"The net worth of the 225* richest people in the world now equals the combined income of the poorest 2.6 billion, who comprise 47 percent of the world's population." (UNDP's 1998 Human Development Report)     (* billionaires)

            David MacClement's page: (Or see my Web-Archived Geocities page on 26th Oct. 2009)

My own opinions, starting mid-1990s.

  {My Twitter page http://twitter.com/davd, started in May 2007.

    new See under my photos for July 2018 Ontario Greens notes.}

(if the "last modified" date near the bottom doesn't change, it means I'm prevented from uploading to this Tripod.com site, and you should join the LessIsMore group: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LessIsMore/info to see what I've been into since 2002.)
{Here's my 332-word autobiography, on Avaaz
- and: an outline of my life and philosophy, in 2002 }

my World View:

my Personal Actions:

__ I believe the human race passed a comfortably sustainable population in about 1950, at 2.5 Bn, but in 1987 there were twice as many of us, and three times as many by 2018|^, with a most influential minority using FAR too much. The middle-class and rich have the wrong goals (largely induced by advertising), if the world is to remain as civilised as it was between 1955 and 1977 (not including Stalin & Amin).
___ The >1 Bn car-using, meat-eating destructive people (CuMeDs) will need to drastically reduce both their consumption and what they do! Doing too much, while there are too many people, should be reduced since this is the origin of most of our excess consumption. Job-and-income-sharing would be a major step in the right direction.

__ I have reduced my demands on the Earth to a bare minimum by spending US$1,350 p.a. TOTAL; including no more than US$450 a year, or $8.65 per week, on food (all of it bought at the supermarket). I pay for my half of the rates on our mortgage-free house, and I walk or (occasionally) take the bus, e.g. to buy the groceries. I walk barefoot year-round (at lat. 37, maritime), wearing thongs/jandals if the road is rough or my pack is heavy. I haven't thrown out clothes for a couple of decades, and I'm now gradually using up that capital investment.
____ I am now free, from the boss's pressure to produce more and from "keeping up with the Jones's"!
It's not exactly a religious decision, but it's based on some of the same basic impulses.

_|^"three times as many by 2018"
_|˜: Look it up in the archives of Yahoo's LessIsMore list. (Dec 31, 2004). By 2012, was paying half household costs: US$5,835 /yr, 3 yrs data.

{My wife Bera died 21 July 2013; 1999 photo, age 58, is on her 1999 NZ Greens candidate page.}

I'm not recommending others do the above, though I am saying it's possible.         David MacClement

http://web.archive.org/web/20140524090758/http://ubuntuone.com/2cvVBdoCXmkD2gaIbfpQZ0 http://davd.tripod.com/DavidKawauDeck150825_face-1310x1480.jpg  By SIL on Kawau Island, Aug 2015
For more detail on how my wife and I were living from 2006 to 2013, on US$5,835/person/year (sharing household costs 50/50, at latitude 37), see my blog post for 16 July 2010, at: http://bit.ly/dCKYnV (in 783 «words» of 5.84 charac.), or: http://davd.tripod.com/DM/index.blog/2039397/ds-style-32-tweets-july-2010/
Our Kawau early-morning temperatures: http://davd.tripod.com/00-TempsEarlyAM-140719.html#up .

A satellite photo of DM's and daughter_&_SIL's eco-house on Kawau Island NZ, & her keel sailboat (keeler) Autumn: http://is.gd/DMsDtr_nSILhousKawauIsl_Autumn
Google-map original: http://tinyurl.com/DMsDtr-n-SILhousKawauIslandAut

My Exercise regime; on Sat, 2 May 2015 07:44 +1200, I wrote to the LessIsMore list: "Trip to town after 10 weeks on Kawau Island. Unionised McDonald's drops zero-hours. Living on little" at: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LessIsMore/conversations/messages/41675 (login required)
- which has:
"... I do a half-hour walk on uneven ground up-and-down-hills twice a day, with a 10kg (22lb) loaded walk every two or three days to keep my muscles, bones and joints in good condition." (June 2018: occasional max load: 6kg)

most of North Island, New Zealand

Success by the Ontario Greens, and my response to their question.

On 7 June 2018, the Ontario Greens elected the first Green MP to the Ontario Parliament, Mike Schreiner; see:
https://gpo.ca/2018/06/07/schreiner-makes-history-in-guelph/ .

Then, on 11 July 2018 Ontario Greens wrote "We need your input: what do you want the the Green Party to champion at Queen's Park?" [the Ontario Legislature.]

