Equality, like simplicity, means several different things. There's social equality, economic equality, moral equality, legal equality, and political equality. There's also equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, and something called asset-based egalitarianism.
Social equality means all people have the same social status in a society; it includes equal rights, equal access to education and healthcare, and equal opportunity. Economic equality means all people have equal access to economic wealth, power, and resources; this is a basic principle of socialism and communism. Moral equality means that all people have the same worth, the same moral value. Legal equality states that all people will be treated the same by the law. Political equality means that everyone has the same political rights and the same access to political power; this is a basic principle of democracy. Equality of opportunity means all people have equal access to education, healthcare, employment, housing, etc. Equality of outcome goes beyond this to measure results, to move toward equalizing income and/or wealth (seeing this as the economic outcome). Asset-based egalitarianism is an attempt to equalize material resources by giving a set amount of money to each person as they reach a certain age (one proposal suggests $80,000); a critique of this is that since different people have different abilities to manage money, there would be an unequal outcome over time.
What do I mean by equality? In a sense, I mean most of these things. I want to work toward a world where everyone is socially, economically, morally, legally, and politically equal. I particularly want to see equality of power. To understand what I mean, it's necessary to look at inequality.
One of the many forms of inequality is oppression, which is where a group of people attains power and privilege at the expense of one or several other groups of people. All the 'isms come from this. And oppressions themselves come from social or dominance hierarchy, where one person or group of people is viewed as more worthy, more deserving of power and privilege than others, and therefore controls the resources of the society. Much radical political theory focuses on oppression, looking at inequality in families, in the economy, in governance, between cultures, and even between nations (see my post of 7/6/08). Some of these theorists point out that there is a power elite in this society which holds much of the wealth, power, and privilege.
To understand the difference between equality of power and, say, economic equality, imagine a corporation where everyone is paid the exact same amount. However, this company is still structured hierarchally, with a CEO that makes all the decisions and sits in a comfortable office, and workers that do backbreaking labor. This is hardly equality, even if everyone makes an identical salary.
Equality does not mean that everyone is identical--in fact, since each of us is unique, everyone is different, with different abilities, skills, talents, interests, etc. What we are talking about is equal treatment and equal valuing. Therefore equality also doesn't imply levelling. There is no Handicapper General. People's different skills and abilities are valued, but this doesn't mean preferential treatment.
Above all, equality cannot mean exactly equal. No one goes around making precise measurements of equality. I picked up the term 'raisin counters' at some point; it refers little kids who have to have the exact number of raisins in each child's oatmeal cookie--or they feel someone is being favored. The point here is simple fairness, fairness for all. What we need is a world in which all people are valued, all people are deemed important, all people have access to what they need, and all people are supported and encouraged to grow and thrive. Love and compassion demand no less.
Quote of the day: "A value change is required as we move from death to life. People should not ask 'What is he worth?' and expect to get an answer in dollars. We should learn to value women and men, blacks and whites, adults and children, intellectuals and manual workers equally. There should be no rich as well as no poor..." - George Lakey
Word (or phrase) of the day: Red-Green Alliance
Hero(es) of the day: Common Ground Collective (New Orleans)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Riot!
In his book Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, British author,George Monbiot pointed out that political movements generally demand more from the government, not less. He cleverly puts it that "no one has ever rioted for austerity." Sharon Astyk, an American writer and farmer, was so taken by this phrase that she and a friend, Miranda, began a campaign for simple living that they called, 'Riot for Austerity'. Eventually they got more than sixty folks blogging and participating in the 'Riot'.
They made it like a game, but a serious game. The Riot Rules were that anyone could play, and the goal was to get your consumption down to 1/10th of what the average American consumed. (Monbiot or someone figured that the average American would need to reduce their consumption by 93 or 94%, but the Rioters decided, mostly for the sake of simplicity, that 90% would be close enough.) They gave themselves a year to do it, and would all blog about their progress--they began in June of 2007 and ended a few months ago. (I, of course, just found out about them recently). The Riot 4 Austerity site includes a calculator and a breakdown of the seven categories: Gasoline, Electricity, Heating and Cooking Energy, Garbage, Water, Consumer Goods, and Food.
