Giving things up when no one else does
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:25:28 -0400
From: tully
To: positive-futures@igc.org [no longer hosted there. D.]
Subject: [pf] Fwd: please send it to the Pos Fut list.
>Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:58:24 +1200
>To: tully
>From: David MacClement
>Subject: please send it to the Pos Fut list.
>Hi tully;
>
>** Would you be willing to send to the Positive Futures list, this next bit?
>At 18:21 15/08/99 -0400, tully wrote (to the Deep Ecology list):
> > I don't think many of us are into
>isolationism yet, though I am because I support using local sources as much
>as possible, even to the exclusion of tropical fruits, etc., that are so
>dear to so many. The worst blow to me would be losing coffee but I would
>be more than willing to adjust if it was for reasoning that made sense,
>like going local.
> >
> >Which brings up an entirely new can of worms. I could give up coffee now,
>use only locally grown foods, etc., and therefore walk my talk. But would
>my "deprivation" make a difference? Isn't this a problem we all face on a
>large scale? Why should I conserve if "no one else" does, since my little
>sacrifice to solving the problem can't have any real impact. This goes
>down all avenues, like not using electricity, or fossil fuel, or fast food,
>or disposable anythings, etc. etc. Yet its the same argument as the
>political vote, where we say we needn't vote because our impact is so
>small. I'm aware of my hypocrisy here - I don't like it.
Be delighted to, David. Pardon me for taking the lazy way out and just
using your message to me like this...
>
>I've had some discussion with a member
>of The Greens (NZ) on this. "If you use less, that leaves more
>for the over-users so they can ignore the problem for longer".
That is an interesting approach. I would like to see some discussion about
this, since I do see it as the rationalization most all of us go thru at
some point when we continue on some path when we know there is a better
one. If we can find a way to motivate ourselves around this little
sticky-wicket, we've solved a huge problem.
-----
tully
Boycott Monsanto
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:53:23 -0700
From: John Gear
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: [pf] Use it or lose it?
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:25:28 -0400, tully responded:
>That is an interesting approach. I would like to see some discussion about
>this, since I do see it as the rationalization most all of us go thru at
>some point when we continue on some path when we know there is a better
>one. If we can find a way to motivate ourselves around this little
>sticky-wicket, we've solved a huge problem.
The sooner one makes the transition to a sustainable lifestyle, the better
one will become at it (in terms of learning how to maximize fulfillment
with minimum physical input requirements).
If we wait until the switch is a compulsion from outside (resource
collapse), there's a good chance that the dislocation and disorientation
will be ruinous. A billion formerly-affluent Westerners suddenly dealing
with physical realities (aint no more oil, aint no place safe from toxics,
aint no cheap water, aint no unravaged farmland, aint no moderate climate,
...) is a fascist police state waiting to happen. Not to mention what
happens all over the world when the billions in the exploited countries
suddenly have to leave because drought and disease make formerly
marginally-habitable lands completely inhospitable.
That's one of the gravest concerns about global warming -- that the
*political* disruption of mass migrations will lead to wars or, at the
least, totalitarian states because democracy does not do well under
conditions of permanent seige (cf our experience in the US during the cold
war, when we did everything to citizens we accused the commies of wanting
to do to them ... in the name of protecting us from the commies)
The more people who know how to live lightly and who can serve as guides
and mentors to the rudely-awakened, the more likely we are to survive the
experience with some form of democratic self-government intact. But if
only a few people know how to live with less then masses of people will
demand "strong government" to protect them from the pains of the suddenly
(years rather than decades) altered physical situation. And there are all
too many people who will be pleased to serve IN that "strong" government --
and line other people up for the camps for "non-cooperation."
=======================
That's why *I* think we don't win by saying "What the hell, if I conserve
my neighbor will just use it up anyway." That's the logic of the commons
that leads to the Tragedy of the Commons. Harder, more brutal collapse,
sooner.
John Gear
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Arnie
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: [pf] Use it or lose it?
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:43:46 -0700
>From: John Gear
>To: positive-futures@igc.org
>Date: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 4:06 PM
>Subject: [pf] Use it or lose it?
>
> <clip>
>That's why *I* think we don't win by saying "What the hell, if I conserve
>my neighbor will just use it up anyway." That's the logic of the commons
>that leads to the Tragedy of the Commons. Harder, more brutal collapse,
>sooner.
>
>John Gear
CONSERVING can be something that makes us feel good. When saving is where
our `good feeling' comes from, then we won't see it as a sacrifice and we
can look for ways to help our "greedy" neighbor find this way to peace and
tranquility.
Arnie
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:55:32 -0500
From: Diane Fitzsimmons
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
Regarding the comments from Tully and David on (to put it poetically)
marching to a different drummer.
I am far from being any kind of shining sustainability example.
