Oink!

Chug-a-lug -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
What is it about the American size-fixation? The size of the average American home is now 2349 square feet, roughly twice the size it was in the 1950's. Make the ceiling height 10' rather than 8' -- you've dramatically increased the amount of air being heated and cooled by your average house-buying American. If Mr. Americano needs to drive somewhere, no problem. The 10 mpg Chevy Tahoe will get him there in cushioned, air conditioned comfort.

George Will wrote a column recently, where he mentioned that our idea of luxury has been redefined by modern marketing, financing and production technologies. Essentially, everybody has luxury now -- flat screen TV, granite countertop, central A/C. You can't even buy a low end Kia Rio that doesn't have A/C and carpet -- those used to be extra frills. Your new $450/month apartment -- it may comparatively modest but it will still feature 10' ceilings, wood burning fireplace and garden tub in the bathroom. Now, if a $35K/year school teacher can have those things it behooves a $135K executive to do something to set himself apart. He must do something that says, "I've made it. I'm successful. And I'm more successful than you are". That means he needs to burn money somewhere ostentatiously. How about an outdoor kitchen by the pool -- with nicer appliances than what most people have in their indoor kitchens? How about a home theater? Maybe a gift wrap room?

There's a problem with a society that defines success this way. It runs into a couple of logical impasses, the first and most obvious is the straining of resources. When a couple of people engage in this materialism it's no big deal; when a whole nation does it, it becomes a big deal. We basically have doubled our fuel consumption for a collective, egotistical "Hey look at me!” How much is real need, and how much is hubris? I didn't feel deprived in a 1600 square foot house growing up. Our Chevy Impala didn't seem downscale at the time. The second logical impasse is more abstract. If we use materialism as the sole (could as easily say soul) measure of who we are, is there any good way to express what's uniquely good about ourselves? Are you only as good as what you own?

If the George Will scenario continues, everyone will soon have a satellite dish and birch cabinets. We lose the distinctions and even ourselves in the whole ugly process.

This will seem like a non-sequitur but bear with... When Jane Fonda ended her marriage to Ted Turner, she noted that she still loved him but they were growing differently. He kept bringing new cars, boats, people and parties into their lives. He wanted breadth and she wanted depth. She (at a relatively late age, early-60's) was exploring her spiritual feelings and wanting to grow inwardly. Kudos to Jane -- we should all want to strive for an added dimension. And for America at large, we could stand to have a new dimension too -- one that isn't purchased with Visa or Master Card. You can't take material goods with you when you die, but I can't help but think -- all that is your essence goes right along with you.

© 2008 blogSpotter