Brave New Traveler - Online Travel Magazine

How Local Self-Reliance Will Overthrow The System

Print This Post Print This Post    22 Nov 2007 in Politics by Josh Kearns

IMG_0724As humans, we have basic needs for food, shelter, medicine, and a few durable goods like clothing, tools and cooking implements.

The quality of our food, our shelter and our medicines all go to promote our health. To be healthy means to be free of disease and sickness, to be strong and energetic, and to live a long life. Beyond this, we pretty much just want to have a good time.

We’re a social species; we need community - to form bonds of friendship, respect and love. Being part of a community helps with having a good time. It’s more fun to grow food or build a house with the help of others; the quality of the product is usually better, too.

We have large brains, and although the evolutionary jury is still out on whether these are adaptive or mal-adaptive organs, we have a need to use them for various types of stimulation and self-expression. Intellectual and creative development are essential ingredients of human happiness.

So - food, shelter, medicine, a few essential goods, community, and intellectual development and creative self-expression - what else is there? How about security. Having a degree of security in the attainment of well-being is also important.

That’s pretty much it, isn’t it? Good news! Life is simple!

Obtaining these needs in sufficient quantities seems like it ought to be pretty easy. So why does life seem so complicated and difficult most of the time?

Roots of the Problem

If I had to answer this question with only one word, I would say, “institutions.” To quote Edward Abbey:

“In our institutions the whole is always less than the sum of its parts. There will never be a state as good as its people, or a church worthy of its congregation, or a university equal to its faculty and students.”

Many of our institutions are deeply flawed, and it is evident that these flaws are at the root of our discontent, thwarting our efforts to achieve a happy life.

One flaw at the root of our modern economic system is the “grow-or-die” mentality-the mentality of a cancer cell.

For example, one flaw at the root of our modern economic system is the “grow-or-die” mentality - the mentality of a cancer cell.

It is impossible for the human economy to grow indefinitely on a finite planet Earth, although economists, politicians and the heads of the Great Corporations are hell bent pursuing policies and strategies for as much growth as possible, as quickly as possible.

The symptoms revealing the physical and biological absurdity of this economic foolishness are increasingly apparent in the form of pollution building up in our air, water and soils, the degradation of ecosystems and catastrophic losses in biodiversity, and the disturbance of the climate.

Our media institutions are deeply flawed as well, first and foremost because they have done such a shameful job of informing us about things that are truly important.

In fact, the media is often implicated in our outright deception, as in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Their advertisements are designed to make us feel inferior so we’ll go out and buy crap we don’t need to try and feel better. The media is heavily into the game of deceit and manipulation - what good do we get from this?

The No Spin Zone

But it would be foolish to expect our media to inform us on these matters, since the corporate institutions that own the media are the same that heedlessly and recklessly pursue profits and growth at the expense of our communities and the environment.

bushscreenPerhaps we might expect to learn about these problems in our educational institutions so that they can be fixed. But there again, the same “special interests” are at work, not informing us about the ecological and social realities of our world, but rather training us to be effective servants of their world - which is organized around profit and growth.

The educational institutions train, for example, the specialized servants of industrial agriculture.

Industrial agriculture uses massive amounts of toxic chemicals, degrades the soil, impoverishes biological and genetic diversity, destroys rural communities and livelihoods, treats animals cruelly, is obscenely wasteful, and is entirely dependent upon huge public subsidies and heavy inputs of non-renewable fossil energy.

How can we be healthy if our food is poisoned and its nutritional value reduced by bad farming methods? How can we be happy knowing animals are suffering for our food, and knowing that our trip to the supermarket makes us complicit in the destruction of the environment?

How can we feel secure knowing our dinner is dependent upon fossil fuels, for which war after war is being fought to secure?

Our flawed educational institutions also induce a helplessness that goes along with the overspecialized training we receive in the service of a bad economic system. To the extent that we are employed as specialists, we have neither the time, nor the skills, nor many of us the inclination, to be generalists, to be able to do a variety of tasks for ourselves.

Back to the Land?

How many of us could, if we had the time, grow our own food, process it, prepare it, preserve it for winter? How many of us could, if we had the time, build our own home and design its landscape, making use of ecological principles for efficiency and aesthetics?