My answers included:
"_ I'm David MacClement; I lived in and belonged to Ontario (I am a Canadian citizen) while getting my BSc, MSc and PhD (at UWO) from 1959 to 1980, working as electronic engineer, Physics teacher and lecturer, getting married and having three children.
_ But we have lived in New Zealand since then, Bera and I working hard for The Greens here as soon as they formed (in time for the 1990 election), so while my opinions should be discounted because I cannot vote for MPPs, I am proud to be Canadian and proud of what the GPO has done and is doing in Ontario." [GPO: Green Party of Ontario ]

--- (blue rule) ---

What sustainability is, in my view.             Visualising a better Future

--- (blue rule) ---

My description, March 1999, of what I think of my life ;
       (in a new browser window)
and: our family travels in Malaysia and India in 1988;
      (what we learnt [new browser window] )

David's year-2000 off-grid PhotoVoltaic system, below

** On 27 July 2000, I took delivery of nearly NZ$14,000 worth of alternative energy equipment for our retirement house which will be entirely off the mains-power grid. It comprised 10 Siemens 75 watt solar panels (SP75), a Victron 2000 inverter, a C-40 Solar controller, a Link-10 Battery Monitor with RS232 digital data connection, and 4 Espace AGM (gel 85Ah 12V) Batteries. Plus some very fat wires and odds and ends.
** I have saved for more than 6 years to reach this point (at age 63); the gear (excepting the batteries) should last the rest of my life (~25 years).

I will use low-power Amateur Radio equipment; I am ZL1ASX

Two years' solar PV energy use; daily measurements plus a cosine fit: (see link to image, below graph)
two years' solar PV energy use: daily measurements plus a cosine fit;

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
· A press release on 09/27/2000, having information I've wanted in the past, contained:
A ... solar panel generates nine times as much energy as is needed to create it.
    Calculations included process energy used in cell and module manufacturing, as well as the energy used in producing both direct and indirect raw materials. Sources included measured energy consumption and detailed bills of materials. The data was used to measure the amount of energy required to make photovoltaic (solar electric) panels, i.e. the "energy payback time."”

http://www.siemenssolar.com/Energy_paper_index.html and summary in Solar Energy, Volume 71, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 165-172, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V50-439MD43-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db18b025a880f5550c31450b0358233c

Initial Empirical Results for the Energy Payback Time of Photovoltaic Modules
This research contributes to the growing literature on net benefits of renewable energy systems by conducting an empirical investigation of the energy requirements and net energy production of as-manufactured photovoltaic modules, evaluating both established and emerging products. Results are based on utility bills, measured energy use, and production records. Crystalline silicon modules achieve an energy break-even in a little over three years. The energy payback time for thin film copper indium diselenide in full production is just under two years. Over their lifetime, these solar panels generate nine to seventeen times the energy required to produce them. Energy content findings are presented for the major materials and process steps for both single-crystalline silicon and thin film copper indium diselenide.

Energy Balances for Photovoltaic Modules: Status and Prospects
Recent work has demonstrated that photovoltaic modules are net energy producers. Based on empirical analysis of utility bills and production records at Siemens Solar Industries, energy payback time for crystalline silicon is on the order of three years and for thin film copper indium diselenide ranges from ten years in research mode to under two years in production. About half of the energy content is process energy, half is embodied energy in incoming raw materials. This paper explores the energy balance implications of ongoing and longer-term development efforts. Future prospects for both crystalline silicon and copper indium diselenide are discussed, including production scale and yields, new processes and equipment, waste reduction and reclamation, of existing equipment reconfiguration, and product design.

An Empirical Perspective on the Energy Payback Time for Photovoltaic Modules
Energy payback time is the energy analog to financial payback, defined as the time necessary for a photovoltaic panel to generate the energy equivalent to that used to produce it. This research contributes to the growing literature on net benefits of renewable energy systems by conducting an empirical investigation of as-manufactured photovoltaic modules, evaluating both established and emerging products.

About Siemens Solar, year-2000 description:
Siemens Solar comprises Siemens Solar firms in Munich, Camarillo (CA), Singapore, Tokyo. Siemens Solar has to date supplied over 150 MW throughout the world, making it the leading company in the photovoltaics industry. Source: Siemens Solar -0- 09/06/2000
{alternate source (Google cache): http://snurl.com/2cha
(in 2008: http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2000/09/14/study-says-solar-panels-pay-two-three-years ).}

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

David's family using windpower from Trustpower, starting year-2000

a New Zealand ridge with some of 48 large windturbines at Trustpower's Tararua Windfarm. Towers NZ-made.
In the mean time, we're using electric energy bought from Trustpower of Tauranga, who own more than 30 small-to-medium hydro-electric dams, and the Southern Hemisphere's largest windfarm, on top of the Tararua Ranges. With average windspeeds of 35 km/hr 85% of the time, the scheme's performance ranks among the best in the world in terms of load factor.

