Reply #170: Conservation wise

[SmileyRose]

I will say someone I know who bought a "teardown" 850sq ft bungalow, lived in it for 4 years then "remodeled" (they followed the rule and left one wall up (studs only)) they built a 3100 sq ft "McMansion" in it's place. They resold/salvaged everything in the old house that was salvagable. They re-used some of the materials. The new house, nearly 4 times as large as the old one had the same energy costs as the old one after a year of living in the house.

This particular family entertains quite a lot. He owns his own business, has his biggest customers over. The more money he makes the more he does for philanthropy. He also entertains quite a lot to pick people's pockets for charities too.

Oh sure some, probably many of the folks in McMansions are selfish resource hogs. But when I drive by their houses, I don't know who's a resource hog and who's using that nice house to lure in money for really good causes, business contacts etc. Yes, it would be nice if the CEO's were impressed with a businessman who lives in a beat up mobile home, but they aren't. We do what we can to survive in the world in which we live. And since I don't know by looking who's the selfish hog and who's the philanthropist then I just make a choice not to judge.

I have 984 sq ft for 3 adults. The house I grew up was not much bigger and housed 11 people. (2 parents plus us 5 kids plus my 4 cousins) - the house my father was raised in was in eastern Kentucky, and about the size of a one car garage now. No electric, phone or running water. Our societal expectations have changed. IMHO it's not about morality, it's about "fitting in".

Now having said all that, I'm ALL FOR -- 1000% all for -- moving our society toward a more modest standard of living all the way around. I'd like to see status come from who we are and who we serve rather than what we own.