Obviously, I do my little part in order to help put a Band-aid on the
haemorrhage. But I'll admit I get some ego satisfaction from it, too,
mainly in these two areas:
- I present an example to the next generation, especially my
children. I analogize it this way: My ancestors were typical white
racist Southerners. My elderly relatives took a benign,
"live-and-let-live" attitude (of course, that still let other racists do
harm). My mother sought out the one black parent in my first-grade
class to be a homeroom mother. Thirty-five years later, I am still
friends with that woman's son, but I'm still conscious of the difference
in our worlds. My children now don't think about skin color when
choosing friends. My grandchildren will probably HAVE a different skin
color. So it goes with our tiny steps toward sustainability. Let's
hope we have the time for slow changes.
- Being "different" gives me identity. I think the great emotional
illness of white America is their lack of identity and purpose. That's
why people are nostalgic for the 1960s, when they had some sort of
identity in something greater than themselves. That's why minorities
are rejecting mainstream culture in order to honor their cultural
roots. That's why extremist groups such as Aryan Nations and other
terrorist groups continue to draw the disaffected -- it gives them
identity and purpose. My value system -- a distillation of politics,
religion and personal tastes -- gives me an identity. My commitment to
it -- no matter what -- gives me a higher purpose, buys my salvation and
that of my children and of my planet (yes, I know that sounds
fundamentalist, but I don't have the words to express very well the
reasons why I do little things that in and of themselves make little
difference. Cue "To Dream the Impossible Dream" here :^) )
Back to my analogy with the erosion of racism in this country -- have we
yet reached the point when we need to pass laws to force change in
surface actions, even if it takes longer for the heart? In other words,
a "Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education" environmental law regarding
everyday use of cars and other personal resources. Do we have the
strength of our convictions to force that?
Diane Fitzsimmons
Norman, Okla.
P.S. It's the start of a new semester at the university where I work.
To me, the New Year will always be in late August. We can sneer all we
want about the indoctrination of American education, but there's
something exciting about fresh minds returning to campus with the
purpose of growing both intellectually and emotionally. (Oh, yeah, I
know they're here for other things, too.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:02:28 EDT
From: Priscilla Richter
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
I can only repeat the famous questions of Rabbi Hillel that have lived for
almost 2 millenia (many say this as part of the Passover Seder):
If not here, where?
If not us, who?
If not now, when?
Works for me!
Blessings, Priscilla
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:49:26 -0500
From: Betsy Barnum
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
> >I've had some discussion with a member
> >of The Greens (NZ) on this. "If you use less, that leaves more
> >for the over-users so they can ignore the problem for longer".
I'd be very interested in what this Green person you mentioned said. Frankly, I
find myself feeling impatient with the very idea. I am a Green, and I can't
really imagine any Green I know here even asking this question. Certainly, the
pillars of the Green Party would not support the idea of living wastefully in
order to keep others from living even more wastefully.
tully wrote:
> That is an interesting approach. I would like to see some discussion about
> this, since I do see it as the rationalization most all of us go thru at
> some point when we continue on some path when we know there is a better
> one. If we can find a way to motivate ourselves around this little
> sticky-wicket, we've solved a huge problem.
Gee, I don't know, maybe I'm weird, but I don't see this as a "rationalization we
all go through" at all. I think I can honestly say that this thought has never
occurred to me except when someone else asked the question, as in this
conversation. The notion of engaging in profligate wastefulness because "if I
don't use it, someone else will," to my mind is nonsensical and pessimistic and
particularly uncompassionate, especially to the other creatures who are being
destroyed and driven to extinction by human wastefulness. Am I to set aside my
values, my own compassion, and live wastefully just because there are those who
are more wasteful?
> > >Which brings up an entirely new can of worms. I could give up coffee now,
> >use only locally grown foods, etc., and therefore walk my talk. But would
> >my "deprivation" make a difference? Isn't this a problem we all face on a
> >large scale? Why should I conserve if "no one else" does, since my little
> >sacrifice to solving the problem can't have any real impact. This goes
> >down all avenues, like not using electricity, or fossil fuel, or fast food,
> >or disposable anythings, etc. etc. Yet its the same argument as the
> >political vote, where we say we needn't vote because our impact is so
> >small. I'm aware of my hypocrisy here - I don't like it.
The logic you're using is faulty. It's the same logic as that used by corporate
capitalist consumer culture. "You're just one person. What you do doesn't matter.
The only way you can have an impact is by spending, using, consuming." It's no
wonder you feel hypocritical, ineffective, despairing.
And even within the terms of market logic, I think the comparison to voting/not
voting is also faulty -- voting happens only occasionally, and our modern
democracies, under the growing influence of corporate power, have reduced citizen
participation to just this single act. Consumption, such as of coffee, is a
choice you make every day, maybe many times a day, and each time it has an
effect.
Certainly it makes a difference to switch to locally grown food. Every family
that turns from supermarket imported food to a local CSA farm increases the
market for organic vegetables and makes growing such food a more economically
viable and appealing job. More people become organic growers, more land is
allowed to recover from chemical dousing, and the news spreads farther. Ten years
ago, there was one CSA farm serving this metro area of 2 million. This year,
there are about 30 such farms. Every year, there are a few new ones, and hundreds
of new customers. Now there's a group of 20 farms or so that have formed a co-op
to direct-sell organic pasture-raised beef and pork and dairy products, wheat and
oats, honey, maple syrup and other stuff. Obviously, if people around here had
said, "oh, it won't make any difference if I join a CSA, so I won't," this would
never have happened.