Having looked at some of the posts from various 'Rioters', it seems like few made the full 90% reduction, but it also seems like most made some to quite a bit toward that reduction; and it seems like they all learned something.
I would love to participate in a challenge like that, and I am looking forward to the day when I live in a situation where I could do it. Meanwhile, I'm admiring and learning from them. One thing that was wonderful about the 'Riot' was how they supported each other. This is a valuable way to work toward simplicity.
Quote of the day: "You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?" - George Bernard Shaw
Word (or phrase) of the day: Bear Community
Hero(es) of the day: Pyotr Kropotkin
They made it like a game, but a serious game. The Riot Rules were that anyone could play, and the goal was to get your consumption down to 1/10th of what the average American consumed. (Monbiot or someone figured that the average American would need to reduce their consumption by 93 or 94%, but the Rioters decided, mostly for the sake of simplicity, that 90% would be close enough.) They gave themselves a year to do it, and would all blog about their progress--they began in June of 2007 and ended a few months ago. (I, of course, just found out about them recently). The Riot 4 Austerity site includes a calculator and a breakdown of the seven categories: Gasoline, Electricity, Heating and Cooking Energy, Garbage, Water, Consumer Goods, and Food.
Having looked at some of the posts from various 'Rioters', it seems like few made the full 90% reduction, but it also seems like most made some to quite a bit toward that reduction; and it seems like they all learned something.
I would love to participate in a challenge like that, and I am looking forward to the day when I live in a situation where I could do it. Meanwhile, I'm admiring and learning from them. One thing that was wonderful about the 'Riot' was how they supported each other. This is a valuable way to work toward simplicity.
Quote of the day: "You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?" - George Bernard Shaw
Word (or phrase) of the day: Bear Community
Hero(es) of the day: Pyotr Kropotkin
Friday, September 26, 2008
Simple Resources
The simple living movement has become popular. There are hundreds of books, magazines, websites... It has become an industry unto itself--and quite ironically, has become very commercialized. You can clutter your house with simple living resources!
To illustrate simplicity, I will mention one book and one website here.
One book is the classic, Voluntary Simplicity, by Duane Elgin. The website is The Simple Living Network.
You should be able to take it from here. It's simple...
Quote of the day: "Voluntary simplicity involves both inner and outer condition. It means singleness of purpose, sincerity and honesty within, as well as avoidance of exterior clutter, of many possessions irrelevant to the chief purpose of life. It means an ordering and guiding of our energy and our desires, a partial restraint in some directions in order to secure a greater abundance of life in other directions. It involves a deliberate organization of life for a purpose. ... The degree of simplification is a matter for each individual to settle for himself." - Richard Gregg
Word (or phrase) of the day: Localvore
Hero(es) of the day: June Jordan
To illustrate simplicity, I will mention one book and one website here.
One book is the classic, Voluntary Simplicity, by Duane Elgin. The website is The Simple Living Network.
You should be able to take it from here. It's simple...
Quote of the day: "Voluntary simplicity involves both inner and outer condition. It means singleness of purpose, sincerity and honesty within, as well as avoidance of exterior clutter, of many possessions irrelevant to the chief purpose of life. It means an ordering and guiding of our energy and our desires, a partial restraint in some directions in order to secure a greater abundance of life in other directions. It involves a deliberate organization of life for a purpose. ... The degree of simplification is a matter for each individual to settle for himself." - Richard Gregg
Word (or phrase) of the day: Localvore
Hero(es) of the day: June Jordan
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Simplicity
What does Simple mean? It actually means a few different things. First and foremost it means buying less stuff, consuming less stuff, and having less stuff. This is often called simple living or voluntary simplicity. In a sense, my post 'Boycott the Corporations" (9/12/08) was about this. We've got to get out of the consumer mentality.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs (see my post of 9/2/08) comes into play here as we try to meet the needs beyond our most basic survival needs. The needs for security, love, belonging, respect, self-esteem, and feeling useful, are all thwarted by the present system, which pushes us toward acquiring material goods to make us feel better. "We are in enormous environmental trouble because we've spent decades trying to meet non-material needs (for status, for affection, for respect, for comaraderie, for security) with material means." (Bill McKibben, 'What the World Needs Now', in Ode, January/February 2008)
There's an irony here--these days simple living stores and websites will sell you enough stuff on how to unclutter your life, that you can get lost in the clutter of simple living items. It means often you need to say: "Enough!" With less stuff, there is more room for looking at what you really need. And others in the world could use a lot of that stuff that we don't need. (I wrote a post looking at what we need and don't--see my post of 9/4/08.)
