Things You DON'T Need to Have a Great Life

Questioner: I have something to say. There is a very famous line which is called─ the survival of the fittest. Now, I am an actor, and I’m also a medical practitioner. I studied cardiology, and as an actor, I have always advocated less makeup and simpler ways of life to all the people who would follow me, for example. But say I take my own example. Today, I want to go and live in a forest. I will only ask one thing, and that is my security. Security of, if I will survive or not, that’s all. Only that will be my question at that time. Otherwise, I will manage the security of my survival by the conditions that I will be in. What am I supposed to get as an answer for that? Will I survive if I decide to go to these places where maybe people have not been or tried to live for too long? I’m sure today, people have tried to live a life away from citizen stuff, yes. But what if I go on a path where nobody has gone and I am living there? I will only be concerned for my security.

Acharya Prashant: Actually, de-growth does not mean that we necessarily have to go to the jungle and wipe out all civilization and dump all technology available. That’s not really the thing. It merely means sustainability. Act in a way that is sustainable.

The kind of resources we are using today, the Earth simply does not have enough to provide for us. If the entire population of the world makes as much use of resources as the average American individual, we will need seventeen planets like ours. Seventeen Earths is what we need. From where will we get all that? Do we have those minerals? Even fossil fuels are going to run out. They are anyway going to run out. Why not develop better technologies? Why not wean yourself away from them? So minimalism is not about getting rid of even the things that really mean something to you that really are essential. It means minimizing what is inessential and, in the process, probably maximizing what is essential. So minimalism is actually good news. It does not mean that you have to go to the extreme of reducing your consumption to zero. Even animals in the jungle do consume. Even animals, you know, adapt their physical nature to an extent so that it suits their needs. Haven’t we seen, for example, dogs dig up the earth when it’s quite hot?

Even in some sense they are, they are modifying the landscape to suit their needs. Birds build nests, so we, too, are entitled to build homes for ourselves. But we are not entitled to go absolutely crazy. We cannot make homes that are going to implode. We cannot do things that are self-defeating.

After all, whatever we do is for the sake of our own welfare, is it not? We want to do good to ourselves, but what if, that which you are doing is so mindless that it is another step towards our own destruction? That’s the thing that we need to think about.

Climate change is actually a crisis of consumption. It’s just that the common man is anyway not in a position to consume a lot. He hasn’t the intention to consume a lot, definitely, but not in a position. Given a chance, he would binge on consumption, no doubt about it, no doubt about it. But the ones who are actually in a position to consume today are the ones who are contributing in a big, big way, and they ought to be stopped in their tracks.

There need to be regulations; there need to be taxes, and when they are stopped, that would also send the right message to the common population because they are the ones admired as role models. If they are stopped, not only are they stopped, they also need to be kind of publicly censored or reprimanded for the kind of irresponsible lifestyles they are not only living, but actively advertising to others. What they ,today, do there, up there, becomes the aspiration of millions of people down here. So, if you want to change these people, it has to start from there. It’s just that even if it has to start from there, these people have to raise a big glamor.

Questioner1: Today’s children, the moment they come out of the womb, they want a telephone. That’s how they are, right? I don’t know if they are enlightened enough or if they have the consciousness enough to be taught or to accept these things that, okay, our forefathers left us this life. The future kin is already in the mood to go way beyond consumption that we can even imagine. They have already exceeded that age. Today, 2-3-year-olds don’t want to have, you know, I don’t know, simple things which we were given when we were 2 and 3. They want to have gadgets and technology and they want to consume way more than we ever consumed. So how do you increase the consciousness or give them the, you know, collectively make them appreciate a lot more, even the information that you are providing?

Acharya Prashant: Even this that we are doing here is a collective exercise in education. So it’s education that matters a lot. What we are saying here will go to a lot of people. The kids can be trained either way. We have both the things present within ourselves ─ the tendency to be ignorant of who we are, what would really satisfy us, what would make us joyful, and therefore choose the wrong means towards gratification. That tendency definitely exists. The tendency of ignorance, the lack of self-knowledge definitely exists, equally as the potential to know, to realize.

You tell the kid something that the kid didn’t know, and she looks at you wide-eyed. You see, there is something within the kid that is waiting to be awakened.

Questioner1: Curiosity.

Acharya Prashant: And it’s not as if the kid is very resistant to the truth. In fact, nobody likes to be lied to. Truth is something we all love, right? Does anybody like a deceiver who keeps hiding facts from you, who does not tell the truth to you? Nobody likes it. So there is something within us that loves the truth and it’s present right since when we are an infant.

So if you tell these things to them and if you can tell these things to them in an interesting way, in a far more interesting way, then we have managed here, especially me. So, I’m a bad storyteller in that sense. But if we can manage to be more interesting to our kids and tell them these things and show them that the bird is there, we are killing her both actively and passively.

The kid might not really comprehend numbers and correlations and coefficients and stats, but the kid definitely knows the bird. And if you tell the kid that what we are doing is killing the bird, the bird will soon no longer be there. Not only will the bird no longer be there, but even the possibility of more birds will vanish, and the tree itself won’t be there. And the temperatures would get so bad that the entire species of the bird would be extinct.

