Better - not more

The average U.S. home was 1,700 square feet in 1980, by 2015 it was 2,000 square feet, even though the number of people in the average household shrank. In 1980, 15% of households didn’t have a TV, now only about 3% don’t. In 2015, 40% of American households had three or more TVs, including 30% of households earning less than $40,000 a year! In 1980, only 13% of households had 2 or more refrigerators, in 2015 30% did — including many low-earning households. Clothing purchases have increased five-fold since 1980 and the average garment will only be worn seven times before it's disposed of. Schrager, Allison. Americans need to learn to live more like Europeans. Bloomberg Opinion, November 12, 2021

As I read and listen to the progress (or lack thereof) being made by global leaders at COP26 about reducing emissions that lead to climate change, I find little discussion regarding reducing the size of the human population - anticipated to grow to 10.9 billion by 2100. Fewer people mean fewer cars, less need for transported goods, less electricity use, fewer acres dedicated to food production, etc. Logically, if we didn’t simply slow the rate of human population growth as we are doing now, but actually decreased the total world population, factors contributing to global warming would also decrease.

Yet the cities in which I’ve lived over the past 30 years are hell-bent on growing their populations. I suspect this “bigger is better” mindset is based primarily on economics. The more people, the more Big Macs sold. The more people, the more homes needed (and more property taxes collected). The more people, the bigger the schools, the bigger the YMCAs, the larger the church congregations. More is seen as better if you want to generate dollars.

What if we changed this mindset to making our communities better, of higher quality, rather than simply bigger? 

When I downsized my home a few years ago, I ramped up my “better, not more” philosophy. Going from three garage stalls to a single car garage, made me rethink just how many tools and how much lawn stuff I needed. Going from a 3000 sq ft house to a 850 sq ft townhouse, required me to consider how many rarely, if ever, used things I could store. And downsizing my closet space made me weed out a lot of clothes and shoes I really didn’t wear. 

More even than weeding stuff out, downsizing asked me to think hard about any new purchases I might make. Like most people, I get sort of a buzz when I buy a new shirt or pair of socks. But now rather than adding to my wardrobe, I work to improve its quality - wool shirts instead of cotton; name brand hiking socks instead of those on sale at Walmart. You get the drift. I probably spend as much on discretionary items as most people, but I buy better, not just more.

Suppose communities started working toward having not just more residents, but a more affluent, more educated population? Luring businesses that pay higher salaries would be a start. As the current lack of workers proves, economic principles apply to human capital as well - scarcity drives up prices (fewer workers, higher wages). Automation can and should replace low-skill jobs. Developing amenities like parks and bike trails that may attract those with leisure time. Encouraging entrepreneurs to open good quality restaurants rather than giving tax breaks to fast food chains. Figuring out how to make education and training available to all residents so the income level of families would increase each generation. The economy would be stimulated because better steaks at higher prices would be sold instead of more hamburgers at lower prices. Nicer homes, not necessarily more or bigger houses. People might spend $20 for a good pair of socks instead of six bucks for a 3-pack at Walmart.

Can the planet work toward better, not more as well? The population growth rate is slowing, especially in developed countries. But can (or should) we try to not just slow growth, but work toward a smaller population? Economic development may well encourage this. Children in developed countries are financial liabilities, rather than assets. You just don’t need that many farm hands. Better education for all people will lead to better health care and availability of birth control. You just don’t need a lot of extra children when the mortality rate of kids is low. Dollars spent on K-12 education can be diverted to post secondary education. 

I would like to see the day (or more practically, I would like my grandsons to see the day), where old houses are torn down and replaced with parks. Camping spaces would no longer be at a premium. Bike trails would be less crowded. Rush hour traffic would decrease. Low-paid workers around the world would earn enough to provide a good home for their (smaller) families and put their kids in educational programs that would result in jobs that called for creativity and problem-solving rather than strong backs.

Yeah, let’s reduce carbon and methane and expand solar and wind and hydro power. But let’s also reduce the number of human beings that need this stuff.

Photo source