There is a wonderful video on 'stuff' called "The Story of Stuff". Fortunately there are people who are challenging the consumer mentality such as Reverend Billy who wrote the book, What Would Jesus Buy?, and the anti-consumerists behind Buy Nothing Day and the Alternatives for Simple Living. A very humorous approach to it all is on a site that is selling... NOTHING!
It's important to note that the reason simple living is sometimes called voluntary simplicity is to differentiate it from involuntary poverty. There is a world of difference between people who choose to live simply and people who are poor. What's more, having less stuff is a decision and it should, if done right, enrich your life. This is something anyone who is middle-class or well-to-do should consider. You don't need the stuff and it isn't good for you. Living simply should make you feel freer--not deprived. Above all, this is something I don't advocate for working class or poor people (although if they want to consider it, I'd support them)--they have lived too long doing without. Those of us who've had too much need to figure out what we don't need.
Arnold Toynbee, in his book A Study of History, refers to a "Law of Progressive Simplification" where he claims that “measure of a civilization's growth is its ability to shift energy and attention from the material side to the spiritual and aesthetic and cultural and artistic side.” Or as Thoreau said, "Our lives are frittered away by detail; simplify, simplify."
Simple also refers to taking a small steps approach to things. If we are going to change things from the bottom, we are going to begin by designing simple alternatives. The 'Complexity' people point out that Complex Adaptive Systems emerge from simple systems--you don't design a complex system from scratch, you (and this really means you collectively) build it from the bottom up using simple systems, simple design, simple implementation. This makes it possible for each of us to do it--start on our own, make changes where we can, and work with others as much as possible. And keep it simple. (The 12 Step folks--and others, including computer scientists--use the KISS model: Keep It Simple, Sweetie [or Keep It Small and Simple/Sweet and Simple/Short and Simple/Simple and Straightforward, etc, etc]).
In the book Voluntary Simplicity, Duane Elgin relates five different ways to simplify interpersonal communication:
Scientists and philosophers talk about Occam's Razor, a principle that can be put as: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Thomas Aquinas claimed that God was infinitely simple, and some religious groups such as the Quakers, the Amish, the Mennonites, and others, actively embrace simplicity--although in many different ways. And, truly, there are many ways to be simple. As Duane Elgin put it: "There is no cookbook for defining a life of conscious simplicity."
Quote of the day: "Live simply so that others may simply live." - Mohandas Gandhi
Word (or phrase) of the day: Polyculture
Hero(es) of the day: Utah Phillips
Maslow's hierarchy of needs (see my post of 9/2/08) comes into play here as we try to meet the needs beyond our most basic survival needs. The needs for security, love, belonging, respect, self-esteem, and feeling useful, are all thwarted by the present system, which pushes us toward acquiring material goods to make us feel better. "We are in enormous environmental trouble because we've spent decades trying to meet non-material needs (for status, for affection, for respect, for comaraderie, for security) with material means." (Bill McKibben, 'What the World Needs Now', in Ode, January/February 2008)
There's an irony here--these days simple living stores and websites will sell you enough stuff on how to unclutter your life, that you can get lost in the clutter of simple living items. It means often you need to say: "Enough!" With less stuff, there is more room for looking at what you really need. And others in the world could use a lot of that stuff that we don't need. (I wrote a post looking at what we need and don't--see my post of 9/4/08.)