Tararua Windfarm Output for April 2000 to December 2000

The blue line, actual output, shows it is producing more than 11,300 MWh every month, on average…

So we feel our family isn't significantly adding to the excess greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, even now.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-=##=- -=##=- -=##=- -=##=- http://cli.gs/6TaAzg

David and Bera using their own windpower, via NZ Windfarms

Now my wife and I are part-owners (shareholders) of the NZ manufacturer of high-wind-speed-capable windturbines|* and towers (pic: http://davd.i8.com/-/Windflow_WithinNaturesFrame-KauriTree.html#up ), Windflow Technology, and of the 61-to-97-turbine windfarm which supplies energy to the NZ grid, NZ Windfarms Ltd.

Here's an unofficial graph|¹ of that windfarm (Te Rere Hau)'s energy output, while there are 65 Windflow-500 turbines usually available (more are now being installed as they are manufactured):
http://davd.tripod.com/#new1 has: cumulativeEnergyByTeRereHau-Windfarm-NZ.png after you open the http://davd.tripod.com/ page.
_|*: "high-windspeed-capable"; the link has, on 31 August 2009:
"About 55 turbines installed and commissioned at Te Rere Hau (TRH) have been running in recent days (including today) in 25-30 m/s winds (90-108 km/hr, 56-67 mi/hr), when imported turbines have all shut down."

And in Sept-Oct 2010, two examples of normal windy operation (note my caveat|¹ on these numbers):
Date (NZST)net _Powernet Energy AvailableGeneratingWindspeed (average)Wind Dir.High WindspeedHigh WindspeedPower /turbine
MWGWh numbernumberm/s _(km/hr)degr.- at turbine:m/s_(km/hr)kW
05/09/2010 08:17 over 31over 112 656518.7 _ (67)318TRH_T00527.2 _ (98)485
17/10/2010 17:23 over 31over 127 646421.6 _ (78)321TRH_T00430.4 _ (109)488
& 2 examples of 9 and 20 turbines operating in high winds, eg average 113 km/h (70 mph 61 knots):
18/09/2010 13:06 4.17over 116 57931.3 _(113)299TRH_T00542.4 _ (153)463
18/09/2010 12:51 9.70over 116 612027.6 _ (99)296TRH_T00440.7 _ (147)485

Back in December 2009, http://www.windflow.co.nz/news/media-releases/2008/windflow-marks-major-year - has:
Geoff Henderson, CEO [said] “.. the 65 Windflow 500 turbines installed at the Te Rere Hau windfarm [TRH] were performing well” ... “The Independent Expert report we provided to NZ Windfarms confirmed that the last 48 turbines being supplied for TRH are effectively the same as the design being submitted for Class 1A IEC certification ..” Certification was achieved.

{added September 2011: (data just below have same column headings as in table above)}
Date-&-timePower (MW)Energy (GWh) Available numberGenerating numberAv.Windspeed m/s_(km/hr)WindDir (deg.)Hi@Turb#HiWindpeed m/s_(km/hr)Av.kW /turb.
21/07/2011 04:47 NZST30.24over195 979712.6 _(45.4)135.7TRH_T07218.4 _ (66)312
-{added 5 Mar. 2012: Average production has increased since the extension was added. Energy now being produced: 312/97 = 3.216 MWh per day per turbine, after, cf. 202/65 = 3.108 before. Probably because a bigger fraction are near ridgelines now.}

The Windflow turbines are available in the UK; see http://www.windflow.co.uk/
A description of the 500 kW, 330 kW and 250 kW turbines is in the 668 kB PDF here
* A much higher energy (kWh) is produced per year by two 250 kW turbines than one 500kW turbine:
Annual electric energy (kWh) annual energy produced by 500, 330 and 250 kW turbines

              Wind speed (metres per second)

_|¹: "unofficial": These data have been created|² by me (especially since early October'09), and
must not be taken as an accurate record of TRH windfarm output. By 18 January 2010, the average production (since 11 Dec.'09 when 65 turbines were installed) is 311 MWh per day, enough to supply 50,300 households which use as little as our 3-person household does: 2,260 kWh per year (6.19 kWh/day, 188 kWh/month, averaging 258 watts). Those household use-rates become, _per-person_: 753/year, 2.06/day, 63 kWh/mth, 86 watts average.
_|²: My main intervention is to use stepwise integration of netPower to find the netEnergy at my next data point,
when the supplied data is obviously faulty. For each data point I collected a 312-byte data page every (1.60 ±1.41) hours, day and night while the supplied data appears to be faulty.
At 09:17 15 June 2011, Net Power was 43.25 MW, there were 90 generating, so on average each of the 90 produced over 480 kW (MeanWindspeed: 19.1 m/s; High Windspeed 27.7 m/s, in the newer section).

