I would like to draw attention to the concept of 'minimalistic living' which I read all throughout the personal stories of men who are moving away from investing in or being in relationship (mgtow, the red pill etc.) where I really don't know why, but found a silver lining about how this concept indeed are precursor to what we call 'sustainable way of living' at individual or micro level.
Problem is, many of the studies done by scientists have indicated men are contributing more to the climate change than women: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/21/men-cause-more-climate-emissions-than-women-study-finds , but I really find those research poorly peer-viewed and proper scrutiny about their methodologies followed remains to be absent (e.g., did the researchers considered the emission levels due to consumption of cosmetics also, if yes then in whose section they have included it, men 'as manufacturer' or women 'as consumer'?)
Well all those papers and research are debatable, but my real concern is not that for now. My point is how men considering themselves to be going their own way, or away from having relationships with women, or abolishing their traditional way of making a family for themselves centered around getting married, having wife and children and all, are making a different way of living in which much of their resources they are able to earn, are consumed as much quantity required for their survival, and keeping rest to it for their future use (say post retirement times). This is indeed a good choice in terms of sustainability because being in a relationship or having a family also contributes to more emission per person. So more you consume, more you cause emissions and less contribution towards sustainability.
Imagine two scenarios:
A man doing a decent job, having good and decent earning comes in a relation with someone. Now he have to invest more in dates and trips a bit more often, and you know, how much it adds to emissions: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dining-out-dessert-and-booze-may-be-worse-for-climate-change-than-meat-2019-12-26 . Then he marries and have kids, he now has a family, so he requires a house for the space of a family, have more than three stomachs to feed and as you know, infants and children never come with innate education of sustainable living: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/aug/04/population-climate-change-birth-rates
Now the second case (I found no resource for proving my point since the society and feminism see mgtow, red pilled and MRAs to be extremistic, misogynistic communities only, and they just get blind to the ground philosophy within), a man going his own way has a decent job and good earning. He stays away from dating or being in a relationship, so his frequency of visits to restaurants is minimized (don't know how to cook, please learn it, it's really fun !) as well as his bill to be payed is minimized. He requires a space enough for living for his own. Gasoline is costly? switch to electric vehicle or have fun doing cycling (helpful for saving money). He have himself to feed and take care of only, so less consumption, less material and carbon footprint, less emission. Cosmetics (are you crazy?), not required ! Fanciful clothing to attract ladies, which also become old fashioned for them within months, not required. Fond of gardening ? Its good as you become carbon negative. Children ? what about having a pet? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/08/02/whats-your-dogs-carbon-pawprint/?sh=23599b9f13a6 (go through this article carefully !). Ofcourse, he may go for having fun and adventure, but the frequency would be obviously less than any other guy in traditional roles.
Now people here in this sub or other related subs may ask 'why do we do so?', in other sense, 'why do we think about sustainability for a society which always applauds women for whatever they do, but we are always at the receiving end in case of blames ?' Infact that was the first question came to my mind. What I just thought is that recently it had came to for about the study on prediction of global collapse by 2040, as done by MIT in 1970 https://www.livescience.com/collapse-human-society-limits-to-growth.html . If we just remove the picture at macro or social level, then we can say that the newly culminating concept of 'minimalistic living' shown by those going their own way would be able to survive and sustain in our very own way, irrespective of what happens to the society or economy. Minimizing our current usage of resources and saving for our future will indeed help for our survival, knowingly or unknowingly.
If you ask about the phenomenon 'Where are all the good men?' I can just say 'good men are trying their best to save the humanity...' What do you guys think?
Ok_Management4634 2y ago
There was a red pill guy (I can't remember, but I think it was Sandman) said that single men spend about 1/10 as much as married men (I assume they mean "married man" includes what the wife spends).. It makes a lot of sense.. More spending = more consumption.
Rollo had a good video about "The economy of Simping" (That's the title, I hope that's ok to use the word in the title). Basically society depends on men spending money to impress women. Like you said, the bars, resturants, jewelry, McMansions, luxury cars.. all that spending and more is primarily to impress women. Sure, there's some MGTOWs that chose to spend money on those things for their own enjoyment and there's nothing wrong with that.. But the economy depends on men spending a lot of money to try to get a gf/wife and then maintaining that gf/wife.
Snoo16680 2y ago
This kind of "is it mens or womens fault?" is divisive bullshit. We live in a world that is made up of fossil fuels, for everything we do.
I find the sector breakdown interesting tho. Holidays cause more emissions than food. And are easier to cut than meat.
antifeminist3 2y ago
"men use cars much more"
And trucks to deliver all the shit women buy. And they work more than women and so earn the money that women spend.