There is a wonderful video on 'stuff' called "The Story of Stuff". Fortunately there are people who are challenging the consumer mentality such as Reverend Billy who wrote the book, What Would Jesus Buy?, and the anti-consumerists behind Buy Nothing Day and the Alternatives for Simple Living. A very humorous approach to it all is on a site that is selling... NOTHING!
It's important to note that the reason simple living is sometimes called voluntary simplicity is to differentiate it from involuntary poverty. There is a world of difference between people who choose to live simply and people who are poor. What's more, having less stuff is a decision and it should, if done right, enrich your life. This is something anyone who is middle-class or well-to-do should consider. You don't need the stuff and it isn't good for you. Living simply should make you feel freer--not deprived. Above all, this is something I don't advocate for working class or poor people (although if they want to consider it, I'd support them)--they have lived too long doing without. Those of us who've had too much need to figure out what we don't need.
Arnold Toynbee, in his book A Study of History, refers to a "Law of Progressive Simplification" where he claims that “measure of a civilization's growth is its ability to shift energy and attention from the material side to the spiritual and aesthetic and cultural and artistic side.” Or as Thoreau said, "Our lives are frittered away by detail; simplify, simplify."
Simple also refers to taking a small steps approach to things. If we are going to change things from the bottom, we are going to begin by designing simple alternatives. The 'Complexity' people point out that Complex Adaptive Systems emerge from simple systems--you don't design a complex system from scratch, you (and this really means you collectively) build it from the bottom up using simple systems, simple design, simple implementation. This makes it possible for each of us to do it--start on our own, make changes where we can, and work with others as much as possible. And keep it simple. (The 12 Step folks--and others, including computer scientists--use the KISS model: Keep It Simple, Sweetie [or Keep It Small and Simple/Sweet and Simple/Short and Simple/Simple and Straightforward, etc, etc]).
In the book Voluntary Simplicity, Duane Elgin relates five different ways to simplify interpersonal communication:
- Communicate more honestly
- Let go of wasteful speech and idle gossip
- Become comfortable with silence
- Use greater eye contact
- Use nonsexual physical contact (for this he cites the work of James Prescott--see my post of 7/28/08 for more on this)
Scientists and philosophers talk about Occam's Razor, a principle that can be put as: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Thomas Aquinas claimed that God was infinitely simple, and some religious groups such as the Quakers, the Amish, the Mennonites, and others, actively embrace simplicity--although in many different ways. And, truly, there are many ways to be simple. As Duane Elgin put it: "There is no cookbook for defining a life of conscious simplicity."
Quote of the day: "Live simply so that others may simply live." - Mohandas Gandhi
Word (or phrase) of the day: Polyculture
Hero(es) of the day: Utah Phillips
Monday, September 22, 2008
SECS
It's the fall equinox today, and time to move in a slightly different direction. I've mentioned that I'm bisexual and polyamorous. Some people think that means I'm obsessed with sex. Actually, what I'm obsessed with is SECS (pronounced 'sex').
I spent a lot of time a few years ago trying to figure out my own politics. Was I really an anarchist? Maybe I was a socialist? Or an ecofeminist with strong social justice leanings? Finally, I just tried to figure out what kind of society I wanted. What was my vision for the future? I started thinking about what was central to what I believed.
Well, it turns out that SECS is my primary vision of the future. SECS describes the world that I want to see. What SECS means is that I want a society that is Simple, Egalitarian, Communal (and Cooperative!), and Sustainable. I'm going to spend the next bunch of posts explaining what I mean by each of those terms--and will probably include an additional post (or two) on resources for each.
None of this is profound. It's not new stuff and none of it is original with me. But I do think that it describes a direction for the future that is compatible with everything I've written thus far. I think it's flexible enough to allow many alternatives, but clear enough so that we can tell if we are following it. And, yes, I think many small, bottom up systems can be built using it.
I will tell you now that SECS is not my entire political vision--it's just the primary part. Warning--I have a secondary set of terms that either contradicts or enhances SECS. But let me get through SECS first.