How can we be content when we are constantly made to feel inadequate with what we’ve got right now?

How many of us could plough a field or sustainably log a forest using a team of horses? How many of us could make our own clothing or tools or furniture, if we had the time and inclination to do so?

Very few, because we have not learned to do them. Instead, our educational institutions render us dependent on corporations and other institutions to employ us according to our “profession.”

We sell our labor to one institution for a wage, which we use to buy all the things we need for our lives from other corporate institutions. And thanks to our media, who foster the sensation of unlimited wants through advertising, we can never seem to “get ahead,” or keep up with what is “fashionable.”

How can we be happy if we are always wanting something more? How can we be content when we are constantly made to feel inadequate with what we’ve got right now?

How can we avoid feeling anxious if the level of affluence we hope to achieve is always receding away in front of us, even as we grasp for it more fervently? And how can we avoid feeling depressed at the meaninglessness of this blind consumerism?

It turns out that our medical institutions have their answer to these questions, too - prescribed pharmaceuticals.

Well, bullshit.

I ask you now, as I have asked myself many times, “What are you living for?”

Think Local, Act Local

I am living to be healthy and happy and secure. For this, I simply need adequate food, shelter and medicine, to be part of a community, to be stimulated intellectually and express myself creatively, and to attain a measure of security in the procurement of these elements comprising genuine well-being.

buildingbyhadarAnd as we have already seen, meeting these needs and achieving security should be simple; if it is not so, it is because of the interference of flawed institutions.

Therefore, meeting human needs and achieving health, happiness and security should follow naturally from the opting-out of participation in flawed institutions, and pursuing well-being in a more efficient and direct fashion. That many people achieve affluence through obedience to institutions, but lack health, happiness and general well-being also recommends this strategy.

This opt-out requires what I would say, “local self-reliance.”

Local self-reliance involves the creation of a local economy for food and other essential goods. It means relying upon traditional knowledge of medicinal plants, herbs, barks, roots, and ferments in health care.

Local self-reliance calls for the ingenuity and the labor of humans and animals in place of artificially cheap (due to subsidies), polluting, non-renewable forms of energy. Homes are built with locally abundant materials such as mud, stone and straw, and make use of passive solar heating and cooling, rainwater collection, solar water heating, etc.

It involves the local community, of neighborliness, of more face-to-face interactions, and of cooperation instead of competition. It involves the development of place-centered knowledge, its ecosystems, climate, geology, hydrology, and wildlife. It requires us to take responsibility for educating ourselves, which is the only way we truly learn anyway.

Abbey again: “Freedom begins between the ears.”

Local self-reliance involves the promotion of creative self-expression that produces things both useful and beautiful - a rocking chair, a painting or sculpture, a piece of music, a tasty dessert, an efficient wood stove, or a composting toilet. (Yes, even a toilet should be beautiful and well-made). Craftsmanship and care are central to these creative works.

Local self-reliance means that we will have to work. It means we will get sweaty and dirty with some regularity.

But it also means we will have to think. We will have to undertake problem-solving exercises that require the use of our intellect as well as the use of our conscience, our compassion and our intuition - we will have to think ecologically.

Our scientific efforts will not be divorced from our morality and emotions, as the modern paradigm has attempted to enforce, often with disastrous results.

In short, local self-reliance means getting what we need to live long, healthy, happy lives in ways that are direct, efficient, ecologically sustainable, and secure.

Opting Out of the System

As long as we rely upon far-removed institutions that operate according to logic flawed at the deepest fundamental levels, and in fact whose “success” completely depends upon the continued failure of our communities and the destruction of ecosystems, then we only exacerbate our frustration in attaining true well-being.

We must turn our backs on a broken system and begin to do things the right way, for ourselves. We cannot expect institutional support for this work, and nor should we. It’s not needed anyway.

Get over the idea that you need money to do everything. Money is just a symbol - don’t make too much of it. You don’t need money, you need food (so grow it), or a place to stay (so build it or crash with some friends), or a hat (so knit it), or whatever.

Get over the idea that you need money to do everything. Money is just a symbol - don’t make too much of it.

In many, many cases, knowledge, creativity and resourcefulness can substitute for money. Not having much money forces you to develop these skills, which anyway are necessary for obtaining true wealth and well-being, instead of the symbolic, insecure, false kind of wealth that money represents.

