A forgotten Golden Era virtue, Thrift

[Derek WC]

I use one of them filters that you fit to your faucet, otherwise I just boil it because it's got this horrid chlorine taste, especially recently. Whenever I go to my grandmothers house I drink her water straight from the tap, delicious well water. Whomever hasn't tasted well water, you don't know what your missing.

I also make my own furniture and fix things. Mostly, if I need something that is made of metal or wood, I make it myself. I buy all of my clothes from thrift stores (Besides the undergarments, naturally), or make them myself.

Subject101:
You can blame the American government for shutting down the free television broadcasts. Now you either have to buy one of them cruddy 'converters' or cable.

 

[Foofoogal]

Whomever hasn't tasted well water, you don't know what your missing.

I had a 350 feet well where I was before and loved it. Delicious water. Well water has trace elements in the water that is good for you.
Now I "have" to buy water though do have a filter on the fridge and drink from it as well. I don't think the faucet thing would work as well.

 

[Kahuna]

You can blame the American government for shutting down the free television broadcasts. Now you either have to buy one of them cruddy 'converters' or cable.

Before the HD conversion we were still able to get one channel for free. Luckily it was PBS and had some decent programming. After the conversion, even with a converter box, we could get nothing. So we're done with TV.
We bought a video projector and watch DVDs from the library instead.

Those of you who live in areas with decent tasting tap water should consider yourself blessed. It was something I always took for granted before moving to an area with nasty tasting water.

 

[Michael Carter]

Local network television stations are still required to broadcast in the clear. The signals can still be received with the appropriate antenna. The Government doesn't provide the antenna.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Actually, you can blame the cellular communications industry for the end of analog television -- it was their constant demand for more frequency allocations that led the government to do what it did.

 

[sheeplady]

The signal for digital is weaker in some places, which means if you live far away from an antenna/broadcast tower/ booster antenna (not sure what they are called), you may have seen your reception go down. Where I live, there are some notable geological features which have messed with the broadcasts. Some smaller places that relied on broadcasts from other cities have had some channels lost completely.

I've been pleased with the new digital TV, we went from 6 channels (one was quite fuzzy and another we could only get audio- no picture) to having over 10, including 4 PBS channels (which is the best ever). But we live very close to the city.

 

[Kahuna]

The signal for digital is weaker in some places, which means if you live far away from an antenna/broadcast tower/ booster antenna (not sure what they are called), you may have seen your reception go down. Where I live, there are some notable geological features which have messed with the broadcasts. Some smaller places that relied on broadcasts from other cities have had some channels lost completely.

If I cared enough to do it I think I could get one station with a converter box and an antenna but most of the programs I'm interested in on PBS are now available on-line. As for the rest of TV, we haven't watched it in 15 years and, when I see what's available on the rare occasion I have access to one, I don't feel I'm missing much.

 

[MissMittens]

Actually, you can blame the cellular communications industry for the end of analog television -- it was their constant demand for more frequency allocations that led the government to do what it did.

Hi Lizzy, you're evidently usually right on everything I've seen you post, but this time it wasn't the cellular industry, but rather something more sinister. The frequencies used by the old analog TV broadcasters is unsuitable for cellular use, but it IS suitable for larger coverage, such as for a radio powered car that drives itself powered by Google maps

The Google push for "wireless" on old TV frequencies:
http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?newsID=288388528&no_view=1&SEARCH_TERM=35

The Google "internet" car
http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/googles-self-driving-car/5445/

 

[LizzieMaine]

http://www.startribune.com/business/47881722.html

 

[MissMittens]

Hmm...but it's currently being rolled out in the 900Mhz band, which is above the TV frequencies that were freed.....the current 4G implementation in other countries touches on the old TV frequencies. I do know that Google are pushing hard to be allowed to use it for undisclosed broadband technologies, and I'm sure they won't be going into the cellphone carrier business. Verizon are implementing a 4G network just below the old TV frequencies, but it's for Federal and State emergency services, and is kinda proprietary.

If the telcos want the former TV allocation, then my guess is it would be for a unified international network that's the same frequency around the world and will allow people to travel worldwide and continue to have cellphone access, cause thats where they are in Europe.

 

[Kahuna]

I was at the library yesterday reading the most recent National Geographic whose cover story was about the world passing the 7 billion population mark this next year. I don't have the magazine at hand as I write and I'm not good at remembering figures but one of the primary concerns the article brought up was the issue of consumption. One quote was to the effect that, "as many problems as population brings, they are overshadowed by the issue of consumption". One map tracked consumption by country and, almost alone in the world, the highest level of consumption was the United States. I'm not sure how current this figure is but several years ago it was said that the U.S. has 5% of the world population but uses 25% of its natural resources. In other words, we're using 5 times our fair share. As other developing countries like China and India begin to prosper economically they are looking to the U.S. as a model. Scary scenario.

Another article I read recently (sorry can't remember where) suggested that the gains that are being made in electrical energy efficiency with Energy Star appliances, wind & solar power, etc. are being gobbled up by a very recent surge in the number of electric gizmos - Ipod, Ipads, smart phones, etc.

As much as it goes against our nature as human beings to try to control our acquisitiveness, I do believe we're going to have to learn to do so, especially in the United States. We need a return to the kind of thrift our grandparents had (hopefully). For some of us it will be a learning curve but it as possible to have quality of life without so much stuff. We need many more earths than the one we have if everyone wants to live the American lifestyle.

If this is the wrong topic for this forum don't reply and I'll quietly go away but I would like to hear more stories of living joyfully with less if anybody has them.

 

[rue]

Kahuna,
I thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSpLUpiMkj0&feature=related
The first part is missing though.

I know you don't get the history channel, because you don't have a TV, so I thought I'd share it with you and see what you think.