(Incidentally, living Simply, Equally, Communally, and Sustainably, isn't a solution--it's a challenge!)
Quote of the day: "We must not be afraid of dreaming the seemingly impossible if we want the seemingly impossible to become a reality." - Vaclav Havel
Word (or phrase) of the day: Sapiosexuality
Hero(es) of the day: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolitionists
I spent a lot of time a few years ago trying to figure out my own politics. Was I really an anarchist? Maybe I was a socialist? Or an ecofeminist with strong social justice leanings? Finally, I just tried to figure out what kind of society I wanted. What was my vision for the future? I started thinking about what was central to what I believed.
Well, it turns out that SECS is my primary vision of the future. SECS describes the world that I want to see. What SECS means is that I want a society that is Simple, Egalitarian, Communal (and Cooperative!), and Sustainable. I'm going to spend the next bunch of posts explaining what I mean by each of those terms--and will probably include an additional post (or two) on resources for each.
None of this is profound. It's not new stuff and none of it is original with me. But I do think that it describes a direction for the future that is compatible with everything I've written thus far. I think it's flexible enough to allow many alternatives, but clear enough so that we can tell if we are following it. And, yes, I think many small, bottom up systems can be built using it.
I will tell you now that SECS is not my entire political vision--it's just the primary part. Warning--I have a secondary set of terms that either contradicts or enhances SECS. But let me get through SECS first.
(Incidentally, living Simply, Equally, Communally, and Sustainably, isn't a solution--it's a challenge!)
Quote of the day: "We must not be afraid of dreaming the seemingly impossible if we want the seemingly impossible to become a reality." - Vaclav Havel
Word (or phrase) of the day: Sapiosexuality
Hero(es) of the day: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolitionists
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Convergence
So, where am I going with all this? Before I go on to my own theories, I want to review some of what I've covered and look for common threads.
I'm certainly not going to recap all 46 of my previous posts. But let me talk about a few of the theorists that I've covered, specifically: Michael Albert/Robin Hahnel, Bill Mollison/David Holmgren (the permaculture folks), Frijof Capra, Richard Heinberg, John Michael Greer, Frances Moore Lappé (and daughter Anna), and Starhawk. That's a bunch of folks who are coming at things from a few different angles. What are the commonalities?
First, none of these folks takes a simple, 'I've got the answer' approach to the problem. They are clear that we are dealing with a complex set of issues and need a multifaceted way toward solutions (definitely plural). Albert and Hahnel come close with their Parecon economic model, but emphasize that it is just a part of the change they want to see and we will need to look at family, governance, and cultural issues as part of creating a new society. Mollison and Holmgren also can seem to have a single solution, but they would be the first to say that permaculture is a flexible way of looking at things, and not an answer. Heinberg emphasizes Peak Oil (or, as he puts it, Peak Everything) but also looks at climate change and lack of community. Again, relocalization is a direction and not a solution. Greer tries to provide a broad perspective on all this and emphasizes that change is going to be a long term process and we need to have various ways of looking at things. It's probably not an accident that he and Starhawk come from branches of pagan (earth-centered spirituality) but are reaching out to people with much different beliefs to build new social structures. Starhawk, herself, looks at issues from patriarchal power to global capitalism, and is involved with everything from permaculture to direct action. The Lappés look at issues about food, fear, and democracy, focusing on what people can do and are doing. And Capra, who started off in new age physics, is trying to use an ecological framework to look at everything from economics to medicine--while pointing out a variety of alternatives.
These writers offer a variety of tools: political theory, participatory economics, permaculture, complexity theory, and a wide vision of history. What can we learn from it all?