MrNeurotypical 2y ago
When I read that article I thought to myself "Who cares?". Of course men spend money on gas because we have to go to work and a lot of us have jobs that require gas guzzling diesel trucks. It's just the most retarded thing to write an article that way.
Anyway, the MGTOW gets one thing right and it's based on rational economic principles. A dollar today, invested properly, is worth many dollars in the future. If I hadn't spent $100/wk going to bars and clubs when I was younger I would have a fortune by now. That's $5,200/year. In three years I'd have enough to do wheels on SPY and make $150/wk. Then I could spend $100/wk on bars and still have $50/wk left over to throw back into investing.
So you can think about sustainable living as lowering your cost of living now for future benefits of money saved and invested. Eventually you get to a point where you have so much money that people give you money because you have money. You can't do that if you spend money on dinners for women and any woman that can't appreciate that is not worth your time.
polishknightusa 2y ago
I'm amused because I was the ideal Earth Friendly beta male for my 20's and single career women then reviled me. Well, they reviled me for several reasons due to the situation but my Earth friendly lifestyle didn't help:
1) I decided that my bachelor lifestyle in the city didn't require a car so I got rid of it. I took public transportation which took longer, but I liked to read so rather than sitting in a cafe slurping $5 lattes, I read my books there.
2) Later when I married, I fixed up my car rather than buying a new one. I drive a 20 year old car while my wife complains her friends are always getting new cars because they don't want to bother learning how to replace their own alternator or engine air temperature sensor.
3) I didn't buy anything I didn't either need or use to the max. I enjoy the things in my life to their fullest and don't buy stuff to impress others.
4) I bought classic styles that never go out of style: Turtleneck sweaters and black pants, brown/black shoes, etc.
5) I cooked for myself. Wasn't that hard to learn. Restaurants are expensive.
My daughter mostly has "recycled" toys from friends and family. We don't have cable and instead stream wholesome classic entertainment for free from public services and use DVDs.
DeeplyDisturbed1 2y ago
A few thoughts come to mind:
Women controlled about $20 trillion of consumer spending globally in 2009. As of 2020, the figure is 31.8% according to another source..
From the previous sources, it should be noted that 91% of travel spending is in the control of women. It should also be noted that almost 50% of the carbon impact from all sources is transport. Tourism acounts of 8%. We could end this entire conversation right here. However....
Biological women give birth to 100% of the humans on the planet. Side note: Trans women contribute zero to this aspect of carbon emissions.)
I will stop there. Frankly I am getting tired of tackling these things, only to find that their claims keep getting more and more preposterous over time.
Critical thinking is not THAT hard folks. All you have to do is to LOOK. If an article points a finger at anyone, it is almost certainly propaganda. if the data does not support the article, then it is DEFINITELY propaganda.
Blackbarnabyjones 2y ago
THIS.
[deleted] 2y ago
See obviously whatever articles we have, say in terms of research about 'who contributes more to carbon emissions?' I had already said that:
Well yes, based on your provided data, there are differences when you see 'how much is spent' and 'how much emission based on consumption is done'. That's why I have said that major points related to scrutiny of the facts provided in the studies must be done
Just like the example given by me based on cosmetic industry, but the emission costs will be added to say ten workers manufacturing it, rather than a single women purchasing and consuming it, so this kind of evasion techniques should be scrutinized properly.
Many of the articles are based on their associated study done for it, which were published in science journals also (links to the studies are also provided in those articles). If you think scientific community is now a tool to push certain propagandas, then I can definitely say that we are not doing science as pure as what we used to do say a century ago or before that. We have to ask the correct questions rather than just agreeing to their facts, or else they are equivalent to common myths we used to know as we grow.
But my main focus is not that. My focus is the outcome of the type of living people use to choose, and that outcome comes unconsciously. I never said that men are going away from relationship just to have a sustainable way of living, but rather I am saying how their choice of being away from relationships unconsciously making a form of sustainable way of living. Almost all of the society fails to see it, as they keep saying those philosophy being misogynistic and extremistic, because of their excessive obsession with gynocentrism, but the philosophy is in fact more genuine and sustainable.
[deleted] 2y ago
[deleted]
MrNeurotypical 2y ago
Don't forget ozone hole and fossil fuel depletion.
[deleted] 2y ago
Rapid global cooling caused by human activity? an indisputable scientific fact? That's not even a scientific fact at all !
That's true ! predictions of doom have all gone wrong, which make us to see upcoming studies related to such predictions with much more skepticism. But, its in the individual level, if we are able to make our living sustainable, then its making ourselves resilient to whatever happens at global level. We would be always at the point of saying 'we are doing our part, now its time for you to do so.'