Dichroic Reflections

all good gifts around us

First, check out the pictures below. (Scroll to the previous entry.)

I tried erging this morning. I just did a very light 2K, but it wasn't really an unqualified success. I ended up coughing a bit more crap up, can't take a very deep breath without coughing, and never really got going. I'm not sure if this means I should avoid exercise a while longer, or just that I need to build back up, but I suspect the latter.

The other day, I got lambasted a little bit (politely), in this discussion. It seemed to be trending toward a general consensus that anyone who would drive a Hummer must be a Bad Person or a Victim of Advertising. (Admittedly, the Hummer commricals do foster those viewpoints, positioning the vehicle as a way to prove one's own importance or put someone else down.) So I jumped in where angels fear to tread to point out that Rudder actually bought one for a utilitarian purpose. As it happens, there are very few vehicles that can transport several boats with attendant parts as well as 2-4 people long distances to regattas. The only one one I've seen do it with more than one boat is Old Salt's cargo van, and its gas economy is only a gallor or so better. Most people put their boats on a trailer pulled by a large truck, and again the MPG is as bad or worse.

"Lambasting" is probably too strong a word. The person who was disagreeing with me pointed out that taking one's boats to a rowing regatta is by no means comparable to her own quest to find a cheap way to transport her weelchair. I agreed, but reiterated that it is still a use. Her point was that our use of the H2 is for luxury purposes rtaher than needful ones. I agreed and said so in so many words, but pointed out that luxury or not, we had the vehicle for our own uses and comfort, not in order to make ourselvesfeel more powerful or to compensate for our insecurities. I understand her argument, I think, but I don't think she was willing to understand mine, or she couldn't accept that I was defending a privilege not avaioable to everyone. (Of course, it's also possible that I was coming across as a spoiled brat, though I was trying not to.) She became a bit upset and elected (again, politely) to discontinue the discussion, so I didn't pursue it but am still turning it over in my head (and now on this screen).

The problem I have is that if I take her words to a logical conclusion, then we ought not to have this luxury beat, even though we use it for something for which it is relatively efficient, even though we mostly try to take a more efficient vehicle for errands where we don't need the Hummer's space. (Rudder does drive it to work, but he's got a very short commute and my 1996 pickup, our spare vehicle, is old enough that we don't want to put the wear and tear of daily short trips on it.) So the question is, is it irresponsible to have more than one needs, or to pursue a pastime (rowing competitively) that puts unnecessary wear and tear on the environment? We could row without doing these long trips, but except for a couple of small local regattas (that are not all that competitive) the nearest regattas are 6 hours away or more. Most local rowers don't compete all that much, so there usually aren't trailers going that we could put our boats on, and again, a big dualie towing a trailer isn't too gas-efficient either - and we'd still need to get ourselves there, either by driving or flying.

(And of course the person with whom I had the original discussion didn't know anything about me other than what my husband drives, whether I had lived in the depths of poverty or been a trust-fund baby, whether I live now like Mother Teresa or like Donald Trump, which made her objections a little harder to swallow.)

Will Shetterly has discussed the issue several times. He concludes that it is irresponsible to live with a bigger footprint than necessary. I respect his view all the more since he seems to live up to his beliefs as much as practical in this society, but it's a bit too ideal for me. I leased my current car, the Mozzie, specifically because I had a very long commute and wanted something more fuel-efficient than my pickup. I try not to waste too much extra gas, to recycle where I can, to give some of my disposable income to charity. I don't do as well in any of those things as I probably ought to, and worse, I use the true but not excusing justification that my wasted money or contributions to pollution are insignificant compared to what's going on in the world.

On the other hand, at this point in my life I live in a pleasant, quiet house with a person I love, with a minimum of drama. II have a fairly healthy body. (Well, not this minute, but usually.) I drive a vehicle I enjoy, and if I want books or clothes or yarn or beads, I can generally afford to buy them, as long as I don't start wanting rare first editions or designer clothes (or am willing to cut back in other places to buy one wonderful thing.) I know a lot of it is luck and not anything I deserve. I know that though I've taken opportunities and worked for them, that not everyone has those opportunities in the first place. I know a lot of people are not so fortunate and that though a lot are, the second lot is statistically much smaller than the first lot. Still, I think, as long as I don't use my powers for evil, as long as I remain conscious of how much I don't deserve and don't treat my luck as a reason to look down on other people, and long as I realize that I do still have a responsibility to respect and help those who aren't as lucky, then I think failing to enjoy the good gifts I have would be irresponsible in another way. Not all of the joys of living are to be bought with money, and some of the most important aren't. But is it immoral of me to enjoy those that have been bought as well as those that haven't?

It's the question of Bill Gates, on a lesser scale. I don't approve of some of the ways in which he made all those billions, but I respect him for giving them all away. He may do more good for aggregating the money and then putting it where the economies of scale mean it has a great effect, than if he'd stayed more and let the money stay in its original hands, or even if he gave it away as fast as he made it. I do'nt think he's giving it away to enhance his own image, because if he were, he'd find sexier charities. And even if he were, he'd still be bringing a lot of benefit to those who need it.

I don't think Bill Gates is immoral for amassing his millions before beginning to distribute them. I don't think I, on my smaller scale, am immoral for enjoying my luxuries and the chance to pursue my sport in comfort, even though I don't pretend that those things are among the necessities of life. But I think it's one of those things where each person has to set her own boundaries.

Edited to add: I wrote the above before reading the very relevant post at Making Light. the commentary there is, as usual, interesting. I wouldn't say there's a consensus, but a lot of it seems to agree with my own conclusion: it's not evil to enjoy luxuries, especially if you're willing to work for them, only to view them as necessities or entitlements. And it's generally better to give something back.

Posted by dichroic at July 20, 2006 01:44 PM