 

[Pompidou]

I was at the library yesterday reading the most recent National Geographic whose cover story was about the world passing the 7 billion population mark this next year. I don't have the magazine at hand as I write and I'm not good at remembering figures but one of the primary concerns the article brought up was the issue of consumption. One quote was to the effect that, "as many problems as population brings, they are overshadowed by the issue of consumption". One map tracked consumption by country and, almost alone in the world, the highest level of consumption was the United States. I'm not sure how current this figure is but several years ago it was said that the U.S. has 5% of the world population but uses 25% of its natural resources. In other words, we're using 5 times our fair share. As other developing countries like China and India begin to prosper economically they are looking to the U.S. as a model. Scary scenario.

Another article I read recently (sorry can't remember where) suggested that the gains that are being made in electrical energy efficiency with Energy Star appliances, wind & solar power, etc. are being gobbled up by a very recent surge in the number of electric gizmos - Ipod, Ipads, smart phones, etc.

As much as it goes against our nature as human beings to try to control our acquisitiveness, I do believe we're going to have to learn to do so, especially in the United States. We need a return to the kind of thrift our grandparents had (hopefully). For some of us it will be a learning curve but it as possible to have quality of life without so much stuff. We need many more earths than the one we have if everyone wants to live the American lifestyle.

If this is the wrong topic for this forum don't reply and I'll quietly go away but I would like to hear more stories of living joyfully with less if anybody has them.

Only the poor people will have to control their acquisitiveness. Prices will adjust with supply and demand, and everything will self regulate. As long as you stay on top of the financial curve, there's no reason to ever say no to gadgets.

 

[Kahuna]

Only the poor people will have to control their acquisitiveness. Prices will adjust with supply and demand, and everything will self regulate. As long as you stay on top of the financial curve, there's no reason to ever say no to gadgets.

The poor already have a means to control their acquisitiveness, it's called being poor. When fossil fuels dwindle down to scarcity, as any finite resource that is in demand finally does, rich and poor will be in the same leaky boat.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well said. Eventually, humanity will *have to* curb its monkey-like craving for shiny baubles, because the shiny baubles simply won't be there.

 

[Pompidou]

That's one possibility. The other is we simply find new ways to produce shiny baubles. There's more money in the latter. Between science and capitalism, I think the world will be just fine. If science can discover it, money can buy it. They're like Batman and Robin.

 

[Kahuna]

Kahuna,
I thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSpLUpiMkj0&feature=related
The first part is missing though.

I know you don't get the history channel, because you don't have a TV, so I thought I'd share it with you and see what you think.

Thanks Rue, just finished watching. It was a very interesting program with some very articulate and knowledgeable people (although I don't think I'd want to be invited to a cocktail party with these people as the only other guests). These kind of programs are often so depressing that they have the opposite effect of what they hope for. People watch them and think, "We're screwed. Might as well eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die". As uncomfortable as it is to contemplate these things though, I do think it's good that someone is talking about them.

At the end of the program not everything was left hopeless, there were some encouraging signs. One was a greater awareness of the problems facing us. We have to talk about these things to find solutions. Another was the emergence of the local foods movement. In my town the Saturday morning Farmers Market is the site of many happy social interactions and the source of great food, while at the same time putting a dent in the ridiculous food delivery system that trucks our average meal from 1,400 miles away. There's no way I'm going to get locally grown oranges in Idaho but I can get a lot of my food from local sources, and it will taste better and be better for me.

I liked what one participant said, "The way we're going to have to live is the way we should've been living all along anyway. I think it's going to be much more rewarding. I don't see it as all suffering by any means." The central role of "stuff" in our lives can and should be replaced with things like laughter, love, community, music & dancing - all renewable resources.

 

[rue]

Thanks Rue, just finished watching. It was a very interesting program with some very articulate and knowledgeable people (although I don't think I'd want to be invited to a cocktail party with these people as the only other guests). These kind of programs are often so depressing that they have the opposite effect of what they hope for. People watch them and think, "We're screwed. Might as well eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die". As uncomfortable as it is to contemplate these things though, I do think it's good that someone is talking about them.

At the end of the program not everything was left hopeless, there were some encouraging signs. One was a greater awareness of the problems facing us. We have to talk about these things to find solutions. Another was the emergence of the local foods movement. In my town the Saturday morning Farmers Market is the site of many happy social interactions and the source of great food, while at the same time putting a dent in the ridiculous food delivery system that trucks our average meal from 1,400 miles away. There's no way I'm going to get locally grown oranges in Idaho but I can get a lot of my food from local sources, and it will taste better and be better for me.

I know what you mean about is being a bit depressing, but I also got the message that it's not too late, at least for those of us paying attention.

I liked what one participant said, "The way we're going to have to live is the way we should've been living all along anyway. I think it's going to be much more rewarding. I don't see it as all suffering by any means." The central role of "stuff" in our lives can and should be replaced with things like laughter, love, community, music & dancing - all renewable resources.

I loved that too. That's why I'm living the way I am now

 

[Lincsong]

I don't think living in a hovel is being thrifty. It's good not to waste. This thread reminds me of a Merry Melody Cartoon from the 1930's were the cricket was wasteful and happy go lucky while the ants, squirrels and others were thrity and saving. When winter came the cricket was cold, shivering and hungry. However, a person shouldn't become obcessed. Going to various estate sales, open houses of the deceased I've seen some people who hoarded their last penny so much that they were living in houses where the carpet/linoleum was worn down to the base board! Wore throught the floor board! Now that's taking thriftiness to the extreme.

 

[Kahuna]

I don't think living in a hovel is being thrifty.

To me a hovel implies disrepair which I think is most unthrifty. To make things last you've got to keep them in good repair.