Individualism - expensive?

[Dracon II]

I've noticed that Bush has finally told Americans that they need to cut down on unnecessary petrol consumption. It reminded me of a little theme that had been brewing in my head for some time.

To what extent has the spread of the ideology of individualism in the developed world been due to the prodigious and progressive productive forces unleashed initially by the spread of capitalism, the discovery of new frontiers, and the industrial revolution? Do we see ourselves predominantly as individuals merely because we can afford to be individuals?

To me, a testing point would be the hypothesis of hubbert's peak. If extraction of the basic commodity underpinning the growth of the world economy were to begin to diminish... the freedom and abundance we experience as individuals in the developed world would increasingly become unviable, and perverse (if it is not so already). It would be necessary for people to cede their own discretionary use of the resource to those things more necessary to society that also require petroleum. People would be forced to use more communal forms of transport.

If we were to find ourselves again in a situation of scarcity, it would be necessary to restore more communitarian and localised forms of identity and socio-economic organization. Ultimately, communal style living is probably much more resource efficient (I'm not talking about communism as such). I'm not sure if there have been any studies into these sorts of questions, but I would interested to see them.

Of course, the precise timing of hubbert's peak is a contested subject, as is the ease with which movements towards viable alternatives can be made. But it would be agreed that oil is a finite resource, and that much pressure has been place on it's extraction by increased consumption, and katrina/rita...

[VetLegion]

To what extent has the spread of the ideology of individualism in the developed world been due to the prodigious and progressive productive forces unleashed initially by the spread of capitalism, the discovery of new frontiers, and the industrial revolution? Do we see ourselves predominantly as individuals merely because we can afford to be individuals?

Stop reading Marx ASAP, it's visibly harming you, you're not making sense

Oil was discussed in this thread:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138258&highlight=shortage

But it would be agreed that oil is a finite resource, and that much pressure has been place on it's extraction by increased consumption, and katrina/rita...

No such thing would be agreed.

[Japher]

People would be forced to use more communal forms of transport.

"Forced"?

Come to America and see if you can live without driving. There are very few places to live where you can actually survive on PT/

[Dracon II]

Stop reading Marx ASAP, it's visibly harming you, you're not making sense

I am not speaking of our sense of ourselves as individuals in an existential or cognitive sense. We are always separate from everyone else in that respect. When I refer to individuals I'm referring to a social and economic phenomenon; where abundance of resources and goods, and relatively high incomes and freely available credit means we that people have no need to share or pool resources within a community. Of course this goes on to a large extent (taxes, welfare, public utilities etc), but by and large we do not depend on our neighbours. We are a community insofar as money is the community... but beyond earning an income, paying taxes, and obeying the law, most social bonds are generally contingent.
Essentially what I'm getting at is a comparison between pre-capitalist societies and capitalist society; in which one is based on relationships between people in a community, and the other is based on relationships between self-interested individuals mediated by money. I'm not necessarily making a qualitative distinction between the two, I'm simply saying that the latter situation is contingent upon there being enough things to exchange money for; in the absence of mass production and a certain level of abundance and differential roles in an economy, money for most is useless.
I think that if I am not making sense it is because I have not read enough Marx, to tell you the truth. I think Chegitz would be able to explain my thoughts better than I (that is if I have not drifted off into la-la-Dracon-fantasy-land... which I admit I do sometimes )

Oil was discussed in this thread:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/show...hlight=shortage

quote:
But it would be agreed that oil is a finite resource, and that much pressure has been place on it's extraction by increased consumption, and katrina/rita...


No such thing would be agreed.

Hmm... that discussion appears fairly inconclusive to me. That theory does not necessarily explain why Oil isn't finite - at least in any time-span worth working with. As one of the posters explained; even with the orthodox theory Oil is renewable, it simply renews itself very slowly.

"Forced"?

Come to America and see if you can live without driving. There are very few places to live where you can actually survive on PT/

Of course there is no formal coercion. But limitations constitute coercion by their sheer weight upon our choices. I don't know about the USA, but in Brisbane the trains and buses have been packed since petrol prices have hit their recent highs (petrol is much more expensive here than in the US though, despite what the hurricanes have done to your refineries).

But obviously I'll have to get a driver's license if I ever want to live in the States (I'll have to get one soon anyway... if only because it's getting embarassing that I've never tried to get one).

[:) Smiley]

Some forms of individualism, notably driving and detached housing, are indeed expensive.

Other forms of individualism, such as fashion, art, gender lifestyle choices, etc. are less so and not related to energy costs.

There's no need to cut back on individualism, only to be more efficient about it. For example, instead of buying an SUV one might paint their Prius in camouflage.