It would mean a lot to the kid, a lot to the kid. I know of kids, they saw one of those government-sponsored visuals that told that if you chew tobacco, you get cancer, and the kid successfully managed to make his grandfather quit tobacco. And the grandfather was habituated to tobacco for decades, but the kid successfully managed that.

So kids have a lot of power because they have not yet been terribly socially conditioned. So that’s the reason why in my endeavors, I tried to reach out to young people as much as possible. Kids, I do not have much access to them, but young people, they are the ones because who will be the worst sufferers? The older ones would be gone; the tragedy would blow up in all its disastrous effects in another twenty years.

So the ones who are born, let’s say around or after the year two thousand, in this century, will be the ones to take all the impact on their chests. It’s going to be very, very bad for them, very bad for them. Temperature, rainfall, humidity, mental state, economic welfare, everything would suffer in a way we are not even imagining today because we are being distracted by a lot of inconsequential things.

We are being made to think of that which does not matter. Look at how the mainstream media and the social media, everything is brimming with mindless entertainment and that is crowding out the real issues that must come to us. Nobody is talking about the real things, whereas this is going to hit you so hard, so hard ... .What do you think when all these things will happen, mental health will remain okay? No, in fact, it would have an effect even on social relationships. You know, there is another piece of data ─ Men are far more inclined to dismiss climate change than women. And men are responsible many, many times for climate change than women. So, the aspect of patriarchy too is involved here. It’s considered mainly, for example, to burn─ burn fuel, burn this, burn that, and have the burning tip right in the middle of your lips.

So, that aspect, too, is involved here. Then there is race that is involved here. The white man is far more responsible for this, and not only that─ the company is run by the white man. We are talking of BP Shell here ─ they are dumping all their waste and a lot of the ill effects of their carbon on people of color.

So, everything is going to blow up because everything is at stake. We think no, only the temperature will rise a bit, so what will we do? We will adjust our air conditioners. How does that matter?

Questioner2: Or we will find another planet. just kidding? Sorry.

Acharya Prashant: No, no, that’s very important. The fellow is a big role model. The fellow is a big role model and he is saying climate change does not matter. He is saying we rather need to have more kids, we need to procreate, do this, do that. This population explosion is at the core of climate change because it is so much in line with the philosophy of having more. Just as you want to have more furniture, you also want to have more kids, and the super-rich have thrice the number of kids as the average individual, the average couple.

Questioner2: I wanted to ask you what exactly was going to be my question. 2018-19, this is a very personal thing, but my wife and I were discussing eleven years of marriage; we needed to plan a kid, and I was not in for having a kid, and my wife was; we needed to have at least one kid. Because I was constantly contemplating the ethics of having a kid, not just from the aspect that, hey, we are going to be producing another consumer.

So I was thinking, here’s the massive amount of contribution that I’m going to create, like, do for climate change contribution. But then also bringing a kid in this kind of a world where there is so much mental stress, so much of this happening. So I wanted to get your sense because there is also this constant thinking of us, the human race, also surviving. If you don’t procreate, how are we going to survive? So, so many of these things happen.

Acharya Prashant: Just, just today, just today, just today if you look at the newspapers ─ China, Jinping. He says, ‘China needs more kids, so we are going to tweak with policies so that China has more kids. Otherwise, it’s going to interfere with economic growth. We need more hands, more workers, and more young people, and if we don’t have kids, we have all of that.’

So you see, I used to have this position till around 4-5 years back ─ kindly desist from having any kids at all. It says that we want people to be cooperative. And being in public life, I have learned that if we take extreme positions, what we get is extreme reactions.

The blowback is not useful at all. So, if you tell people that if you want to be on the right side of climate activism, then you must not have any kids. Then they just drift away from all climate discussions altogether. They say, ‘If we get into it, we will be prohibited from having kids.’ So, better say, have one kid. That’s okay, that’s far.

Because even having one kid would mean, effectively, population decline. If a man and a woman have just one kid, that is largely okay, that is largely okay. If you have no kids, obviously, that’s wonderful. But that’s a personal thing, a very, very intimate thing, and not advice one can dispense.

I cannot tell my neighbors not to have any kids, but I can advise them not to have too many of them. Stop at one, please stop at one. And if you are too crazy about having kids, alright, at the cost of feeling guilty and feeling guilty your entire life, go for two, go for two.

So, I do not want anybody to have two kids; nobody should have two kids. But when I say you may have two kids, it is to bring in line those people who plan to have five. Because there are people who think that unless they have a full nest, life is not worth living. And the fullness to mean to them means lots of cars, lots of furniture, and lots of and lots of zeros in their bank balance, you know.

More is better; more is better, just have more, more, more ─ the same lack of philosophical depth. So just have one kid, that’s all.

Questioner3: But somewhere or the other, it will totally depend on the economy, right? For example, in Japan, there is a large population, and they are very old, right? So they need kids. So even if we start having one kid, then there will be a point in the population pyramid that will be like, we have a lot of old people, then we’ll be like, we need to have more kids.

Acharya Prashant: So there are a lot of old people, then?