Two good photos of Windflow 500 turbines on the Te Rere Hau windfarm (use full-screen and click-off any pop-up page):

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

David's second PhotoVoltaic system, in 2014, grid-connected

· Using my inheritance from my wife Bera (born 27 May 1941, died 21 July 2013 of adenocarcinoma; see 2nd tweet: https://twitter.com/davd/status/623295635706359808 ), in August 2014 I installed a 1.75 kW solar panel system, through Right House, on the North-facing side of this house's roof.

· The seven 250 Wp panels, made in China (by ReneSola, model JC250M-24/Bb_3510021549250_A, Polycrystalline Cell Type: Virtus II, and Panel Efficiency: 15.4 percent), are connected in series to produce 210 to 252 volts DC (depending on load), which is fed by inverter to our AC mains/grid, recorded by an import-export meter installed in mid-September.

· At 12:25 today, 16 October 2014, the peak power was 1.648 kW (through a small hole in thin overcast), and the linear regression gradient of the (cumulated energy) meter registers shows (since 27 Sept 2014):
import: 3.58 kWh per day
export: 5.66 kWh per day.
· That's a net export of 2.08 kWh per day, totaling 760 kWh per year if maintained.

· Meridian Energy, my electricity retailer, pays me $0.25 per kWh for my excess home-generated electricity, which means they'll pay me $190 for the 760 kWh of electricity I could export in a year.

· I now have 33 data points from 27 September to 22 November. Daily averages are:
2.97 kWh (90 kWh per month) - our _consumption_ when there's too little sun: I pay Meridian; and:
5.82 kWh (177 kWh per month)- my electricity _generation_: Meridian pays me (as credit).
_ The straight-line fit which produces these numbers (a good fit: R2 = 0.993 and 0.999 respectively) should continue for a couple more months before the shortening days and more cloud of autumn show up as reduced generation.

· That 2.85 kWh per day (5.82-2.97) of electric energy I send to the grid for our neighbours to use, is below the 5.0 kWh per day where the rate I'm currently being paid drops, (and is a little less than it could be since our Greenhithe fridge is left on 24/7 these days to keep frozen a large amount of dogmeat with a lot of bones and fat, given to SIL by his brother, an on-your-own-farm butcher).

· To get an appreciation of the scale at which my small (7 panel) 1.75 kW solar installation is producing, that 2.85 kWh per day is a rate which, if it could be continued through autumn and winter, would be 1,040 kWh a year, 46 percent of the 2,260 kWh a year that my wife and I used to use. But 2.85 kWh a day is the production rate for the sunnier half of the year only - we'll have to see what a whole year actually produces, now I am living full-time on Kawau Island and only 3.2 days a month in Greenhithe (though my daughter and SIL spend a small amount of time there as well).

· When considering my Return On Investment (ROI), the other, larger, factor is my cost-saving, the reduction in what I would otherwise pay Meridian if I'd continued to import all the electricity I use, rather than (now) using my own (free) energy in the sunny part of the day for supplying my water heater, electric kettle, fridge, washing machine, this computer and the water pump.

· These are my baseline numbers when I was living here half the time but the 100%-electric water-heater and fridge-freezer were left switched ON 24/7 (for the younger family-members to use):
(Paid on: )
17 Jun 2014 _~_ _~_ $61.05
14 July 2014 _~_ _~_ $50.97
12 Aug 2014 _~_ _~_ $56.83
22 Sep 2014 _~_ _~_ $47.64
average per month: _ $54.12
uncertainty (σ):~_~_ _ $5
range (± σ): _~_ _~_ $49 to $59

· At this very early stage I make the wild guess that my roof's solar energy would save half that or:
$27 per month, if I was to continue living here as I used to; that is:
$325 per year, not taxable.
$190 is my pre-tax monetary income from electricity generation. So:
$515 is my current guesstimate of my return on investment (ROI), or 8 percent per year.