Travel the world and learn by direct experience as much as possible. Read what you want, when you want - you’ll retain more.

To quote Ed Abbey once again: “What is reason? Knowledge informed by sympathy, intelligence in the arms of love.”

Context is what imbues information with the qualities that allow for the development of sympathy, deep understanding, love and compassion that turn the storage of mere disembodied facts into wisdom. Context is what you get from experiential learning, as opposed to the mere disembodied facts inculcated by institutional learning.

So if you want the happy, healthy, easy life, and a good measure of security in hanging on to it, then eschew the institutions - educational, corporate, political, economic, and media - and get right down to the work of building a viable local economy and promoting local self-reliance.

Recruit others in this work - you can’t do it alone and you’ll need all the help you can get. And besides, overthrowing the system is way more fun when done with friends.

This essay is turning out to be a regular Abbey-fest, but I’ve got to end with this quote:

“How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your Tee Vee; kill your own beef; build your own cabin and piss off the front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.”

Josh Kearns speaks the truth, y’all. Comments are welcome.

Josh Kearns is a bona fide hill-billy who currently runs AqueousSolutions, an NGO devoted to developing and promoting self-reliant forms of water purification. He’s been a researcher in environmental chemistry and ecological economics and is into techniques for high quality self-reliant living like organic farming, natural building, permaculture and bluegrass music.

Josh Kearns

Josh Kearns is a bona fide hill-billy who currently runs AqueousSolutions, an NGO devoted to developing and promoting self-reliant forms of water purification. He’s been a researcher in environmental chemistry and ecological economics and is into techniques for high quality self-reliant living like organic farming, natural building, permaculture and bluegrass music.

| Share on Facebook | Stumble it!

17 Comments »

  1. Comment by Eva — November 22, 2007

    I think I went to university with the girl in the picture (middle). Small world indeed…

  2. Comment by Tim Patterson — November 22, 2007

    Eva, you know Hadar?!? She was talking up Halifax to me also!

    -Tim

  3. Comment by Eva — November 22, 2007

    Yup, she was the year ahead of me at Kings! We didn’t know each other at all well, lots of friends in common though. So strange that you and Josh Kearns ran into her at Pun Pun!

  4. Comment by Ian MacKenzie — November 22, 2007

    great article josh. while i agree with much of it (runaway greed and profit) i differ on your idea of specialization as a detriment to human potential.

    for instance, it’s fairly easy to be moderately good at something, whether it’s a surfer, painter, web designer, etc. but it takes years to become good to the point of excellence. and so given the limited life span of most people, they have to choose specific areas to focus their time and attention if they want to excel.

    this is not possible in a world where most of us are too busy growing food and building shelters. by branching off and allowing some people to grow food, other to build houses, etc, it let’s them become excellent food growers, others to be expert craftsmen, and me to devote my attention to editing and filmmaking.

    how do you reconcile this argument with your local self-reliance philosophy? curious to hear your thoughts.

  5. Comment by Gary — November 22, 2007

    The view expressed in this article is a typical western view which idealizes a life which most of humanity throughout most of human history has been struggling to escape. They are rose colored glasses to say the least.

    Most people are not happy just existing and being self sufficient. The whole basis of the rise of civilization was the division of labor which allowed for artisans, merchants and scholars to focus on non-agriculture activities.

    If someone wants to live on a farm and grow their own crops, that is their business. The majority of humanity have rejected this lifestyle. The UN recently announced that for the first time in human history the majority of humanity was urban. The fact that people continue to move to shanty towns over rural villages should give you an indication for what life is like in most rural areas. It is the world of Hobbes: poor, nasty, brutish and short. This isn’t to say that people can’t be happy in their surroundings, but that they often seek greater happiness elsewhere.

    If you want to live such a life, all the power to you. Please leave me out of your “we” however. I don’t need to craft my own rocking chair to have a sense of fulfillment.

    I find it ironic that this article on a computer, posted on a network and read by people all over the world. None of those things could be created in a self reliant fashion, and none of which would be possible in the pseudo-Amish world the author envisions.

  6. Comment by Josh — November 22, 2007

    To respond, briefly, to some issues raised in the discussion…

    I want to be clear that I, and no one I know, is advocating completely getting rid of specialization. I’m happy to have specialist brain surgeons and airline pilots around, and I doubt anyone would seriously challenge that.