Albert and Hahnel offer an analysis of the connections between various movements (Socialists, Feminists, Anarchist, 'Nationalists') as well as an economic model (Parecon) that creates an equitable distribution of labor and earnings. Mollison and Holmgren have created a framework for both sustainable agriculture and a sustainable society. Richard Heinberg has analyzed the depletion of oil, gas, and most minerals, and offers a possible future without them. John Michael Greer puts similar information in a long term historical context and plays with what history can tell us about creating a sustainable future. He also points out alternative ways of framing the current situation. Frijof Capra begins by looking at new scientific theories about evolution, ecology, and life and shows what they can tell us about our situation and possible options for the future. The Lappés look at movements worldwide in an effort to make it clear that we can challenge the system and it's mostly our own belief that stop us. Starhawk uses her feminist, earth-centered spiritual perspective to analyze not only the current system, but our reactions to it, to examine alternatives and possible directions.
If there is one point of agreement between these authors (and there actually may be several), it's that the present system isn't sustainable. They all offer alternatives and most of them agree that we need small, local solutions--as do other people such as Steven Johnson, John Robb, Rob Hopkins, Valdis Krebs and June Holley, Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom, and even Matt Ridley. (Albert and Hahnel are just about the only exception--they often challenge 'Decentralized Community Economics', mostly regarding allocation issues--but, as I mentioned, the economic system at the Twin Oaks community could be thought of as a similar to Parecon, only a unique, small-scale version of it. It will be important, at some point, to look at the allocation issues the Parecon people raise and examine what it means to network small groups. I think alternatives such as 'Fair Trade' may be useful here. It's a point many of the small systems people haven't thought through.)
I think of the slogan: "Think globally, act locally"; we need to have the big picture of what we are doing and why, but we need to have many small, local groups each building something that makes sense in their community. To use Starhawk's formulation: "...in a diverse world we may need a spectrum of systems to fully fit each unique set of circumstances." (She and Frances Moore Lappé remind us that there's no one right way. I am inspired by the Lappés' 'Liberating Idea': "Busting free from 'isms,' creating the path as we walk." As I said from the beginning, there just isn't a big, grand answer.) Complexity theory, which I allude to frequently and Capra builds on explicitly, suggests small systems built from the bottom up, using cooperation and networking, and allowing solutions to emerge from our collective creativity, the way new behavior often emerges from living systems. This is what Tom Atlee refers to as 'CoIntelligence', this is what John Robb's 'Catalysts' and Krebs and Holley's 'Network Weavers' do, this is Steven Johnson's 'Coping' groups, this is "creating the path as we walk". This is hard work.
It requires a lot of faith in people, which is difficult at times. Education, particularly in critical thinking, needs to be a piece of this--this is the "Think globally" part. I know that there are lots of folks out there working on building alternatives, but we need more. I wish I could get more people in the mainstream to read Albert, Hahnel, Heinberg, Capra, Greer, Starhawk, and the Lappés, and familiarize themselves with peak oil and permaculture and network weaving and resilient communities and complex adaptive systems. Probably we just need to get the ideas out there; they're a lot more important than the particular authors. But how to make people see that change is needed and make them aware of more of the alternatives?
I will talk about education and critical thinking at some point, but continuing with theory, I will spend some time on my vision of where we need to go.
Quote of the day: "...any future vision which can can encompass all of us, by definition, must be complex and expanding, not easy to achieve." - Audre Lorde
Word (or phrase) of the day: Communitarianism
Hero(es) of the day: Sister Dianna Ortiz
I'm certainly not going to recap all 46 of my previous posts. But let me talk about a few of the theorists that I've covered, specifically: Michael Albert/Robin Hahnel, Bill Mollison/David Holmgren (the permaculture folks), Frijof Capra, Richard Heinberg, John Michael Greer, Frances Moore Lappé (and daughter Anna), and Starhawk. That's a bunch of folks who are coming at things from a few different angles. What are the commonalities?
