Good grief, What is it about Australians we seemed to have taken the lifestyle thing to extremes. "Lifestyle" is used to sell everything from women napkins , cars, drinks to houses and as an excuse for the most ridiculous reasons(NIMBY to plain old selfishness and Xenophobia). Are we truly a nation of I wants and to hell with everyone else. has our national motto gone from (does anyone know, I do) to 'Caveat emptor' the media certainly paints it that way.

A front page item in Qld.....A group of people are claiming that a proposed 4 bed 2 patient hospice will destroy their house prices?!
One woman claims there will be wall to wall hearses...for 2 people?
Another claimed that even if they used discreet vans this would still up set the charm of the street? I can see the bumper sticker now "Caution stiff on board!" perhaps changing the name from "Gloria's cottage" to "Ghosts training Academy".

On a site about injustice there were over 60 posts from around the world the only negative posts were from....Australia....they were essentially life style interruption to the western world.

Then there are those who want the public to build a squillion $ bridge so that 3000 people (men women and children) who chose to live on an island can cash in on the increasing house prices because of the increased lifestyle advantages.

One electorate changed its member because the govt closed 15% of Morton bay (X bigger than Port Philip) from fishing to protect fish breeding sites.....Their complaint was that the law's... you guessed it interfered with their "lifestyle".

Even in that Sydney outer suburb the objection to a church school. Why it interfered with their lifestyle. Less that 40+ houses?
The environment sustains life but lifestyle?

Even religion is now pushing the 'lifestyle' as justification for their exclusivity and power.
Are we being conned blinded from the realities by the newest created "Human Right" LIFESTYLE. Is this the the measure of what we are?

Yes.
Sad, innit?

Hey Max and Examinator. Can you break it down for me?

Lifestyle means where you live, where you work and what you do with your spare time?

Lifestyle seems a new word they use but this is more a person saying “I don’t want change”? Not for someone elses benefit or especially not for someone elses benefit?

If you look back into it a little bit, examinator, you will probably find that the 'interference with lifestyle' objection is one that has been brought into being as a consequence of the spurious rights purportedly bestowed upon the 'community at large' at the same time as the long-standing and previously well-recognised rights of individual landowners have come to be denied by such legislation as, for example, the (NSW) Environmental Protection and Assessment Act 1979.

Just because a piece of legislation proclaims itself as 'protecting the environment' does not mean that that is what it actually does.

It is hardly surprising that land-use legislation so dismissive of individual rights and legal precedent blows up in the face of that part of the community that was taken in by it when it was first proposed. Let what you see now be a warning to you as to what to expect if the same spurious 'rights creation' is attempted in any so-called 'Australian Bill of Rights'. It all makes for a very ugly society.

I suspect that a significant number of the Moreton Bay electors that recently changed the member that represented them were not so much voting to protest restrictions in fish-breeding areas of the bay, as delivering payback to a political organisation that was seen as being responsible for the population and developmental pressures that imposed the need for the restrictions in the first place.

Although not all people may be articulate, the lack of this quality does not mean that they are necessarily fools. They can see, and will use, the very weapons created by such control-freak legislation in attempts to vent their spleen against what they come to see as an unwarranted threat to their lifestyle. After all, they have been told it is now their right, haven't they? You, and many others, to the extent that you may have supported the introduction of this sort of legislation, are now reaping what you have sowed. This control-freak legislative environment is a major reason Australia is coming to a grinding halt.

Good Morning Examinator,

Should 'lifestyle' be a dirty word?
Not if there's equity or a
reasonable balance in our society.

Most Australians today enjoy more material
comforts (i.e. they own more things) than
ever before.

As Australia has become a wealthy country with a
high standard of living, we've all enjoyed the
benefits of having money to spend. And in our
great admiration for the 'good life,' many of us
want to protect our lifestyles and we end up
spending more energy in working at getting things
than in appreciating their use. With that
problems have been created - as a result of our actions.
For example, the disposal of waste has caused
such serious problems that recycling has become a
necessity.

Also, as much as we'd like to deny it, there are
still many Australians who are not well off.
Being poor is no less unpleasant in a rich country
than in a poor one, and in spite of our affluence,
there are still many in our society who need more
help then they're currently being given.

If a 'fair go' has become part of our accepted notions.
And as class distinctions become less obvious with
increasing wealth, the demands for equality should
extend further - so that every one will get to live
a reasonable "life-style," not just a select few.