    It’s more a matter of degree. My argument is that there is an inherent instability in a society based upon *extreme* specialization, which, if our society has not attained it is certainly approaching.

    If people are trained in narrow specialties, then they are dependent upon corporations to employ them in order to earn a wage, in order to buy all the other things they need for their lives that they cannot make for themselves, either because they haven’t the time or the skills, or both.

    People trapped in such a system cannot properly regard themselves as “free.”

    “The freest are the most able,” to paraphrase Wendell Berry.

    I argue, as did Thomas Jefferson, that “the small land holders are the most precious part of a state.” These agrarian people are necessarily generalists, and produce locally much of what they consume. There is a freedom and strength in this practical ideal. I cannot envision a functional democracy where this condition goes unmet.

    And to respond to the notion that people worldwide are choosing to leave the land and inhabit urban slums - my research and experience suggests that this is not a choice. Rather, people are being forced off the land and into slums by the machinations of economic globalization.

    Have a look at the research papers posted on the website of The International Society of Ecology and Culture (www.isec.org.uk) and perhaps you will see what I mean.

    Very often have I heard this argument that localization proponents are advocating a “return to some idyllic past that never existed.” No one that I know is advocating a “return” to anything, whatever that might mean (going backwards in time?).

    The point is that an export-led growth-based economy that relies on huge public subsidies and fantastic quantities of fossil fuel is both socially and ecologically destructive, and isn’t providing authentic well-being to boot. Localization, necessarily accompanied by a healthy degree of de-specialization of the citizenry, seems a logical and viable antidote.

    And in fact, based on my observations traveling around the US and Asia, the localization movement is in full swing. People are doing it, it’s happening all over. It’s not getting prime-time play in the media, but who’d expect it to?

    And as far as this Hobbesian world view is concerned - what a bummer! If you really believe that Hobbesian stuff, then try, for instance, living in a Ladakhi village for a while. These folks are super “poor” by Western monetary standards. But they have a great quality of life in the stuff that matters: clean environment, good community, good agriculture, and so on.

    As soon as I write a sentence like the last I can hear the cries of “romanticizing!” So that’s why I say go see for yourself.

  7. Comment by Cedric Pieterse — November 23, 2007

    An African perspective.

    Josh I agree to a lot of things that you said. However, I am not convinced that localisation would work in the greater scheme of things. I can only speak on my observations in Africa. I am no specialist on farming, politics and social studies. I can merely comment on what I saw and draw conclusions from my experiences.

    I was born in Africa, lived there for my entire life up until three months ago, and I have spent the last four years travelling all over the Sub-Sahara Africa. I can speak a few of the languages very well, and I have spent long periods of time living in very remote rural communities.

    As far as farming is concerned, typical subsistence farming is barely enough to sustain the average family, let alone saving up for droughts. Soil depletion is rife, and compared to modern farming methods, yields on crops are extremely low. The result is big patches of barren land. Farmers move away to de-forrest a new area, and start from scratch. Modern farms, have been on the same patch of land for generations.

    Thakfully, Africa does not have cold winters, otherwise the whole continent would have been a desert by now. The burning of wood is happening at an alarming rate nevertheless. The primary reason for this, is cooking. A recent trend is the manufactoring of charcoal, and their methods are ten times less efficient as modern industrial methods. Electricity is a lesser evil, as it is much more energy efficient and a lot less taxing on the enviroment.

    The people that I encountered in the most remote parts, were not relying on money at all. Barter trade is practised, and is moderated by the chief and the village headmen, so they do have a form of currency evaluation. The problem comes with real money. A young man returning from work in the big city arrives with a shiny pair of shoes, a new radio and a cellphone. This makes him a novelty, it gives him status, and makes him popular with the girls. The other young guys see this as a threat to their malehood. This causes conflict and it also lures people off the land to the slums on the outskirts of the big cities. Social status was, is, and is going to be the prime source for competition for as long as man populates Earth.