· There are numerous factors likely to change these numbers:

  1. The sun's midday elevation increases between here and midsummer day (22 December, 12:03pm NZDT), then decreases for 6 months, in roughly a sinewave;
  2. We're likely to have cloudy days until summer settles in (late January) then more fine weather until autumn;
  3. If I or anybody stays here for more than the currently-planned 3.2 days a month, less will be available for export, conversely their daytime electricity use will (mostly) be supplied by the solar PV panels, i.e. free;
  4. Meridian only guarantees the payment rate of 25c a kWh for 30 days (but they boast about supplying renewable energy so the 25c might increase). That didn't happen; from 1 April 2015 we (with solar panel systems) are being paid only 7c a kWh in summer and 10c a kWh in winter; and
  5. This Greenhithe house's latitude is 36.775 degrees, and the roof slope is 11.6 degrees|^, so the sun's-rays angle of incidence on the panels in late morning will be closest to "normal incidence" (zero degrees, maximum possible power), at mid-summer day when the sun is directly above the Tropic of Capricorn (23.43 degrees south of the equator) and the sun's rays are only ten to twenty degrees away from being perpendicular to the panels or zero angle of incidence.
    {About my "ten to twenty degrees": because that side of the house is 40° east of north the sun "rises" on the panels early — zero azimuth at 40/360 or 1/9 of 24 = 2 hr 40 min before local noon: 13:20 NZDT, or at 10:40. From then to 13:20 the azimuth part of the angle of incidence increases while the elevation part of the sun's angle of incidence decreases, making a broad peak of power, but lower (my "ten to twenty degrees") than if the roof faced North.}
_|^: roof slope = 11.6° {=arctan((1050 -345)/3435) or http://shar.es/1mlWsF }

· Here's confirmation that the midday sun near equinox would hit at near-normal-incidence (straight-on) on solar panels on my roof if it was facing directly North. I wrote to my Less-is-More email list:

· Using my total-energy readings for the solar panels' inverter, daily average production = 6.88 kWh (10 Sep 2014 to 18 Dec 2014). That compares with the Meridian Energy meter's record of exported energy: 5.74 kWh/day or 175kWh per month, average to 18 Dec (number of points: 48).

· To find the sun's angle of incidence on the solar panels; it was shining at midday on 19 Dec, so I was able to_measure_:
the sun's angle from vertical, midsummer (2014-12-19 13:20 NZDT, close to the December solstice):
15.4 degrees.
I did this by putting a permanent-marker mark on the concrete where the shadow of the gutter-end at the north corner of the house fell at 1:20 PM, then the vertical distance between them and the two horizontal distances from the corner of the house; I then used the trigonometric function inverse-sine (ASIN(...)) in my spreadsheet.

· That means, with the roof and solar panels at the shallow slope of 11.6 degrees, that the sun would be hitting the panels only 3.8 degrees - call it four degrees - away from straight on (normal incidence), if my roof faced directly North.
I'm glad to have confirmation of the calculations I did months ago. {· One was: house's latitude = 36.775 degrees, and at mid-summer day the sun is directly above the Tropic of Capricorn, 23.43 degrees south of the equator, so sun's rays angle away from vertical then, is (36.78 - 23.43 =) 13.35 degrees.}

· As it is, with that side of the house facing 40° east of north, the morning sun rises sooner on my PV panels but lower in the sky so I have a broad peak of daily power that is lower in the middle than it would be if I could collect the full 1.75kW they are capable of.

· Starting at 10:28 AM when I realised it was the one I wanted, the power put out by my solar panel system with sun in a blue sky, was steady at: 1.508 kW right through until after 13:20 NZDT, midsummer.
I had been measuring the maximum power, which occurs when the sun shines through a hole its size with very bright thin cloud around it to increase the illumination on my solar PV panels - this was 1.684 kW; this momentary high power is 12 percent more than the longer-lasting illumination which produces most of my electric energy output, 1.508kW at midsummer.

{Some more recent data, also available on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/Davd-Edu-162475567191124/ :
· Now, 20 Jan. 2015, my numbers are:
Electricity _generated_ (7.5 kWh/day, 6.07 exported)
- or _used_ (7.5 - 6.07 = 1.43 produced onsite plus 3.23 imported from mains/grid, total: 4.66 kWh/day) in Greenhithe:
from slopes of PV solar graph from Meridian's export-import meter (number of points: 65, since Sept. 2014):
kWh _ per day _~_~_ _ per month_:
import _ export _~_~_ import _ export
3.23 _~_~ 6.07 _~_~_ 98 _~_~_ 184
- - Google's webcache includes the above.

· The credit built up during the summer was used up by May when I had to start paying for electricity again. A major reason it lasted that long was that the house was only intermittently occupied, mostly March onward when daughter and SIL were sorting, throwing out, refurbishing and otherwise preparing the house to be rented-out (with them as paid managers) - a process taking many months.