Nowdays, moe than 90 per cent of the total Australian
population live in towns and cities. The tensions of city
life - noise, pollution, vandalism, peak-hour traffic,
over crowding, competing with one another - should make
us examine the way we're living and consider solutions to
the problems of city living. Whether towns grow upwards
(skyscrapers) or outwards (suburbs) may not be the question
we need to ask - it's whether they should grow at all.

The Federal Government should look at projects
that encourage people to move from major cities and work
and live in regional centres.

We need to re-think our lifestyles - and their effect on
not only ourselves, but others - and what we can do to
improve conditions for everyone.

Interesting discussion, Examinator.

I think "lifestyle" has been hi-jacked, by many factions in order to retain or change whatever it is people feel threatened by.

For myself, I have no objection for people wanting to live in big houses, drive fast cars, own motor boats...

BUT (now I know you'all were waiting for the 'but')

Not at the expense of others, by that I mean, where people are homeless (insufficient public housing), cannot afford dental work, depletion of energy reserves, pollution of environment, salary inequities (CEO compared to lowest level employee), I find it very hard to hold much respect for someone swanning by in a Bentley.

Where a choice of lifestyle impacts on life (us, our planet), that just translates to myopic greed.

It's just one of the hundreds of fad words that weaker characters among us bash to death for a certain period until the spin doctors come up with another meaningless crap word to get them to feel 'with it' and to spend, spend, and spend.

I feel almost sorry for the silly buggers who parrot the word.

I heard of a word that had become a non-word, such as the Billion dollars that could not speak its name.
It was referred to as a "silent lie".

Very clever I thought and it should get some promotion.
It has arrived because of the spin doctors in politics.

Another silent lie is "energy security" which is used to avoid "Peak Oil".

They must be plentiful in politics, do you know any ?
Surely there are some surrounding the ETS or global warming ?

Excellent responses, and observant.

It's all a symptom of the nasty new disease infecting the whole world..
"The Screaming Me-me's"
"I want, it's my right, why should I be put out?, I don't like"..etc etc.
It seems to me it's about time "responsibility" started meaning more than "who has to pay?"
The "experts" have focused us all on personal "rights", and forgotten the other, equal, half....... personal and social responsibility.
We're becoming less of a society, and more of a mob of whingeing individuals. When "Lifestyle" is more important than the ills that surround us daily, we're in trouble! And we ARE!

Forrest,
I guess that could be one way of looking at it. (your NSW example)
Although I suspect that your intentions were to justify the concept yet logic shows both the justification and reasoning up as I described it, a manifestation of selfishness/prejudice/ fear etc.

The legalistic argument opens up a whole new nest of philosophic debate. i.e. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. The nature of laws etc. The key to me is objectivity/balance.

Suffice it to say I understand your perspective but in the light of the other examples (composite depiction) I suspect you are focusing a little too myopically. Consider Coke , the 'beaver ad' , car ads The hospice argument etc.

BTW the fishing ban on specific portions of the bay were scientifically based . The fishing ban were a contentious issues and were actively run by the sporting (?) clubs. There were issues of the bridge candidate and pro development candidates (one a real estate agent, the other a background in large scale development.) I mentioned who referenced the change. In the end 23 votes made the difference. In short the victory was for personal selfishness. Not the good of the community./environment et sec.

Max
Yep it is what's your solutions?

Jewely
My point was that we as a nation particularly we Qld hide behind and are manipulated by the term 'lifestyle' as though it's the be all of justifications.
i.e. Ludwig and others point on 'No net immigration' as if that will make a hill of beans difference to the denuding, over exploitation of the worlds resources? Add global warming (if real and I suspect it MIGHT be ) and this amplifies the concern...(I am NOT advocating open door principal, previous postings)

It's the way we focus on it makes us more vulnerable to to manipulation the above BTW makes the point that it WASN'T the parties policies as such, more misplaced self interest that created the change.
The result while nominally democratic it ignores the wider perspective which is the theoretical point of 'democracy' the interests of the society.

Contrary to some argument. Humans are MORE than the total of their Genes otherwise why plan/dream anything determinism has us by the hairy bits.

If we didn't use 'lifestyle' it would be something else. Lifestyle really just means way of life.