Questioner3: Then, the population will be like, the younger generation will be very less.

Acharya Prashant: So?

Questioner3: So we will need more young people to…..

Acharya Prashant: Something is, is less, the numbers are not there. So why do you need more people? Where is the philosophical disconnect here, logical disconnect here? Yes, in the population pyramid, right; the proportion of youngsters has reduced. Now, why does it need to increase?

Questioner3: Then, who will work?

Acharya Prashant: Why do you need to work?

Questioner3: The workforce will need people, right?

Acharya Prashant: 80% of returns say that their work does not meaningfully contribute to the world at all. The ones who have understood life, they are talking about reducing work hours as much as possible. What is this obsession with work? Do you understand its philosophical basis? What you are saying is unless I work, how will I get more and more and more? Why do you need to work so much? Is life there to slog? And if you have to slog, slog for the right reasons. Why do you need to just work, work and work? You say, ‘You know, we have to uphold the economy.’ Why do you have to uphold the economy? Why do you have to uphold the economy? How is the economy a holy cow? What’s so, what so sacred about the economy? Please tell me.

Do you want welfare, or do you want economics? And economics is not necessarily contributing to welfare. Will need to take this head on. It’s alright to not have great GDP. It’s alright not to have a great income. I’m not saying that you should rush towards bankruptcy. No! Don’t quote me in an extreme sense.

But I am asking you, how is it important to have the scorching pace of economic development? How? Let it be there. Fine! You’re doing well. At this moment, do you really bother how much money do you have? There is something more important, something far more engrossing going on. And all those thoughts are not there.

All those thoughts come to you when this thing is not there. This is what is sacred, that is not sacred. That, at most, is the facilitator that helps you buy these cameras. But is it these cameras that we live for? No. If we do not have this, these cameras are meaningless.

What is important? This discussion or the money that buys these cameras? And remember, were we not obsessed with money as a society, were we not that obsessed, we wouldn’t have needed to record this on camera. Even these cameras are needed because the rest of society is obsessed with money. Otherwise, the four of us can happily have a sweet, intimate conversation here, sip some tea, and then spend the afternoon pleasantly as nicely as possible, right? That would be a great way to spend an afternoon.

Questioner1: The philosophy and the purpose of life according to this would mean, Khaao piyo aur aish karo aur thodi baatcheet karo. (Eat, drink, and enjoy and chat a little)

Acharya Prashant: As trivial as it sounds. Please tell me what’s wrong with that. Yeah, please tell me what. In fact, when you gather a lot of money, that’s exactly the end that you want to achieve.

The ones who have dumped millions into their accounts, is this the state, not what they have dumped that money for? Dumped in the sense of gathering. Ultimately, that’s what you want─ khaao piyo, aish karo. And if that can happen, even with a reasonable amount of money, not an extraordinary level of money, what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with that? Khaao piyo aish karo and have great conversations.

Sit like this, talk, wonder, meditate, have some compassion. Let a little bird come here, sit and participate. But what’s wrong with all of that?

Questioner3: We people would have started thinking like this, say, like thirty years back then, maybe we might not be having the things that we already have right now, say, the AC. I know you will say that in that case, maybe AC ki zaroorat hee nahi hoti (we would not need an air conditioner). But, like, where is that stopping end that we can think of that this is the point where we can, like chill?

Acharya Prashant: Listen, kid. It’s not the air conditioner that’s really a problem, right? Do you know how badly we use air conditioners? Do you understand that? Do you see how we use air conditioners even when there is no need? I know of people who put the AC at eighteen degrees celsius in the month of May in New Delhi, right? And then sleep under two layers of quilts.

I know of people who want to enjoy both the feel of fresh air and air conditioning. So, long distances, Mumbai to Goa, they would cover with the AC on, AC on full blast, and the panes are lowered. I need to have the best of both worlds. So, don’t take it to extremes. We are not talking about not having the Internet at all; we are not talking about having any clothes to wear. We are talking about being sensible and sensible; we can be sustainable.

Yesterday, she wondered why Bombay has so few SUVs. You have luxury cars here, but not so many SUVs. I said that’s because the value system is different. Delhi, if you are somebody, you need to show it off by having a Fortuner. You know, it’s muscular. Do you see the patriarchy there? And that’s the land of patriarchy.

Bombay is a bit more feminine, at least more balanced. So people don’t feel the need to have huge trucks, Fortuners, this, that. So you have more Mercs here, more BMWs here. Now, we are not saying that everybody must have a Merc or a BMW. I am not saying that, but just pointing out how our consumption is driven by our false values. That consumption is not given by our real needs but by our false values. Real needs, I am all in favor of addressing them.

You need a vaccine; we must have an industrial complex to develop vaccines. You need computers, we must have all the technological growth possible. We must be able to launch satellites, we must be able to go to other planets. It’s the intention I am talking of. Are you going there to exploit that planet or you are going to know that planet?

What is science for? To know or to have exploitative technology? You get into the core of the atom to have nuclear energy, which is clean, or to have a Hiroshima? The intention is what I am talking about. We need to know who we are and why we exist, and that’s when we will be able to limit our lust for consumption.

Questioner2: Wow.

show_less