What's the Difference Between "Surplus" and "Waste"? The Waste Is Waste High Quality of Life Economy.

You are receiving this post because you are a subscriber to Charles Hugh Smith / Of Two Minds.

When we hear about surplus income, surplus food and surplus energy, we think of surplus as "extra to what we already have / consume." In other words, the definition of "surplus" is anchored to a moving number, not a fixed yardstick. If we consume the surplus, then that level of consumption is the new baseline.

When we hear about "waste," we might think of some resource being squandered, thrown away with little or no utility gained. For example, if perfectly god food is tossed in the dumpster, we call that "waste."

But what if much of our baseline consumption is not actually needed to achieve our current standard of living / quality of life? What if some of that baseline consumption actually diminishes our quality of life? Is this unnecessary consumption "waste"? If this unnecessary consumption were eliminated, then wouldn't the "surplus" increase?

These questions occur to me because we live in a hurricane zone. Most pass south of us, but you never know. So the question arises: if a hurricane shuts down utilities and transport for an extended period time, what is the minimum quantity of resources we'd need to have the same quality of life (or close to it) we now enjoy?

What we consider "essential" turns out to be far more flexible than we imagine. When isolated communities lose the majority of an essential resource such as fuel or electricity, we see how humans become quite clever about getting by on a fraction of what they previously considered "can't live without" quantities.

In other words, the minimum required to support a good quality of life can be established as material facts. Once this is established by collecting data, then everything above that is "waste" because it's not actually needed to maintain a high quality of life. This "waste," should it be eliminated, would then become "surplus" which could be conserved, shared or sold to others.

Consider food. How many calories and nutrients a human needs to thrive is well-established and self-evident: eating a variety of real food prepared at home and consumed in moderation is a baseline for human health and a good quality of life. Eating away from home (fast food), junk food, snacks and ultra-processed foods generates ill health and lowers our quality of life.

But if you look at TV programs from the early 60s, most Americans looked like Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore in 1964.

The net result of lifestyle and sociological changes since 1964 is almost three-fourths of adult Americans are either overweight or obese, leaving slightly over one-fourth of the population being normal weight.

Many factors have been implicated in this staggering decline of health, but what we put in our mouths accounts for 70% of the causal factors. A study publish in Nature analyzed the various dietary deficiencies' impact on the rising prevalence of diabetes: Incident type 2 diabetes attributable to suboptimal diet in 184 countries.

"70.3% of the total, were estimated to be due to suboptimal intake of the 11 dietary factors. Excess intake of six harmful dietary factors jointly (refined rice and wheat, processed meats, unprocessed red meat, SSBs, potatoes, fruit juice) contributed a larger proportion of the total global diet-attributable burden (60.8%) than insufficient intake of five protective dietary factors (whole grains, yogurt, fruits, non-starchy vegetables, nuts and seeds) (39.2%)."

In other words, consuming highly processed, low-nutrient, high sugar / fat / salt content junk food accounted for 60% of the negative consequences, and the other 40% were the result of inadequate consumption of healthy real (i.e. unprocessed) food. This aligns with the obvious cultural shifts that occurred from 1964 to the present.

That these products are designed to be addictive is also well-established: Study: Foods like ice cream, chips and candy are just as addictive as cigarettes or heroin.

In terms of surplus and waste, the manufacturing and consumption of unhealthy food is waste, as it is either unnecessary or harmful to our quality of life. Were it to be eliminated, all the resources consumed by making and marketing unhealthy food would become surplus.

Our household has experimented with reducing our consumption of the basics of the modern standard of living--water, electricity and vehicle fuel consumption--without reducing our quality of life. In other words, we've reduced consumption without any sacrifice of the quality of our life.

Out two-person household consumes 1,500 gallons of water per month, of which 20% to 25% is used to water vegetable gardens, so our net consumption is around 1,200 gallons per month. This is about a third or a quarter of average households in our area. Yet we have all the comforts and conveniences of a high quality of life. We simply avoid wasting water.

This suggests that all the water above this baseline is waste and could be conserved, becoming surplus.

We have a modest battery (1500W) and four 100W solar panels, and by turning off our electric water heater at day's end and other easy behavioral changes, we've reduced our consumption of electricity to 4.37 kilowatts per day (131 KW/month). This does not include ay heating or cooling, as these are not needed in our area. Consumption of household energy depends on each locale, but our consumption is 26% of average households (500KW) on our region.

There are many variables in households, but this strongly suggests rather modest changes could consequentially reduce electrical consumption without reducing the quality of life at all. Eliminating waste sacrifices nothing in terms of the quality of life.

The highway across the island reaches an altitude of 6632 feet, quite a climb from sea level and back down to sea level. Following the speed limit and with modest attention to tire pressure and maintenance, our 2016 Honda Civic gets about 43 miles per gallon on this 152-mile round trip, consuming between 3.5 and 3.75 gallons of gasoline. Since the Big Box grocery outlet is on the other side of the island, our car returns with a heavy load of basic foodstuffs, the equivalent of a passenger in weight.

Once again, this establishes a baseline of minimal consumption beyond which consumption can be viewed as waste. So-called compact vehicles are no longer very compact; they're large and heavy, and equipped with all the comforts and features of larger more costly vehicles.

Modest behavioral changes can also reduce the number of vehicle trips, turning waste into surplus.

You see the point of this exercise: The Waste Is Growth Landfill Economy we inhabit assumes that all our current consumption is necessary to maintain our quality of life, but by pursuing an analysis of this type, it's clear that much of what we consume is waste, not necessity, and paying attention to this could reduce consumption and expense and generate surplus not by increasing the extraction of resources but by reducing waste, which generates surplus without sacrificing the quality of life.

We can call a system that focuses on reducing waste as the means of maintaining and improving the quality of life The Waste Is Waste High Quality of Life Economy.

CHS NOTE: I understand some readers object to paywalled posts, so please note that my weekday posts are free and I reserve my weekend Musings Report for subscribers. Hopefully this mix makes sense in light of the fact that writing is my only paid work/job. Who knows, something here may be actionable and change your life in some useful way. I am grateful for your readership and blessed by your financial support.