[DanS]

FYI, Hubbert's Peak is load of tosh.

Anyway, individualism is not expensive. Some things are more expensive, some less. The US is a very cheap place to live, especially in the places where little is communal, such as rural areas. Scarcity would only accentuate a move toward these places.

[DanS]

Some forms of individualism, notably driving and detached housing, are indeed expensive.

Detached housing is about 1/2 as expensive per square foot as a mid- or high-rise. I guess maybe if you were talking row houses versus detached, it might be a little closer.

[Japher]

If we were to find ourselves again in a situation of scarcity, it would be necessary to restore more communitarian and localised forms of identity and socio-economic organization. Ultimately, communal style living is probably much more resource efficient (I'm not talking about communism as such).

That is such a socialist mentality.

Necessity is a mother of invention. In a place where indivudalism is prized just as much as affordability, innovation takes center stage, and always has in America. It is never so much about need, but want here. However, to suggest that one must cater to the society instead of tailor their society to them is very unAmerican, and will not be met with cheers. Rather, we will sooner see a few more millionarers made and more corporate monopolizing when we discover a way to have our cake and eat it too, instead of blaming, whinning, and pointing fingers like the rest of the world does.

Always addressing the problem and never the solution...

[:) Smiley]

Detached housing is about 1/2 as expensive per square foot as a mid- or high-rise. I guess maybe if you were talking row houses versus detached, it might be a little closer.

Only counting construction costs, yes. The need for land to put them on however requires new road and utility construction, and creates an environment that requires lots of petrol to get around. Detached houses are also more expensive to heat.

In a place where indivudalism is prized just as much as affordability, innovation takes center stage, and always has in America. It is never so much about need, but want here. However, to suggest that one must cater to the society instead of tailor their society to them is very unAmerican, and will not be met with cheers.

I fully agree, however, there's a difference in pushing for innovation and thinking you live in fairytale land.

[Sandman]

To what extent has the spread of the ideology of individualism in the developed world been due to the prodigious and progressive productive forces unleashed initially by the spread of capitalism, the discovery of new frontiers, and the industrial revolution? Do we see ourselves predominantly as individuals merely because we can afford to be individuals?

Dunno. One possible counter-example is that farm output tends to be higher when communal forms of farming are replaced by individual ones.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Smiley
Some forms of individualism, notably driving and detached housing, are indeed expensive.

Other forms of individualism, such as fashion, art, gender lifestyle choices, etc. are less so and not related to energy costs.

There's no need to cut back on individualism, only to be more efficient about it. For example, instead of buying an SUV one might paint their Prius in camouflage.

SUVs:
Prius:

Individualism as an end unto itself:
Individualism as a means to and end:


I think the individualist philosophy of the modern western world has more to do with the change in world-view caused by the rennaissance then of economic forces (yes, heresy to the Marxist lefties who see everything as a result of economics, I know ).

[Provost Harrison]

It would be nice to advance to a more communal style of living, but due to the fact I think that humans are, on the whole, a pretty horrible bunch, I'll pass if it's all the same

[Tingkai]

I really don't understand this individualism ****. Why would I want to clean my house when I can pay someone else to do it?

[Dracon II]

I think the individualist philosophy of the modern western world has more to do with the change in world-view caused by the rennaissance then of economic forces (yes, heresy to the Marxist lefties who see everything as a result of economics, I know ).

I suppose you're correct. Humanism, the reformation etc did usher in modern individualism. But this really only directly affected a minority of people in the upper classes of society.
The existence of a philosophy is not dependent on economic/social factors... but often its success does. Individualism was raised to the political level by the agitation of the increasingly powerful bourgeoisie.(also note that the renaissance originated in Italy).

Dunno. One possible counter-example is that farm output tends to be higher when communal forms of farming are replaced by individual ones.

True. But the farms can't be too small. Capitalism in agriculture increased output in the UK following the enclosure acts and (I think) in China during the 80's. It may sound like I have contradicted myself... but I haven't.
Individualism is a progressive force for economic expansion, but the availability of required inputs must also be expanding. Material individualism is marked by the provision of goods and services to individuals to use for themselves (i.e. everyone owning their own car), which is good economically, because it encourages production and commerce and creates jobs etc. But it depends on the availability of resources.
What I'm getting at, is that individualism works terribly in times of shortage (in normal recessions of course, it works well, because it re-stimulates production), when there is clearly not enough to go around and nothing to do (in the short run at least) that could solve the problem.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Japher
Come to America and see if you can live without driving. There are very few places to live where you can actually survive on PT/

That's because city planning in the US, if there were such a thing, was completely borked. Cities were built in completely wasteful ways around the automobile instead of public transports and the bicycle.