First, none of these folks takes a simple, 'I've got the answer' approach to the problem. They are clear that we are dealing with a complex set of issues and need a multifaceted way toward solutions (definitely plural). Albert and Hahnel come close with their Parecon economic model, but emphasize that it is just a part of the change they want to see and we will need to look at family, governance, and cultural issues as part of creating a new society. Mollison and Holmgren also can seem to have a single solution, but they would be the first to say that permaculture is a flexible way of looking at things, and not an answer. Heinberg emphasizes Peak Oil (or, as he puts it, Peak Everything) but also looks at climate change and lack of community. Again, relocalization is a direction and not a solution. Greer tries to provide a broad perspective on all this and emphasizes that change is going to be a long term process and we need to have various ways of looking at things. It's probably not an accident that he and Starhawk come from branches of pagan (earth-centered spirituality) but are reaching out to people with much different beliefs to build new social structures. Starhawk, herself, looks at issues from patriarchal power to global capitalism, and is involved with everything from permaculture to direct action. The Lappés look at issues about food, fear, and democracy, focusing on what people can do and are doing. And Capra, who started off in new age physics, is trying to use an ecological framework to look at everything from economics to medicine--while pointing out a variety of alternatives.
These writers offer a variety of tools: political theory, participatory economics, permaculture, complexity theory, and a wide vision of history. What can we learn from it all?
Albert and Hahnel offer an analysis of the connections between various movements (Socialists, Feminists, Anarchist, 'Nationalists') as well as an economic model (Parecon) that creates an equitable distribution of labor and earnings. Mollison and Holmgren have created a framework for both sustainable agriculture and a sustainable society. Richard Heinberg has analyzed the depletion of oil, gas, and most minerals, and offers a possible future without them. John Michael Greer puts similar information in a long term historical context and plays with what history can tell us about creating a sustainable future. He also points out alternative ways of framing the current situation. Frijof Capra begins by looking at new scientific theories about evolution, ecology, and life and shows what they can tell us about our situation and possible options for the future. The Lappés look at movements worldwide in an effort to make it clear that we can challenge the system and it's mostly our own belief that stop us. Starhawk uses her feminist, earth-centered spiritual perspective to analyze not only the current system, but our reactions to it, to examine alternatives and possible directions.
If there is one point of agreement between these authors (and there actually may be several), it's that the present system isn't sustainable. They all offer alternatives and most of them agree that we need small, local solutions--as do other people such as Steven Johnson, John Robb, Rob Hopkins, Valdis Krebs and June Holley, Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom, and even Matt Ridley. (Albert and Hahnel are just about the only exception--they often challenge 'Decentralized Community Economics', mostly regarding allocation issues--but, as I mentioned, the economic system at the Twin Oaks community could be thought of as a similar to Parecon, only a unique, small-scale version of it. It will be important, at some point, to look at the allocation issues the Parecon people raise and examine what it means to network small groups. I think alternatives such as 'Fair Trade' may be useful here. It's a point many of the small systems people haven't thought through.)
I think of the slogan: "Think globally, act locally"; we need to have the big picture of what we are doing and why, but we need to have many small, local groups each building something that makes sense in their community. To use Starhawk's formulation: "...in a diverse world we may need a spectrum of systems to fully fit each unique set of circumstances." (She and Frances Moore Lappé remind us that there's no one right way. I am inspired by the Lappés' 'Liberating Idea': "Busting free from 'isms,' creating the path as we walk." As I said from the beginning, there just isn't a big, grand answer.) Complexity theory, which I allude to frequently and Capra builds on explicitly, suggests small systems built from the bottom up, using cooperation and networking, and allowing solutions to emerge from our collective creativity, the way new behavior often emerges from living systems. This is what Tom Atlee refers to as 'CoIntelligence', this is what John Robb's 'Catalysts' and Krebs and Holley's 'Network Weavers' do, this is Steven Johnson's 'Coping' groups, this is "creating the path as we walk". This is hard work.
It requires a lot of faith in people, which is difficult at times. Education, particularly in critical thinking, needs to be a piece of this--this is the "Think globally" part. I know that there are lots of folks out there working on building alternatives, but we need more. I wish I could get more people in the mainstream to read Albert, Hahnel, Heinberg, Capra, Greer, Starhawk, and the Lappés, and familiarize themselves with peak oil and permaculture and network weaving and resilient communities and complex adaptive systems. Probably we just need to get the ideas out there; they're a lot more important than the particular authors. But how to make people see that change is needed and make them aware of more of the alternatives?