    As far as working with animals is concerned. The last thing on earth you want to be, is a domestic animal is Africa. These creatures live terrible lives. Animals are not very energy efficient, and their food requirements to work return ratio is not good at all. The problem is that an animal’s food requirements utilize the same agricultural patch that their owners do. The animal therfore becomes competition to the humans as far as food goes. But, animals are a lot stronger that their human counterparts, and they can log a forrest, pull a heavy cart and provide meat. So the owners give the poor animal just enough food to survive.

    I agree that politics, media and industrialist profiteering is evil. It is not doing anyone any good, exept for a handfull of people at the top. Borders, passports and polititians did not exist untill the colonial era, and tribal life was the norm. I personally think this is the only way one can solve Africa’s problems. But what to do with all the yummy resources? I think that the companies that are mining, drilling for oil and fishing in Africa should be held responsible by us, the consumers. At the moment they only have to deal with corrupt polititians. With money, that is an easy problem to overcome. Give the resources back to the tribes, and let the big industrialists deal with the chiefs and villagers. In a responsible manner. This will benefit the people in the rural areas, it will give them work, it will educate them and it will de-centralise urbanization. And we as the consumers that buy the products will decide from who we buy. Very few people would support a bad guy.

    At the moment there is simply not enough land to support localisation. For example, Europe is simly too small to allow this. There are too many people. From what I have read, planet Earth can only sustain 3 billion inhabitants indefinately . We are more than double that figure, and increasing.

    I had a very profitable company, and four years ago, decided that I wanted to simplify my life, and enjoy life. I sold off everythig, and hit the road. I had the same idea as you, but after four years woke up to the harsh reality that it is near impossible to live without money and have a stimulating live. It becomes a struggle to survive. I did learn that money is not everything, and that it does not buy you happiness as the cliche goes. Greed and vanity are two of the main causes of all the shit that is happening on the planet right now. I will not go in to religion…
    I value my live!

  8. Comment by Kirsty — November 23, 2007

    Nice article Josh. I’m really interested in alternative building techniques and plan a stop at Pun Pun next year to learn a bit about it.

  9. Comment by Tim Patterson — November 23, 2007

    Josh, thanks for this article, and Ian, Gary, Cedric, Eva and Kirsty for the comments! Cedric, I really appreciated your African perspective, especially the conclusion:

    Greed and vanity are two of the main causes of all the shit that is happening on the planet right now. I will not go in to religion…
    I value my live!

    I agree - right now, America is running on only 4 fuels: fear, greed, vanity and gasoline.

  10. Comment by Hadar — November 23, 2007

    Hi Eva! (?!)

    Nice pictures Josh ;)

  11. Comment by Josh — November 24, 2007

    Cedric -

    Thanks for your clear-headed analysis. I won’t try to contradict a word of what you wrote, but to clarify a little more…

    I want to make a distinction based on my own research and experiences between what could be called “good farming” and “bad farming.”

    Good farming is regenerative of the people, the land, the animals, the soil, the entire local ecosystem. Bad farming degrades these things.

    Certainly with most of the farming that is going on now, and has been going on at least since the Green Revolution, constitutes bad farming. With this type of farming the earth cannot support very many people. It is not a cyclic kind of farming that returns nutrients to the soil as it takes; it is more like mining - an extractive industry.

    My understanding, based on my research and experiences, as well as a healthy dose of what could only be called religious faith, is that if good farming were to be practiced worldwide then the land could support many more people at a higher quality of life than most now enjoy.

    Of course there is some limit to total population, even in the best case scenario of small scale, bio-diverse, organic agriculture for local markets - and I would not even hazard a guess at how many people the earth could support with such an agriculture. But clearly, to change from a destructive industrial agriculture to a regenerative agriculture would greatly reduce humans’ pressure on the biosphere.

    Simply meeting local needs first instead of doggedly pursuing export-led growth models for agriculture would drastically reduce the energy requirements (and subsequent pollution due to) our massive transport infrastructure.

    For example, the UK flies apples to South Africa to be washed and waxed before they are sent back to stock UK supermarkets.

    Clearly this kind of absurdity indicates that there is a lot of fat than can be trimmed from our globalized system with a shift towards the local.

    In terms of their farming practices, I do not know the details of what makes for the hardships of the rural communities in Africa that you speak of, so I cannot prescribe any “solutions.” But perhaps there are ways to help them to improve the output and the regenerative potential of their farming. I believe that this as a strategy would be preferable to increasing urbanization and intrusion of “Western market culture.”