Earlier: http://davd.tripod.com/WhoAmI0128.html#up   was:-

Letter to: Positive Futures, Voluntary Simplicity: Re: who I am

Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:56:26 +1300
From: David MacClement (davd @ geocities.com [still works but rarely checked])

At 14:41 10/03/98 -0700, Cheryl Day wrote:
> My husband and I are both 40, and recently retired. We live in western
>Colorado, in an earth-bermed passive solar house we designed ourselves.
>We were self-employed, and worked as sub-contractors in the construction
>industry. Lousy job, but we made more money in construction. We both
>agreed even before we were married that we didn't want to work the rest
>of our lives. So we always lived on a small portion ...
>We now have a small income, sufficient for our needs, from our investments.
> ... some health problems, so our main concern in life is
>resting, eating well, and trying to regain some of our health back.
> ... for right now, we are kicking back, taking it easy, and enjoying life!

[David: ]
** I wasn't going to put in my response to Jan's "Who are you" because I started my most recent cutting-back in a fit of stubbornness near the beginning of five years of depression|+, and people on a list like this want to read about things where they can say to themselves: "I could do that too!"; I ask that no one try what I've done.

After I had raised all three of our children to the stage where they could take total responsibility for their own lives and it was no longer mine; ( I'm leaving my wife out of this description: I've gone my own way and supported myself even while living with the family, so I'm giving my own slant on this; see details in: http://davd.tripod.com/davdsviewhowliv.html   ),
I felt I was free at last to "become a ghost: seen and recognised, but having no effect" on those around me or on the earth: my way of dealing with my depression.

I wanted also to see what was the absolute minimum spending needed by a city-dweller for subsistence; economic theory ( and that's all it is, in the macroscopic arena; it's useful in a controlled, bounded micro area like a corporation, but it's far over-simplified in relation to a complex network like a society); as I say: economics and the market assume that all "players" have the 'zero option' available all the time: not to buy, or not to sell. So  if   it's to have any application to people outside of a corporation, they have to have a guarantee of being supplied the minimum necessities for life: food, shelter (at the higher latitudes), and some clothing. The answer isn't 42, it's US$1,350|³, while sharing living in a paid-for cheap-to-run house and the rates.

The third thread in my life has been my awakening in 1972 to the increasing concern for the future of the world caused by the product (a mathematical term) of the number of people and their individual consumption. I realised while back-packing one of my sons twenty years ago [~1975] when we were living in London Canada, (i) that there was a large excess of people in the world, so for an increasing number of individuals there is at least one other person able to do what that one was doing (leaving practicalities out of it), so no ordinary person needs to feel they are indispensible, for the first time in the history or pre-history of the human race!; and (ii) that do-ing less was a good thing, since resource consumption is involved in most of the things that people do.

(You can see why I was reluctant to put my oar in:   I've found it stops the conversation cold!)

I've realised only a few months ago [~Jan.'98] that I'm coming out of my depression, and in the last few weeks have found that my remaining son and daughter (who has just left to catch the bus to Auckland University) are indeed happy to live under the same roof with me - they buy their own stuff beyond sharing the 9 items I've eaten for the last 5+ years (mainly bread and cabbage). My wife left earlier to catch the 6:30 AM bus to her job lecturing in the Physics Dept. of the university.

So  I   think our family is living in a nearly sustainable way, suitable for an over-populated world.

Sorry for that blast.

David MacClement <d1v9d-at-bigfoot.com> (fix address)

_|+: (Added in January 2011:)
** Being fired at age 52 ** in August 1989 and not finding a job I was capable of doing (and willing to do) during the next 18 months,
** was the best thing that could have happened to me **
- in this last part of my life, since it required me to re-examine my life and purpose;
 I became convinced there are too many too rich on earth and I was one, so I should effectively vanish ("become a ghost").
 In the mid-1990s I said "By choice, I have lived for the last three and a half years on less than NZ$1,250 p.a.- a subsistence existence, just enough to keep body and soul together"; see my letter to the N.Z. National Conference on Universal Basic Income, in Aug. 1996 at: http://davd.tripod.com/dsmenu.html#UBINZ96

_|³: In 2007 (at 05:35 p.m. 17/06/2007 +1200) I (David M) wrote "DM near midwinter day. Making backups. Re: a personal accounting" {at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LessIsMore/conversations/messages/36573 sign-in first}:

