I have nothing against modern technology–I use it all the time. It would seem I have nothing against wealth either, since I’m richer than most people in the world (Take this cool 15-second quiz to see how your wealth compares to the rest of the world).
But in spite loving my expensive computer, something inside me yearns for the simple life. That term can mean a number of different things, but I define simple living as a lifestyle that consciously and intentionally chooses to consume less. That implies consuming less electricity, less petrol, less food, less entertainment, etc.
“Less than what?” you ask. My best answer for that is, “less than you could.” My point in simple living is not to reach an absolute standard of consumption or even a relatively lower standard than everyone around me; rather it is to be free from the demands of greed, free from the need to impress people with my stuff and to be rich enough to be generous to others.
‘Tis a Gift to Be Simple
I suppose part of my longing for simplicity comes from a rural upbringing “back in the good old days.” Since I’ve actually experienced growing one’s own food, for instance, I know the benefits of that aspect of simple living. Or maybe it comes from spending a few years in a fairly primitive living situation back in the 80s (no electricity, no water, living in a house made out of sticks and thatch, and worst of all, NO INTERNET). Being the richest person around for 50 miles in any direction may have warped me for life.
Simple Environmentalists
I also yearn for simplicity because I’m some kind of environmentalist. Not the kind that says we shouldn’t have babies or that we should hug trees (although I do like trees and I limited how many kids I had). I just don’t like wasting things, throwing things away that could be put to use some other way or living in the midst of too much stuff because all those things use up or mess up nature to 
some degree or another. Further, the idea that you can simply plant a tiny seed and it turns into something edible just fascinates me! I might even call the beauty of nature sacred—not to worship nature, but sacred in the sense that the clever detail and refreshing beauty seen in living things reveals a powerful God.
This will be the first in a series of articles about simple living. I want to eventually cover (in no particular order) topics like:
- a theology of simple living, including voluntary poverty
- appropriate technology
- the time vs. money trade off
- simple living experiments
- simple living in urban vs. rural settings
I approach simple living as a believer. But there are lots of nonbelievers who
hold to the simple life too, for reasons much different than mine–improved health, less participation in the rat race, social justice issues, nonchristian spirituality, and of course, a number of “green” reasons. I’m mentioning that just as a way to say that when I research the topic, I try to examine people’s motives so that I’m not participating in any one’s worship of Gaia.
I’ll start next Friday with a theology of simple living.
I suppose it depends on how one defines the simple life, but I’m against it. Technology is good. It has improved our lives, revolutionized our culture, raised our standard of living. We should use more of it.
I don’t define the simple life much in terms of technology. It is more about greed than about gadgets. It is a decision to say no to the temptation to have the newest, best, and fanciest one of everything–be it technology or be it house, clothes, guitars, memberships, etc. It’s about not keeping up with the Joneses.
When I get to the part about appropriate technology, there will be examples of very high tech things being used in very simple-life ways.
I’m expecting the economists around here to have something to say about this because–in my limited understanding of economics–it seems like our country’s standard of living is dependent on people consuming more instead of less. If everyone decided to live the simple life, would north America fall apart??
Great article. I’m sort of a minimalist. I like wealth since its the direct product of God’s wisdom, but I also like the basics of life. I don’t have cable T.V. and have never owned a cell phone, and do not like them. Unfortunately, my occupation is going to require that I get one. I’m not happy about it, but you know how that is. Eventually we all succumb to modern life.
My pastor recently took a picture of what appeared to be an outhouse out in the middle of the woods while he was visiting on the East coast. As it turns out, it was actually a telephone booth. Some Amish people built it and got the phone company to wire it up for them.
The greatest lie of technology is that it will make your life easier. It really only complicates things and makes you lazy. Instead of technology working for us, we’re almost in a situation where we’re working for it.
The greatest lie of technology is that it will make your life easier. It really only complicates things and makes you lazy. Instead of technology working for us, we’re almost in a situation where we’re working for it.
I could not disagree with this more.
Technology of any kind improves efficiency. Efficiency does not result in “laziness” but in saved time, which relative to the former situation is created time. Thus, technology creates more opportunity for additional work or “laziness” but either way the result is no less than breaking even.
“Thus, technology creates more opportunity for additional work or “laziness” but either way the result is no less than breaking even.”
Chris might be talking about the law of unintended consequences. We’ve likely all got stories about how a certain gadget was supposed to save us time, but in the end, it took on a life of its own due to maintenance, steep learning curve, incompatibility with previous versions of itself, etc. So it disappointed us in how much time it took in order to save us time.
Having a cell phone can make life simpler. I have a cell phone, and no house phone. There’s no playing phone tag with me because I almost always will be able to answer. If I get in an accident, have trouble finding a place (like when I missed a turn going to my sister’s new place), or if you’re going on an extended trip, having a cell phone can really make things simpler.
Yes, having a cell phone and no house phone can make life a lot simpler, especially if you give your number to virtually no one.
Having just a cell phone results in talking on the phone a lot more, at least from what I’ve observed. Anyone could call me anywhere, I would usually feel obligated to answer, and I would use it lots more for conveniences such as “Oh, by the way, where are you, will it be six minutes or seven?” Of course I’m exaggerating and of course this isn’t true of me, but it’s what I’ve noticed among others who have only cellphones.
Thainamu is right: technology doesn’t always make life easier. When my roommate (my car salesman roommate, not the heretic) decided he needed the newest, fastest wireless router, he broke our internet for a week. It was supposed to make things faster, not break them.