    Obviously I come from very different circumstances than these folks in rural Africa, and my writing reflects my point of view and perhaps is most relevant to readers with a similar point of view or socio-economic background to my own.

    In “our” case, I see a great need for the development and practice of regenerative ways of living - regenerative of ecosystems, social systems, economic systems, and so on. I believe that the agrarian ideas and lifestyle practices I am learning about, attempting to understand and practice, and writing about present possibilities for such regenerative living.

    I do not believe they present the only possibilities for regenerative living, and I do not recommend that everyone undertake them. I do recommend that more people undertake them.

    The more I elaborate and practice at an agrarian ethic, the more joy and positive energy I find in my life. I want to share this with others who are inclined to find similar joy and positive energy.

    Agrarianism is not for everyone, nor should it be. But to those who are interested, let’s continue to think on these issues together and see what we can do.

  12. Comment by Gary — November 25, 2007

    The alternative to the Green Revolution would be death and famine.

    I have trouble with people who tell others they are not free and they offer the path to freedom. The last time a society tried a mass movement back to the fields and away from urbanization was when the Khmer Rouge took over in Cambodia and forcibly de-urbanized the country. We all know how that turned out.

    I don’t feel trapped because I don’t grow my own food. I doesn’t make me less free to be dependent on other people for goods and services. Global society and the economy are intertwined and that is overall a good thing. I’d much rather live today than 500 years ago. Despite what people thing, almost every measure of human prosperity, health and happiness is better than it has ever been. In the places it is lacking (such as Africa) it is where people are living the life you recommend. There you see the most violence, the most hunger, and the most poverty.

    I don’t think you can cherry pick what people specialize in, moreover, no one has that right to tell people what they can or can’t do. You may like brain surgeons, but if the brain surgeon has to take weeks out of every year to do things other could do (like chop wood and grow crops), we are all the worse off for it.

    If you want to live in the woods and lead a simple lifestyle, that is certainly your prerogative. I think you forget however, that what makes it possible is the fact that you live in an advanced economy. Take away your truck, the seeds which have been cross bred for generations, the metal in the axes and saws you use, the computer you use to write this article, and material your clothes are made out of, and you are bad winter away from starvation.

    I do not question that your life is happier living the way you do. You have every right to live it how you see fit. I don’t challenge your right to advocate it and try to get other people to join you. I do however think naive to think that it is possible without the rest of the civilization you are trying to get away from, or that it would be possible for everyone.

  13. Comment by Josh — November 26, 2007

    Gary -

    Reading your comments makes me lament that I am not a clearer writer. It’s apparent from what you write that I have failed to adequately communicate my perspectives, since you seemed to have missed my point on so many things.

    Perhaps we can continue the discussion, though I’ll require your patience and assistance in couching my ideas in a format that can remain intact as it travels from me to you.

  14. Comment by Cedric — November 28, 2007

    Josh-

    Thanx for the reply on my comment. You have clarified things a lot more. It is always nice to see different perspectives. We are entitled to our opinions and we are entitled to live our lives as we wish. Good on you for taking that step, we are among a select few individuals who realise that life is not a dress rehearsal. I can only hope to get this kind of response to the stuff that I write…
    Best of luck with your endeavours and may the sun shine warm on your face and the rain fall softly in your fields :)

  15. Comment by Brian — December 1, 2007

    Gary,

    You seem to think Josh is asking for everyone to become Amish, all or nothing, back to woods and goodbye to all mankind’s technological advances. Josh is not suggesting a 100 percent return to a lifestyle of the past, but a lifestyle change that for many could lessen the stress of their lives, and stress on the Earth.

    And although “standards of living” may be better than ever, how much longer will the human species be able to live at all if our means of increasing these standards requires the destruction of the planet?

    A year ago, I chose to become vegan. Not because I think the entire world could, should or ever will transition to an all or nothing vegan diet… but because it is a way for me to lessen my impact on the earth (with other obvious benefits). I don’t fantasize about some global agricultural revision that would leave livestock roaming freely all over the world.

