roots movement like voluntary simplicity overcome this massive force? It is something that ultimately can’t be answered, but can only be seen as something that will develop over time as the world shifts and changes.

Conclusion:

For over 40 years the voluntary simplicity movement has been active and the trend is growing, although it is still small in terms of the most devoted and determined members of the ideal. We can see the concepts leaching into society everyday and they do make a difference. David Suzuki helped Canada along last year, promoting a huge movement towards better and more efficient light bulbs, plumbing and insulation in homes. Loblaws, Metro and other grocers have now pushed forward the simple idea of using reusable grocery bags and charge 5 cents per bag, an unseemingly huge externality that was unheard of until just 2008. Even the movement in the automotive industry to yield to the constant demand of fuel efficiency and economically sustainable workplaces, better conditions for the average worker and documentaries like Food Inc., Capitalism: A Love Story and Roger and Me, all lend to a global idea that what is going on in the world is wrong and something needs to be done about it. At the core of it all is at least one facet of the VS movement and that is a flourishing, a flourishing of betterment towards the environment, towards animals and towards people and their families. It is arguable to say that voluntary simplicity will solve all of the world’s problems, but it is clear that the tenants and doctrines of it are a huge step in the right direction and have everything to do with something that everyone longs for, fulfillment and peace in a world filled with chaos.

LaChapelle started off as a busboy at Studio 54 in New York and then ended up working with Andy Warhol. His idea about photography is that it is a break from beauty, an intermission. Once he was hired by Details magazine in the early 1990′s, his work went “crazy.” He now receives commissions from almost any celebrity who wants to add that pizazz to their portfolio of head shots, the latest is Lady Gaga of course….

The reason why EVERYONE should watch and read about these experiences, is because they are the most important acts of humanity to come out of the 20th century. The reason we can do the things we do, the reason we can have the things we have and go the places we go is simply because of the courageous and heroic acts of the brave men and women who faught and died in the World Wars.

So the next time you complain about your cell phone range, your stupid car and the fact that there is a line up at the club, shut the fuck up and relax, at least your not stuck in a fox hole in Bastogne, waist deep in someone elses shit, with German artillery shells landing all around you in the middle of February.

On that note, I would like to express my relief that Avatar did not win best picture this year. James Cameron made quite a film, but all he really did was combine Dances With Wolves, Titanic and Pocahontas with a rediculously amazing technical backdrop.

“Michael Steele was a good attempt at finding a new kind of face for the party. So was Bobby Jindal. But in the end they just didn’t represent the Republican ideals as well as a 100-year-old dead man.”

I was recently at a show in Toronto and went to an after-party with some very talented artists. My friend Dilan passed this link on to me. Kris Kuksi is from Missouri and his sculptures are rooted in the general distaste for pop culture, greed and materialism. Some of these sculptures are valued at over $500,000, and some took thousands of man hours to produce. I think they’re worth every penny.