A reader writes about conservation efforts in California:
There’s plenty of room for improved energy efficiency and material conservation (water, wood, energy, etc.) in the average American household without any loss of opportunity, happiness or convenience. It’s just habits and manner of thinking. Remember back when nobody recycled anything (except maybe poor college students collecting aluminum cans to make some spending change)? Profligate wastefulness never makes sense and never looks good, on anyone.
And while I may agree, it’s not a universally held opinion. In societies less well-off than ours, it can be a signal of power to waste materials in some grand gesture: for example, the potlatch:
Dorothy Johansen describes the dynamic: “In the potlatch, the host in effect challenged a guest chieftain to exceed him in his ‘power’ to give away or to destroy goods. If the guest did not return 100 percent on the gifts received and destroy even more wealth in a bigger and better bonfire, he and his people lost face and so his ‘power’ was diminished.”[11] Hierarchical relations within and between clans, villages, and nations, were observed and reinforced through the distribution or sometimes destruction of wealth, dance performances, and other ceremonies. The status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The hosts demonstrate their wealth and prominence through giving away goods. (Wikipedia)
Obviously, the potlatch was about more than just destroying material goods – and it varied from culture to culture. Wise? My impulse is to say no, but on consideration, if your goal, and a key to your survival, is to have more prestige than your neighbor, and this was a channel for achieving that goal, then I have to say it’s wise.