· [In the original LessIsMore list] below are: a post summarising my "living on very little" life, and one about having back-ups available, which I sent today to the 90%Reduction list. My: "I recently calculated that I live on about NZ$1,850 per year|ª (roughly US$1,300 _per_year_)" in it, seems to conflict with: "My expenses are NZ$7,490.87 (US$5,208) [plus donations NZ$1,827.66 (US$1,270.77)], 16 percent of my... NZ$11,440 income (US$7,954)" {amended using full 12-month data in my Jul 17, 2007 "... DM's personal accounting, complete first year": http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LessIsMore/conversations/messages/36716 }.
Summarising: For nearly two decades I've lived on very little: NZ$1,850 or US $1,350 in 2004-dollars (or: sharing all household expenses with my wife: NZ$7,490 or US$5,208 per person per year in 2007 after getting NZ's universal pension).
_|ª: "comments on living-on-very-little" http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LessIsMore/conversations/messages/25097

· The main distinction is that my "personal accounting" ... is after [a full 12] months sharing the total household costs with my wife B. half-and-half, the reconciliation being done at the end of each month. So,

*** much of the difference is what I help buy, but the other three people here, use. ***
· ... "I live on about NZ$1,850 per year" _was_ true when I paid for only what _I_myself_ used.

--- (blue rule) ---
Queensland (Australia) dumping its slops on New Zealand:

--- (blue rule) ---

http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/deep-ecology/jun99/msg00056.html   was:-

Received: from edsac (p226-tnt4.akl.ihug.co.nz []) ...
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 17:22:27 +1200
From: David MacClement <d1v9d-at-bigfoot.com>
In-Reply-To: <05163107220104@metro.net>
Message-Id: <>
To: Deep Ecology list [archived for some years on csf.colorado.edu ]

Subject: Re   The Deep Ecology Platform

At 21:57 4/06/99 -0700, Eric wrote:
 >In looking through the "Platform" (by Arne Naess and George Sessions) I 
>[thought] about how radically one would have to shift from current
>consumer lifestyles in order to follow these principles ... and that they 
>should not just be suggestions for behavior.  I haven't been hearing 
>a call for such radical changes on this list, so I thought I'd [comment].
>> The Deep Ecology Platform
>> 3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity
>> except to satisfy vital needs.
> ... questions:
>* Is it possible for humans (or any other species) to satisfy their vital
>needs without ever reducing the flourishing and diversity of others? 
** ".. possible ..":
          Yes.     I do, though this life is too harsh to be a model for others.

>* Does this require looking at things on a large scale or can it be applied
>at an individual level?
**  Both. The average is important on a planet-wide scale, multiplied by the total number. For a Poisson distribution (most members being not far above zero), the mean (=average) is quite low, which says that, to keep the average consumption from getting any higher, to say nothing about reducing it, one person at the-mean-of-the- uppermost-decile cutting back their consumption to (say) half what it was, would allow very large numbers of those below the population mean to increase theirs a tiny but significant (to them) amount.

>* What are "vital needs"?
**  That minimum required to stay alive as a functioning human. My: http://davd.tripod.com/dsmenu.html
    lists one set of food necessities, to which need be added: clothes plus sufficient shelter to avoid becoming moribund through exposure (and this does not include heated houses), companionship sufficient to lead away from suicide (we're talking of minimum or vital needs, here), and sufficient activity that one's body and spirit doesn't atrophy and succumb to entropy.

( see Betsy Barnum's expansion of the above list, at end of this letter.)

>* Are there any restrictions on the degree of reduction to the richness and
>diversity allowable when satisfying vital needs?
**  Good question for a deep ecology discussion. Since human activities' "richness and diversity" cannot be allowed to grow without limit it seems to me that other species (and whatever goes into 'richness and diversity' - don't forget microbes and biome types and sizes) could reasonably be limited to a similar degree.

>* Can anyone think of something they do that is not satisfying vital needs
>and does not reduce the richness and diversity in even a small way?  (I'm
>sure there are some, but there can't be many in our society.)
**  I take "there can't be many in our society" to be critical of this society.

**  Have to talk about my past and the future here; my present is dedicated to living at the minimum, i.e. vital needs only. I believe many of the things people used to do when human populations were tiny didn't noticeably decrease the world's richness and diversity. Even in recent decades, there are many sustainable activities: teaching and learning; the theater and 'acoustic' music-making; walking/hiking; sailing clinker-built boats (made using steam-box and copper nails); horse-riding; kite-flying; antique glider-flying (bungee-launched from a ridge) etc. As you might guess, I've done almost all of these, mostly in my youth in the '50s-'60s.

>* Do people on this list have a vision of a human society where we are able
>to abide by this principle?  (I do, but it's not something that most people
>are willing to accept.)
**  I have more than a vision of it, I remember it. Or nearly - some things we did then didn't fit the criterion. They'd have to be toned 'way down or eliminated. But generally, villages were stable, self-sufficient to a large degree, and people were willing to live within the limits of renewable supplies.