    From what I gathered from Josh’s article, I don’t think he fantasizes about an entire world of modern day people burning down their McMansions and walking into the woods in search of the 18th century. I find his article to be a good wake-up call for many of the members of this profit driven consumer economy who are constantly trying to fill voids in their lives with trips to Best Buy, or to a shrinks office. Life can be much more fulfilling when it is simplified.

  16. Comment by Tim Patterson — January 17, 2008

    Right on, Brian, thanks for the comment.

    Gary’s comment struck a chord with me too, because I lived in Cambodia for a time and struggled to understand how the massive famines and paranoid repression of the Khmer Rouge times came to pass - the shocking, ugly and inescapable conclusion is that the radicalization of the KR was in direct consequence to the massive, indiscriminate and secret bombing campaign the U.S. unleashed on Cambodia in a desperate attempt to gain a stronger negotiating position with the North Vietnamese. The Khmer Rouge rose from blood - just read the lyrics to their national anthem - and that blood was spilled in large part by American bombs and proxy, corrupt, Cambodian forces under Lon Nol that held “power” briefly between the overthrow of King Sihanouk and the ultimate KR victory.

    I’m not trying to excuse the KR atrocities. Not at all. I’m only trying to understand the process by which such a tragedy came into being, and recognize my country’s central causative role.

    -Tim

  17. Comment by Derek Wallace — February 6, 2008

    Gary,

    The impetus of voluntary simplicity is not just because its practitioners find it more aesthetically pleasing. It is also a matter of survival, which Josh sums up quite succinctly when he says “It is impossible for the human economy to grow indefinitely on a finite planet Earth, although economists, politicians and the heads of the Great Corporations are hell bent pursuing policies and strategies for as much growth as possible, as quickly as possible.”

    It is not a matter of whether or not people “want” to simplify and practice self-reliance and a stronger sense of community. Rather, we are being forced, by necessity, to return to this lifestyle because we are running out of natural resources. This modern method of civilization is an experiment in our species’ existence and if you were to take the last century and a half of humanity’s “progress”, you’d see that it is only the top sheet of paper on a stack that is 1,250 feet tall. How can the top sheet of paper be right, but that entire towering stack be wrong? Biologically, this makes no sense.

    If you’re the kind of person who gets his information better from graphs and diagrams and authoritative sources like economists, bankers and geologists, then I’d like to highly recommend that you visit the “Life After the Oil Crash” site, which you can find here:

    http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

    Or, perhaps, like me, you are the kind of person who gets ideas better through pictures and videos. If so, I would like to highly recommend the short video “The Story of Stuff”, which you can find here:

    http://www.storyofstuff.com

    However, the problem with statements like “If you want to live such a life, all the power to you. Please leave me out of your ‘we’ however” is that we just can’t do that because we’re all connected in the web of this global ecosystem. What one person does affects another, and certainly what one society does affects its neighbors. We live in a globally-connected world where natural resources cross oceans and continents, where citizens immigrate and where many corporations operate on on a multinational level.

    How can local farmers, already involved or new to the scene like Josh and myself, hope for peace and prosperity when “civilization” demands more and more land in the name of “imminent domain” to make room for more and more neighborhoods, lumber mills, coal/oil mining operations or growth fields for bio-fuels to power vehicles? How can we hope for peace and prosperity if melting ice caps erode coastal areas, create environmental refugees to compete with us for land to live on and increase the spread of diseases like dengue fever? And how can we hope to find peace and prosperity when international war over resources like cheap petroleum, potable water and precious metals threaten the safety and stability of the world? There is no “I” on this planet, that is only an illusion. There is only a “we”, and an ostrich with its head in the sand on this subject is the same as a sitting duck.

    Lastly, there is no “irony” in someone using a computer to tell other computer users that the entire system is unsustainable. It appears that your problem with this method of spreading awareness is that it smacks of hypocrisy, as if the messenger is more important than the message. I suppose we could walk door-to-door and deliver the message by word-of-mouth, but that’s just not very efficient, is it? And all signs indicate that we’re running out of time for anything less than utter efficiency.

    No…the computers and networks being used to raise awareness in others could not be created in a self-reliant fashion in the “pseudo-Amish world the author envisions”.

    But then again, in that world, there would be no need to warn them in the first place, would there?

Leave a comment

Please note: If this is your first comment, it will be moderated.

Get BNT by Email


Jump To Category:

Latest In Politics

Latest Comments