This article from the BBC, originally published in April of 2022 got me thinking: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220412-should-we-be-eating-three-meals-a-day
How much of our modern ailments are directly related to our modern conveniences?
How much of our modern concerns (climate change, pollution, inflation) are directly related to our modern “advances?”
And perhaps most importantly: What can I do, in my own life, to rebel against the idea that what we do for our conveniences and advances is “progress-by-definition?” Can I lead the way by directly or indirectly influencing others with subtle but impactful changes to my visible lifestyle without actually drawing attention to it?
I have already started making some changes less by choice than by necessity. For example, I cannot tolerate the chemicals in salons and barbershops, so my hair is getting very long. So long, in fact, that most modern haircare no longer works for me, even if my increasing chemical sensitivities and allergies are accounted for.
- Shampooing even once a week takes a very long time (and my hair doesn’t dry easily or well), and requires at least a quarter cup of shampoo (costly and wasteful) / most shampoos cause allergic reactions due to perfumes (even “unscented” products often have scents added in to mask chemical smells!)
- Having professional attention would be both costly and also time consuming
- Hairspray, if I wanted to use it (outside the breathing issues afterwards – asthma) would require a huge amount of product (costly and wasteful)
- There is SO MUCH hair that decorations like headbands, combs, etc are not made to hold it all back
- Etc….
So I clean my hair using methods that are a few hundred years old most of the time and reserve shampoo for a few times a year. Counterintuitively, or perhaps predictably given the allergic reactions, not shampooing has resulted in far less of the life-long scalp and skin conditions, as well as healthier hair!
Not going to have my hair “done” has saved a good bit of anxiety over whether it looks “right” or whether I need to schedule another appointment… I put it “up” every day unless I am ill, and even then it’s in braids or twists to keep it from snarling and knotting.
Not using additional product has helped my hair stay supple (hairspray makes my hair very brittle even after removing it), therefore healthier, and more durable against both split ends and falling out.
And so on. I don’t need to maintain my hair in order to attract anyone (being married for a million years…) and it doesn’t bother me when others might wonder about its appearance. However, I am conversely discovering that the length of the hair and the most-obvious hairstyles (buns/braids/crowns) cause people to notice and comment more often. Since I am still wearing masks, the “do” looks frowzy by the end of the day due to the elastic running over it, but now that the length is reaching my elbows/waist it holds all day.
Of course, the daily haircare takes a bit longer…. Combing, then brushing to remove a day’s grime in the evening (woodsmoke, dust, etc), then the same in the morning to remove knots before braiding or otherwise getting ready to teach. And YET: that time that I am taking on myself is meditative and calming. Being purposeful about this one aspect of the “toilette” each day sets a positive tone.
Overall, my single, relatively simple, change in haircare has resulted in no net gain of time (and a loss of time for other things on a daily basis) but has saved money, and I minimize my carbon and resource use (consider all the plastic shampoo bottles I no longer buy!).
The point: I don’t expect everyone to grow their hair long, but it might be that paying attention to the costs of time, money, and resources in this one area can motivate me to “improve” by reverting to older mentalities, processes, and expectations.
So, food: the slow food movement and the local food movements are very much like my haircare routines. Being more deliberate, thoughtful, and meditative about one’s food consumption can result in a smaller impact on the world-at-large and as hinted at in the BBC article can improve individuals’ overall health.
And “slow fashion” along with repurposing textiles/clothes from yard sales, and consignment or thrift stores. Purchasing or making higher-quality clothing that fits well and is made with methods and of materials that will withstand years of use is costly “up front” but saves both money and time later on. In this, “classic” style or less-extreme fashion lasts longer for those who care about the opinions of others. Choosing a stylistic theme or era (1940s or 1970s for example) can allow a person to choose individual items to mix and match (nowadays the term is “capsule wardrobe”) a small number of items but still enjoy a large number of outfits.
And work-life “balance” which implies that time at work is spent more productively so that the time at home and with family/friends is maximized. Spend a little more energy in the time at work. Have more time at home to rest and recover so that the remaining time at home can also be more energetic.
Perhaps all of this points toward reverting to focusing less on money and demonstrating love/friendship/value through expensive and plentiful “stuff” in our lives and more on thoughtfully curating what is acquired and gifted. Doing this, almost by definition, will reduce our individual, and thus group, negative impacts on the world.
Of course, it demands a new model for “prosperity” and corporate/business “success” in that the model and mindset of continuous growth needs to be replaced with a model that embraces sustained use and sustainable production.
I suspect that reducing the need for “more” by those who already have enough would filter down to reducing both real and perceived poverty. Perceived poverty might need definition: in the U.S. many people who are “poor by comparison” with the average standard of living would be considered well off, or at least comfortable, in many other countries. It never seems that people in the United States can admit to having enough, or admit that they don’t feel the need to improve/acquire more.
In our own life (my spouse and mine) we struggled for years to afford new towels, or clothes for the adults, but we manage to keep a roof over our family, have food and medical access, and new clothes and shoes for the children as needed, and an occasional special item or experience (usually thanks to better-off relatives). But where we live it is common for many families to have second homes and/or vacation several times a year in fun/exotic locations. It is common for children to receive a car on their 16th birthday. It is expected that most children will go on to college after high school…. And so on. Which means that our family stood out as having less until very recently.
And even now, I find that acquiring a lot of new items and discarding/giving away older items is the norm even when “new” wasn’t strictly necessary. We are in fact getting two new chairs and a few other items from IKEA delivered tomorrow…. For a spot in the living room that we could use for visiting with guests or reading but strictly speaking they weren’t necessary. And yet, for me the shape and size of the chairs that are coming will be much more comfortable and perhaps make it easier for me to spend time there instead of propped up in bed on my worst hip days. So, necessary? No. Desirable? Yes. Wasteful? Detrimental to the environment?? I hope not, but there is always the idea that if it’s not necessary it’s wasteful, and wasteful by my definition involves environmental harm.
I am sure I’ll have continuing thoughts about how personal decisions impact the wider world. Will 2023 see improvements? We’re about to find out!
Leave a Reply