**  Living the way I grew up wouldn't "reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs", but there's still the question of increasing it, returning it to what it was about 30,000 years ago.
    And what I've said really only applies to the 2.5 billion people in the world when I started secondary school. What I described is not possible for over 6 billion humans without reducing the average (material-&-energy) standard of living from that of New Zealand (& some parts of Nth. America) at about 1950, to that of (I'm guessing) country Thailanders|` a decade or two ago. Quite pleasant, but much more limited, and without religion or a good philosophy it would be hard not to be resentful.

>> 6. .. changed ... basic economic, technological, and ideological
>> structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different 
>> from the present.
**  This was obviously written by someone in an OECD country - it's certainly true for these. But that's what Naess and Sessions wanted to change, wasn't it?

>the Platform ... seems directed at human society in general
>and not to individuals.  Was this written for a specific purpose and not
>intended as a general statement of DE as a philosophy?  
**  I'm out of my depth here.
Without knowing anything about DE, I've come to my own view of how to live in a satisfying and DE-conforming way. I'm not living that way myself (I have another goal), but I know people (my wife is close to it: she lectures in Physics) who  do live that way right now. I'm sure there are at least tens of thousands in North America who also live this way.

David MacClement <d1v9d-at-bigfoot.com> (fix address)

{_|`: Re: Thailand:

  Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 08:28:38 -0700
  To: David MacClement <d1v9d-at-bigfoot.com>
  From: Eric Storm 
  Subject: Re: Further Changes: Pt.1 of 2; 'sustainable'
David wrote:
> What was that: world average consumption today, in US$ ? ...
[Eric: ]
At one time you mentioned a guess for the "average" person being a Thai. In the book I mentioned (Material World, Peter Menzel 1994), with its 1994 statistics, it gives a ranking of "affluence" among UN member countries (183). Thailand is number 87; the closest to the middle of the examples in the book. The others that are even close to 91.5 are Mongolia at 80 and Albania at 103.
    Their per capita incomes are listed as: Thailand US$1,697; Mongolia US$1,820; Albania US$1,200. }

--- (blue rule) ---
At 13:12 6/06/99 -0500, Betsy Barnum wrote:
> ...
>Lots of people today might really define their cell phone or laptop, or even
>their Ford Expedition, as "vital needs," but I'd be willing to bet that in
>spite of the barrage of advertising, a lot of people do recognize these as
>luxuries ...
>Defining "vital needs" is a challenge, and I think there needs to be
>flexibility, not a rigid line drawn for everyone. Myself, I'd define as vital
>needs, in addition to the basic physical survival needs of food, water,
>shelter, warmth, rest and companionship, things like beauty, art, music,
>ritual and celebration. These will take different forms for different people.
>In former days as well as today, people create art in many ways, most of them
>using materials from the Earth such as clay, fiber, color, wood, rock. Music
>can require materials for instruments -- wood, hide, reed, strings of gut, and
>so on. It seems to me it is possible to use such materials sustainably. Human
>beings are creative creatures and the need to express oneself and to
>appreciate the creative expression of other beings (not just other humans) is
>intrinsic to our nature. Not having the opportunity to do that would, in my
>opinion, make life pretty close to not worth living.
> ...
>Betsy Barnum
>http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1624 (Geocities no longer exists)

Why I live so frugally (1997),

 & Linda's response (or 1 , or 2  resp., on my site.)

David's reason for existence


Our local paper Front Paged me, in 1992 (includes my 1992 photo)

My life and opinions ( 38kB)


Music, philosophy: unimportant?

  Romanticism ?

Am I like Diogenes?

"Values Game"; my results

Reducing The Number of People in The World,                          
or: How Billions can Commit Suicide, Without Actually Dying.{short letter}

Total costs about $1,300 p.a.?!: My diet, for minimum healthy eating (at under US$9/wk).

A letter (to Eric Storm) about: What are VITAL NEEDS? and my daily routine.

Marta picked up my budgetting advice.        

[return to top]

--- (blue rule) ---

satellite view: Australia-New Zealand   NZ spring weather: Oct.'99
Click for current (prev midday NZ time) full globe.        

Weather in NZ, for 23rd October 2001.          

 (Don't go to RainForest: David's Page
- it's removed with all Geocities sites, by Yahoo!)
 My Web-Archived Geocities page

  Please send any questions or comments to the site Editor

(last modified: on Fri 8th November 2019 NZDT; my 83rd birthday.)
David MacClement  http://twitter.com/davd  ZL1ASX

This page is: http://davd.tripod.com/index.html#up

(My only free site left, since - my page at Tripod Germany no longer works)

Advertisements:         Free Webpage at Tripod.com
Free Domain Name