I will talk about education and critical thinking at some point, but continuing with theory, I will spend some time on my vision of where we need to go.
Quote of the day: "...any future vision which can can encompass all of us, by definition, must be complex and expanding, not easy to achieve." - Audre Lorde
Word (or phrase) of the day: Communitarianism
Hero(es) of the day: Sister Dianna Ortiz
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Containers
Walk down a city street and look at people. How often do you make judgements based on how the people you see look? On the other hand, how else do you decide who you want to meet?
I've been thinking a lot about this lately and noticing my reactions to folks I see on the streets or in the train. I've decided that making decisions on the basis of how someone looks, and picking your friends (and even lovers) on the basis of their appearance, is like deciding to drink beverages based on what the bottles look like. You could be guzzling poison out of a shiny and pretty new vessel while ignoring healthy juices and water because the jars are plain or ugly.
When I look at all these attractive people, I remind myself that it's the container that I'm drawn to. What the person looks like says nothing about their character, their values, their personality, or who they really are. If we don't know someone, all we see is the container, not the stuff inside.
I've heard lots of talk about the problems with meeting people over the internet and lots of worries about it, but I think there are ways in which it's actually better. When I find profiles of people, I don't pay a lot of attention their pictures, if they post them; I pay attention to what they say. This way I get a chance to connect with people who are interested in the things that I'm interested in, people who claim to share my values.
In a similar way, I am going to events that are about subjects that are important to me, partly as a way to meet people. I figure, if they're coming to this they are probably interested in something I'm also interested; I should talk with them and find out what else they are interested in. If we do have a lot in common, maybe I should get to know them better. And their appearance has nothing to do with any of this.
Unfortunately, I need to admit that I'm not immune to visual judgements. I find myself thinking, 'There's an interesting looking person...' before I remember that it's the container I'm looking at. I have no idea what this person is really like, what they believe, whether I would enjoy their company. None of that has anything to do with appearances.
Quote of the day: "The most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money, and the most repellent man of my acquaintance is a philanthropist who has spent nearly a quarter of a million upon the London poor." - Arthur Conan Doyle
Word (or phrase) of the day: Autopoesis
Hero(es) of the day: Robert Owen
I've been thinking a lot about this lately and noticing my reactions to folks I see on the streets or in the train. I've decided that making decisions on the basis of how someone looks, and picking your friends (and even lovers) on the basis of their appearance, is like deciding to drink beverages based on what the bottles look like. You could be guzzling poison out of a shiny and pretty new vessel while ignoring healthy juices and water because the jars are plain or ugly.
When I look at all these attractive people, I remind myself that it's the container that I'm drawn to. What the person looks like says nothing about their character, their values, their personality, or who they really are. If we don't know someone, all we see is the container, not the stuff inside.
I've heard lots of talk about the problems with meeting people over the internet and lots of worries about it, but I think there are ways in which it's actually better. When I find profiles of people, I don't pay a lot of attention their pictures, if they post them; I pay attention to what they say. This way I get a chance to connect with people who are interested in the things that I'm interested in, people who claim to share my values.
In a similar way, I am going to events that are about subjects that are important to me, partly as a way to meet people. I figure, if they're coming to this they are probably interested in something I'm also interested; I should talk with them and find out what else they are interested in. If we do have a lot in common, maybe I should get to know them better. And their appearance has nothing to do with any of this.
Unfortunately, I need to admit that I'm not immune to visual judgements. I find myself thinking, 'There's an interesting looking person...' before I remember that it's the container I'm looking at. I have no idea what this person is really like, what they believe, whether I would enjoy their company. None of that has anything to do with appearances.
Quote of the day: "The most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money, and the most repellent man of my acquaintance is a philanthropist who has spent nearly a quarter of a million upon the London poor." - Arthur Conan Doyle
Word (or phrase) of the day: Autopoesis
Hero(es) of the day: Robert Owen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
