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

The moderate's solution to daylight savings time

Push back against Daylight Savings Time seems to be especially strong this year. Or perhaps the press is just getting used to stoking any discontent available.

I have to say that I find DST somewhat annoying, but nothing that rises to the level of writing my congressional representative or local newspaper editor. Yeah, it’s sort of a pain to change the clocks (those geriatric models that still don’t update themselves) and adjusting one’s sleep cycle to going to bed and getting up a little later (or vice versa). One a scale of one to ten, my discontent is about two.

So why even write about this topic? To me this is the perfect problem that calls for a solution from the radical center - one that is sure to make people angry on both sides of an argument.

From what I read, just about everyone wants to do away with this time shift. The controversy seems to be about whether the permanent shift gives us the extra daylight in the morning (standard time) or in the evening (DST).  I personally like the sun coming up a little earlier, but I can also understand why golfers might like the extra light in the afternoon.  Both sides seem to be able to make a case that the health and safety of people improves with either earlier or later sunlight  - melatonin, traffic accidents, etc. 

So here’s my modest centerist proposal - let’s reset all of our clocks just 30 minutes forward next spring - and leave them there forever. Neither the early birds nor the night owls will get everything they want, but everyone gets a little.

I really don’t understand why I’ve not read this solution before. It’s brilliant, if I do say so myself. 

Public education and community input

Image source

A great number of column inches in the press have gone to questions of who decides what is taught in our public schools.

• The Mankato (MN) school board has created new rules over how members of the community can be heard at school board meetings - angering many in the community.. 
• The outcome of the 2021 gubernatorial race in VIrginia has been attributed to the losing candidate saying that parents should not have a voice in public school curricular decision-making.
• A legislator in Texas recently published a list of 850 books he feels should not be in the state’s schools. Many deal with issues around race and sexuality.
• Contentious school board races have pitted vaxxers vs anti-vaxxers, mask mandaters vs anti-mask mandators, and critical race theory opponents vs those who actually understand critical race theory and the degree to which it is taught in schools. 

It’s kind of a hot mess, but not necessarily a new one. We (old) librarians have been responding to community input related to titles in our collection for about as long as I remember. And while angry parents are not much fun, I believe that it’s important that their voices be heard.

Fifteen years ago, I wrote a column titled Don’t defend that book  Library Media Connection, August/September 2007. In it, I argued for individuals’ rights to ask that material be removed from library collections.* At the time, an award winning book called The Power of Lucky was being challenged since it used the word “scrotum.” People were going nuts (I punned.) In it I wrote:

What troubles me is that our professional colleagues are trying to defend a single title rather than defending a fair and open process for selecting and retaining any instructional material in our schools. Quite frankly, if a school decides to remove Lucky or any other book from its library or classrooms, so be it. If it decides to block every Web 2.0 resource because it can’t discriminate between MySpace and a professional blog, so be it. If it decides that Zeffirelli's movie Romeo and Juliet not be not be allowed because it shows a glimpse of Olivia Hussey's breasts, so be it. 

So long as due process has been followed in making the decision.

While I can't imagine the circumstances under which I would do so, I sort of like knowing that as a citizen I can request that ill-chosen materials be removed from my public school. Harrumph!

“Community standards” is often a term that is used by public schools in their materials selection policies. I take that to mean that the values of people in the community are taken into consideration when an item is selected or targeted for removal. What parents and other engaged community members should have are formal processes for providing input into educational decisions being made. Don't protesters protest when other means of being heard seem fruitless?

Once again, I will advocate for the process, not necessarily for a set of outcomes. Should a community decide that mask mandates should not be required, so be it - so long as the decision was made in a rational manner with a means for gathering citizen input. 

As engaged citizens, we have a number of ways to get involved in educational decision-making that do not require marches, signs, or screaming matches:

• Know the issues on which school board candidates are running and vote for the ones which align with your personal values. Run for school board yourself if you have the courage and energy.
• Volunteer to be on district committees that have community members. Our district technology advisory committee was always lucky to have good citizen voices when debating policies and budgets.
• A good deal of curriculum is written at the state level. Find out how you can provide feedback to proposed standards as they are being written or in draft form.
• Make an effort to actually understand the issues involved in areas of contention. Do you actually know what “critical race theory” and provide an example of how it is being taught in your district? Have you actually read the book you want to see removed from your library? Can you accept the fact that you may be in the minority if your opinions are too extreme

Ever the Pollyanna, I believe most of our country’s problems can be solved through open and good-willed discussion and compromise. Yes, I am a radical centrist. But rational thinking and polite discourse don’t sell many clicks on Facebook or increase viewership of national news channels. One can dream.

*I am shocked that not every person in the world did not read this and have it burnt into their memory. Hah.