But that’s just a case of broken technology. Sometimes technology that works correctly can reduce your quality of life. Like Sharon mentioned, sometimes people with cellphones become tied to them. (Personally, I just refuse to answer it if I’m busy or don’t feel like talking.)
But mostly, technology is really, really awesome. Like jumbo jet technology. Way better than ships.
And I understand that using technology isn’t really at odds with Thainamu’s idea of a simple life.
Chris might be talking about the law of unintended consequences.
It’s the law of unintended consequences that makes technology powerful. Because of those things that aren’t directly affected by the efficiencies created things are better on aggregate. for every Sharon that’s tied to her cell phone, there’s a businessman that can now save 50 minutes per day to make more good and services.
Maybe I didnt’ adequately explain what I meant. But consider the other side of the technology coin. Take exercise, for instance. There are all these people (I happen to be one of them) who go to the gym three times a week to work out on the latest high-tech equipment. Why is this necessary? I think it has something to do with efficiency leading to atrophy. What I mean is that our heating systems are efficient, so we don’t chop wood. Grocery stores are convenient, so we don’t farm. Our occupations seem to be much less labor-intensive, so we rely on technology to keep us in good physical condition.
How many times have you racked your brain looking for the remote, when all you had to do was get up and change the channel? Come on, I know I’m not the only one. Or how many times have you bought something over the internet for convenience sake, only to be disappointed because it wasn’t exactly what you wanted? Or once you paid for shipping costs it would have been less expensive and more enjoyable had you done your shopping the old-fashioned way. When is the last time you sat down and wrote someone a letter in favor of sending an email? The email is certainly more efficient, but does the experience of getting an email compare to receiving a letter from someone?
I’m not totally against technology, but I think there are definitely pros and cons. And I think it definitely fuels the desire for instant gratification, and generally makes people more impatient.
I never forget where I put the remote.
Is that because you tape it to your hand?
Velcro
Thanks for the clarification Chris, but I still disagree with your premise. Well, I agree with it, I just think your application lacks foresight:
I think it has something to do with efficiency leading to atrophy. What I mean is that our heating systems are efficient, so we don’t chop wood. Grocery stores are convenient, so we don’t farm. Our occupations seem to be much less labor-intensive, so we rely on technology to keep us in good physical condition.
This isn’t lamentable at all. We now have greater freedom and control of our physical health. There are still plenty of labor intensive jobs out there - so much in fact that many of them sell for higher than office jobs. Moreover, having a cushy desk-job allows one the capital to invest in their body at the exact rate of work that each individual desires. However, most people would rather not exercise and do labor-intensive tasks - and because of technology, they can make that choice.
How many times have you racked your brain looking for the remote, when all you had to do was get up and change the channel? Come on, I know I’m not the only one.
But the amount of time saved on say, 15 channel flips, pays for the 2 minutes it takes to find the remote. So unless you lose the remote every couple hours, you are still better off.
Or how many times have you bought something over the internet for convenience sake, only to be disappointed because it wasn’t exactly what you wanted?
Again, the convenience and cost, on aggregate pays for the few times that you aren’t satisfied and then some.
All of your “cons” are anecdotal and emotional. While I appreciate these individual circumstances, they don’t hold up to the power of mathematics and science involved in time and cost savings on the whole.
“All of your “cons” are anecdotal and emotional. While I appreciate these individual circumstances, they don’t hold up to the power of mathematics and science involved in time and cost savings on the whole.”
Fair enough, Colin. And much of your reply is much more exact pertaining to the evaluation of cause and effect. My cons are emotional and not scientific; that is correct. But from my point of view, neither science nor mathematics is more applicable in this matter than is nostalgia. So for such an argument to be understood, I suppose it just has to strike a chord with you.
And maybe many of my opinions about the “simple life” are really rooted in my own personal philosophy on how life should be lived. Although Thainamu did not define such a lifestyle in terms of technology or a lack thereof, I am personally annoyed by a world constantly buzzing with gadgets and busyness, and see a relationship between these and some of our social ills. I don’t like to see people rushing to destinations with cell phones against their heads while they’re trying to eat hamburgers or put on lipstick. I am genuinely bothered by this. I like things quiet and subdued, and I despise my own tendency to surf the net all the time.
I’m torn between the conveniences of modern life and core values, such as patience. Patience seems to be eroding away in our society. At least that’s my impression. With all the means of communication available, people seem to be moving further away rather than closer together emotionally. I’m not going to try to prove my point by quoting statistics; it just seems that way to me, and to me that trumps science, mathematics, and efficiency.
Quoting Chris: “And I think it definitely fuels the desire for instant gratification, and generally makes people more impatient.”
I think there is something to this, but it can be very subtle. Impatience is all about expectations, not really about the absolute time it takes to accomplish a given thing. For example: I have a nice fast computer which I really like. Now when I use a slower computer, I get annoyed and impatient. But I’m old enough to remember, if I’m willing to bring it to mind, that it was only a short few years ago that was feeling happy about the improved speed of the “old” computer.
Maybe technology does subtly give us an idea that almost everything is easily accomplished–after all, we experience so many wonderful examples of it every day (hot water delivered right to the sink; breakfast cooked in one minute in the microwave oven; 6,492,000 hits of information about X on .09 seconds in a Google search). However, there are still a few things in life that take lots of time and effort and revision to get right. It is sometimes a temptation to bypass or short-cut the process because it takes “too long.”
Fair points Chris. I think it just comes down to a difference of priorities. The good thing is - as long as we are free, we can each pursue the kind of lifestyle that makes us happy.