One can live the lifestyle of a hippie, the rich and famous, in nudist camps, grunge, austerity as in monks and so on.

We tend to hear the word in terms of "lifestyle we have become accustomed to" as though we could not become accustomed to living a different type of life such as living a bit less so that others can live more.

It is both a word with many meanings and a meaningless word.

Max
Yep it is what's your solutions?

Simple word, difficult action...Education!
We'd need to reconfigure quite a lot, schools, systems, media, but with a will it could be done, as long as we didn't listen to the "experts" who got us here in the first place.
I wish!

“Lifestyle” is a noun and defined as “the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.”

As a noun, “lifestyle” has no moral or qualitative value.

So I fail to see how it can possibly be a “dirty word” or a “clean word”.

What makes “lifestyle” dirty, clean, good, bad, rancid, puerile, unhealthy, healthy, parasitic, benevolent or anything else are the adjectives which used in conjunction with it.

Speaking personally, I prefer an "independent lifestyle", where I make the decisions which effect my life -

rather than leaving it to a bunch of government appointed, “expert” flunkies, who are overpaid to feel entitled to tell me what I am allowed to aspire to in terms of my “lifestyle”.

So to the question “should lifestyle a dirty word”

Only if your feel your “lifestyle” is a “dirty word”…

and I don’t.

Examinator, if you really believe that things like fishing bans in Morton Bay are scientifically based you are even sillier than you sound.

They are based on green noise followed on Bleigh deciding she needs to shore up the green vote, followed by her deciding which electorates to penalise, followed by "government scientific advisers" writing the report to recomend the chosen areas be close.

I'm quite sure you know this, but won't acknowledge it.

The last thing we need is education on these & similar subjects. All we get then is your, or someone else's ideology jammed down out throat, as if it were truth. We have quite enough of that in our schools, & in our media all ready, thankyou.

Hasbeen,
Guess who has retired to/in Qld , likes fishing and votes LNP or other 'conservative' interests.

And of course you're a practising marine biologist, a fisheries expert. And was intimately involved in the research. Funny my daughter and I never ran across you while we were up to our armpits in mud taking samples, entering the data and other leg work. Perhaps we could have had a beer and compared our scientific data.

What is not under question is Bligh's political motives (as part of her decision making process) I have no 1st hand evidence either way . I haven't met her but judging by her ministers I have I'll go out on a limb and suggest they're politicians and human...damn.

Logically having seen a fair amount of the raw data and the processes I'm prepared to suggest that there is more than a little scientific basis for the report.

As for the spin in selling it, refer to the term 'politicians' and my previous caveats.

But be that as it may in this context Silly is subjective term.

Where was my ideology rammed down your 'throats' ? Oh yes eAnt and I were involved in the politics too, from an independent stance. we supported neither side and greens didn't stand.
Tip...Know who you're talking at and/or be objective .

Col,
Fair point and objectively You're right of course, I do agree with your definition. I guess my concern is about the functional “over use” of the term where it is applied in abstract and it could mean all of your definition and god know what else.
e.g. What's the moral implications of feminine napkins , meat, coffee, houses, dubious investment schemes or even just living in Queensland.(Foxy's right about the poverty there ...imagine a cold 6 Deg night and the street person being warm and happy because they 'live in Qld!' All the issues and products that are marketed there under that term. The marketing slight of hand to sell unnecessary products etc. to the unwary.

Consider the property ad 'for as little as $568k – umpteen million you can invest in your life style at XXX so morality etc. is purchasable?

The term lifestyle was used in the objection to the discrete 2 bed hospice when in reality they were concerned about their house prices? (NIMBY selfish baseless fear on ICE). Having seen on line photos I wouldn't have any qualms to them being a neighbour ...I can't say the same for the others in the street.

BTW A number of 'retirement villages' use your term ' Independent Lifestyle, even for their
dementia and invalid hostels (one step before the hospice). Even my fertile imagination doesn't see or hopes that applies to you.

The pit falls and indoctrination of the spin doctors , media, advertising agency have rendered the term an insult to reality.

You're also correct that the term is neutral it's the usage that is the problem. Fair cop.

Dear Col,

Well put!

I think it was Calvin Coolidge (30th US President) who said:

"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the
Government in some miraculous way to save us from
the consequences of our own acts - self government means
self reliance."

That's something my father believed in strongly.

