I finished reading Post-Growth Hedonism for an Alternative Hedonism, largely skimming the parts about why we need post-growth hedonism. It was disappointing.
First, it was hard to read. The language was academic. It felt like a thesis. This might not have been meant for the general public, which is me.
But most importantly, there was very little about the hedonism. There was a lot about how we can’t sustainably count on infinite growth, which is something I already know and this wasn’t interested in reading about. It did make the point that that’s not only a capitalist thing — it’s the communist dream for everyone to be abundantly provisioned. In Architect or Bee? it’s pointed out that Lenin thought that Taylorism (Amazon-style worker metric maximization) was a good idea.
How can you live well without more? That was what I was most curious about. All this book had in that was:
- It’s nice to have more time to yourself.
- Riding bikes is fun.
- Walking is fun.
- Local vacations can be fun.
- Instagram consumer culture is bad and makes people want things they don’t need.
All of these things are true. However, I still wonder:
- What if you need to visit family that is far enough away to require plane travel?
- What if you live in a school district in which there is the real threat of violence in school? Should you strive to work less or work more to try to earn enough money to move? Is there a hedonic way out of this that benefits both parent and child?
- What do you do about products that have actual utility? Should you get a space heater and consume more resources to be warm? Is there a way to be hedonic while being cold?
I do want to believe in the possibility of post-growth hedonism. The thing is, the suggestions for it tend to sound like “do more with less” which is usually impossible. There is a lot that can be done to avoid waste like not buying phones every year and skipping the latest cool sneakers from social media. But I think people need more to reach a reasonable “hedonic level” because basic needs are not met via redistribution of the collective wealth we already have. If all the schools were the same, and all the homes had the same basic features, then sure, almost everything is optional, and you could say, nah, I’m going to paint today instead of earning more money so I can get some product.
I guess I can say for the book that it did at least get me thinking.