Waste
ultimately is created by expending effort and using resources without
benefit to you or anyone else, or so that your actions cause harm or
death in any timeframe. If you value life, then waste is bad
by definition. If you make or acquire something and don't use it to
benefit you or others, then to be good you must lose it – convert
it into a form that isn't waste, or give it to someone who will use
it appropriately.
My
New Year's resolution was to reduce waste, personally and in general,
embodied by the phrase "use it or lose it." In the worst
case, it keeps new waste from being generated; in the best case, it
increases the net amount of benefit in the world. Knowing how much
discretionary
time we have provides a means for determining what we can use,
what to lose, and what we shouldn't make or acquire. If the actions
we take during our work time create waste, then we need to change
what we do for work; and since in most cases what we do for work is
traded for things we acquire for personal use, we should find less
wasteful ways of acquiring those things, including making them
ourselves.
I
personally like to read, watch TV and movies, and listen to music.
Even more, I like to explore, daydream and assemble thoughts in
writing, take photographs, and create music. Obviously I can provide
much of my own knowledge and entertainment without acquiring it from
others, thus reducing personal waste. Waste can be reduced further by
trading what I create with people who don't have those skills (or the
desire, resources, or ability to develop them) in exchange for things
and experiences I can't or choose not to develop on my own. In that
case, I have gained benefit already, and am creating a chance for the
effort to accrue further benefit for someone else.
Paradoxically,
forcing everything to be subject to trade, as is the trend
here in the U.S. and with international trade agreements, promotes
the chances of more waste being generated. The reason is that trade,
to be profitable, exponentially increases consumption by enabling
more people to consume, and each person to do more of it (by
increasing the efficiency of converting resources into products).
Consumption, as I define it in my
research, is the conversion of resources into forms that cannot
be used as resources by natural systems over a period of a year
(which from an ecological perspective is "waste"). Creating
something for your own use is less likely to be as efficient (in the
economic sense), and your consumption – including generation of
ecological waste – less likely to grow exponentially.
Ideally,
each of us would create what we need, and then sell (or otherwise
trade) what we can't gain benefit from, either in the process of
creation or changes in what defines "benefit" in terms of
what we created. We would use the proceeds to buy what we need but
can't create on our own. Anything left from transactions would be
converted into resources that can be used for other purposes by us or
other species.
My
personal application of "use it or lose it" is likely to be
more practical than ideal, enabled by a simple change in expectations
and a process of testing. Anything new that I create, such as a book
or music track, will need to be personally satisfying in its creation
and its usability, thus achieving a minimum degree of benefit. If
possible, it would also preempt consumption of something similar from
another source that would provide an equivalent amount of benefit.
This would be my minimum acceptable expectation for creating it, and
is totally under my control. If in the process I have to learn
something, including a new skill, then the benefit of that learning
would be factored into my expectation. What I create would be offered
to others as a gift (such as this blog post) or for trade (such as a
book) if there is a good reason to believe they would benefit from it
and if any costs involved in the gifting or trade can be
recoverable in either the satisfaction of gifting or the value of
what was received in trade (otherwise the cost would be waste, so
this assumption will need to be tested).
I
plan to give away or trade things I currently own that cannot be
expected to provide any future benefit to me (thus "losing"
them). Like with new things, the costs should be recoverable as
satisfaction or in what was received in trade. Throwing something
away is committing it to being waste, and will be avoided if
possible, such as by trying to give away or trade its parts
(essentially, recycling). For things I've been selling that incur
periodic costs (such as distribution of music), I will use testing to
find justification for future costs (such as others benefitting from
them), and will discontinue them if justification can't be found;
otherwise the costs would qualify as waste.
"Use
it or lose it" is a good rule to promote as well as to practice,
which is why I'm discussing it here. The minimum benefit from doing
so is the feeling of developing and shaping potentially meaningful
and useful ideas. The greatest benefit would be evidence that I am
contributing to my primary value: maximization of life's ability to
survive and thrive for as long as possible.