Dear examinator,

I've been giving further thought to your question,
"Should 'lifestyle' be a dirty word?"

I've come to the conclusion that some of us need to
re-think our choices - especially as far as
maintaining a healthy life-style goes.

We've grown accustomed to the idea that if we get
sick - doctors are going to make us well again.
However, the truth is that often we make ourselves sick,
and doctors sometimes can do little to make us better.

A prime example is tobacco use. The dangers of
smoking are well known and yet so many people
still continue to smoke.

Another example is -
people exceeding the speed limit - that kills
so many each year.

Then there's many who eat
themselves into cholesterol-induced heart disease,
and still encourage their children to eat junk food.
Others become addicted to alcohol and other drugs,
whose dangers are common knowledge.

It would be much cheaper, and far more effective,
for individuals to make changes that
would prevent serious health issues from occuring
in the first place.

Dear examinator (Wise One),

Thanks for bringing up the issue of 'lifestyle,'
as a thread. I've just thought of another health
issue that is very much connected to a person's
lifestyle - and is becoming such a common problem
today - Diabetes!

Living with diabetes isn't easy. However by making
lifestyle changes such as decreasing fat intake,
particularly saturated fat and increasing fibre as
well as achieving the physical activity necessary
(and recommended) and weight loss, it's been shown that
diabetes can be prevented in people who are at high
risk (overweight, high blood pressure, high cholestrol
levels - et cetera).

Therefore lifestyle factors such as inactivity and a
poor diet can result in not only diabetes - but many
other illnesses and potential killers (heart attacks,
strokes et cetera).

After many years of trying - I've finally managed to
persuade my husband to take out a membership at my
gym - and join me in exercising 3 times a week.
Yay!

Foxy "We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts - self government means self reliance."

That might be so however, the opposite is also true,

Most governments are far too willing to take unto themselves the right to regulate and control the efforts of the population and then levy individual tax payers for consequences of politicians and faceless bureaucrats folly.

I feel such a judgment will eventually befall this “ethereal” ETS which Krudd and Co are hell bent on imposing upon us all, regardless of its real worth, merit or consequences.

And I feel the consequences of government acts, invariably do greater damage than any individual could to inflict upon themselves with their own acts.

As to self reliance… exactly… bring it all on.

Throughout my life I have made decisions, some good and some follies but I have born the reward and price / consequences of them all.

That is not only self reliance, it is also personal growth and if we were not put on this earth to grow and develop as individuals….

Why were we born in the first place?

– certainly not to be the work horses and chattels of an all powerful and all controlling governing state.

“Therefore lifestyle factors such as inactivity and a poor diet can result in not only diabetes - but many other illnesses and potential killers (heart attacks, strokes et cetera).”

We should be free to make our own choices and not be penalized with governmental or social pressures to conform to the aspirations of specialists and experts, especially when the expectations of zealots of any persuasion have been seen to fall far short of the truth, when scrutinized.

I refer to the activities of medical charlatans and activists who, through their claimed “expertise”, supposedly know best for us all, just as religious zealots proclaimed the virtue of the inquisition.

Diversity is the most underrated of all human attributes.

Foxy "We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the
Government in some miraculous way to save us from
the consequences of our own acts - self government means
self reliance."

That might be so however, the opposite is also true,
Most governments are far too willing to take unto themselves the right to regulate and control the efforts of the population and then levy individual tax payers for consequences of politicians and faceless bureaucrats folly.
I feel such a judgment will eventually befall this “ethereal” ETS which Krudd and Co are hell bent on imposing upon us all, regardless of its real worth, merit or consequences.
And I feel the consequences of government acts, invariably do greater damage than any individual could to inflict upon themselves with their own acts.

As to self reliance… exactly… bring it all on.

Throughout my life I have made decisions, some good and some follies but I have born the reward and price / consequences of them all.

That is not only self reliance, it is also personal growth and if we were not put on this earth to grow and develop as individuals….

Why were we born in the first place?

– certainly not to be the work horses and chattels of an all powerful and all controlling governing state.

Dear Col,

I've got a husband whose personal 'lifestyle,'
choice is - very little physical activity
(getting him to go for a walk is difficult),
lots of rich food, and alcohol.

That's a stroke and heart attack waiting to
happen.

I've finally managed to get him to agree to come
to a gym with me - how long this will last -
who knows? But its a step in the right direction.