Subsistence Vs. Excess

[RagnarokHybrid]

Basically just wanted a discussion based around this: Which is best, a civilization based on subsistence or a civilization in which almost anything is readily available?

I don't want this to turn into a US versus third-world kind of debate. Let's keep specific countries out of it. Personally, I like living in a world of excess but, in such a world, decision fatigue [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=decision%20fatigue&st=cse]; existentialism; and depression can take a powerful hold on a person--especially youth who feel stuck in a world in which they are doomed to mediocrity.

A world of subsistence, though, brings with it the constant struggle of trying to survive and always knowing that, by some strike of misfortune, you and your kin may die.

I'm not adding a poll because they're glitchy and I want to get an actual discussion going.

Also, on a totally unrelated note: Really, Captcha?

 

[alandavidson]

I would take the excess personally. I don't have to live in excess, but I would rather have the tools to my survival easily accessible rather than have to scavenge and fight for them daily.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

I'd like to ask how many people in this thread actually know what the term 'third world' means.

Hint: It doesn't mean poor.

 

[the spud]

Excess; big guy's gotta eat!

Also, who would really want to have to fight for survival?

 

[Blueruler182]

Excess, definitely. If everyone has access to everything then the truly ingenius have a greater chance to build more and move us forward as a species. I want cyborg eyes god damn it!

 

[BrassButtons]

I'll take an existential crisis over starvation and death any day. And I would seriously question the mental state of anyone who said otherwise.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

Well idk, I was raised in a life of excess (My father was fairly wealthy and I had almost anything I wanted) then he married a terrible woman and I had to move out, so I lived with my mom. Things were exactly the opposite and it really brightened my perception. What I mean is, having it all kind of breeds shitty people, but having to work for what you need, and only getting enough to last a short while at that, just brings out a personality and pride in people. The world would be a better place if the super rich had to do some hard labor every once and a while.

 

[RagnarokHybrid]

Well idk, I was raised in a life of excess (My father was fairly wealthy and I had almost anything I wanted) then he married a terrible woman and I had to move out, so I lived with my mom. Things were exactly the opposite and it really brightened my perception. What I mean is, having it all kind of breeds shitty people, but having to work for what you need, and only getting enough to last a short while at that, just brings out a personality and pride in people. The world would be a better place if the super rich had to do some hard labor every once and a while.

Hmm, I'm glad someone finally vouched for the other side. Subsistence breeds a life of simplicity and always knowing what, exactly, you're living for. It makes large sacrifices for minute gains worthwhile.

I still prefer excess (for now) but I want people to bear this in mind: existential crises are truly horrific things. Say you get shot or something and you're dying at the young age of 29. You know you're going to die but oftentimes what makes such situations better for people is knowing that they lived life with meaning and fulfilled that meaning. Dying in the midst of an existential crisis is a terrible way to go. It means that you're unfulfilled with life, yourself, and those around you and you most likely don't fully believe in an afterlife so you can't find solace in that either. So why did you waste 29 years of your existence suffering just to come to an even more painful end?

The lack of an answer can truly break a person's spirit. And spirit is really all you have in those final hours.