Equally important, though, is the belief that one person's choice will make no
difference. How do you know it won't? Ripples go out. Others are affected. Your
actions may have impacts you never even hear about. As Gandhi said, "What you are
doing is probably insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." (may
not be exact quote)
And even more important and basic, it *always* matters how you live your life. It
matters to you. It matters to your loved ones. And it matters in the larger
economy of the universe, in which our concepts of "large" and "small" are
meaningless. It isn't up to you to change the whole world. It's up to you to live
your life in accordance with your values. When you do this, when I do this, our
actions resonate on a deeper level--not the superficial political level of "is it
effective" in achieving some particular goal, but the level of integrity,
harmony, positive energy.
I think in every way you can look at it (personal, familial, societal, in
immediate time, in long-term time, and so on), *what* we do matters less than
*how* we do it. Where is your heart? Where is your passion? Your compassion?
What's important to you? What does your vision of a sustainable, humane world
look like? These, not some bloodless, shallow, ends-justified definition of
"effectiveness," should guide our actions and decisions. Whatever the ultimate
outcome--an outcome which *none* of us can engineer, much as we might want
to--living with integrity seems like the most important contribution we could
possibly make as individuals.
Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624/
**************************************
It is possible that progress might be nothing more than the development of an error.
- Jean Cocteau |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:56:26 -0400
From: tully
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
>tully wrote:
> > That is an interesting approach. I would like to see some discussion about
> > this, since I do see it as the rationalization most all of us go thru at
> > some point when we continue on some path when we know there is a better
> > one. If we can find a way to motivate ourselves around this little
> > sticky-wicket, we've solved a huge problem.
>
At 04:49 PM 8/18/99 -0500, Betsy Barnum wrote:
>Gee, I don't know, maybe I'm weird, but I don't see this as a "rationalization
>we all go through" at all. I think I can honestly say that this thought has
>never occurred to me except when someone else asked the question, as in this
>conversation. The notion of engaging in profligate wastefulness because "if I
>don't use it, someone else will," to my mind is nonsensical and pessimistic and
>particularly uncompassionate, especially to the other creatures who are being
>destroyed and driven to extinction by human wastefulness. Am I to set aside my
>values, my own compassion, and live wastefully just because there are those who
>are more wasteful?
Are you saying Betsy that you are making none of these rationalizations
yourself? Have you given up all use of air-conditioning, fossil fuels,
electricity, automobiles, airlines, large home, etc.? If you can't say yes
to all of these, and you know the items mentioned are seriously damaging
the planet when you continue to use any of them, then how can you say you
are not using some of this "everyone else uses it" rationalization
yourself? Why haven't you stopped using some of this stuff in my list
otherwise? How else can you explain why you haven't stopped?
>The logic you're using is faulty. It's the same logic as that used by corporate
>capitalist consumer culture. "You're just one person. What you do doesn't matter.
>The only way you can have an impact is by spending, using, consuming." It's no
>wonder you feel hypocritical, ineffective, despairing.
I see everyone around me plugged into the electricity grid. Will it make a
difference if I do not? Will I prove anything? I see everyone taking
airplanes to get across country. Would I make any real difference if I
hitchhiked across instead? I am very much aware of the consumer culture
and its brainwashing. It is not what I'm talking about at all. Will you
give up all use of grid connected electricity? *That* is what I'm talking
about...
>Consumption, such as of coffee, is a choice you make every day, maybe
>many times a day, and each time it has an effect.
Coffee is such a small example. Using the electicity grid is not.
>Certainly it makes a difference to switch to locally grown food.
Give up bananas? Citrus fruits? Coffee? Pekoe teas? Rice? Sugar? Is
it all or nothing? If its only partial, is that good enough?
>Every family
>that turns from supermarket imported food to a local CSA farm increases the
>market for organic vegetables and makes growing such food a more economically
>viable and appealing job.
Yes, but a great deal of the organic food is grown in California in this
country which means transporting it across for me on the east coast. Is
that acceptable? That's not local food...
>Now there's a group of 20 farms or so that have formed a co-op to direct-sell
>organic pasture-raised beef and pork and dairy products, wheat and
>oats, honey, maple syrup and other stuff. Obviously, if people around here had
>said, "oh, it won't make any difference if I join a CSA, so I won't,"
>this would never have happened.
Yes, I would rather my food dollars go to something that is less empty
nutritionally and would support an industry like small organic growers than
huge agribusiness. But Food Lion (Safeway, fill in your local mega-grocer
here) is on my way home... and I just don't have the time... and.... I
hope you are catching my drift here.
>And even more important and basic, it *always* matters how you live your
>life. It matters to you. It matters to your loved ones.
My loved ones would like nothing better than a blank check and to be let
lose in Walmart...
>And it matters in the larger economy of the universe, in which our concepts
>of "large" and "small" are meaningless. It isn't up to you to
>change the whole world. It's up to you to live your life in accordance with
>your values. When you do this, when I do this, our
>actions resonate on a deeper level--not the superficial political level of
>"is it effective" in achieving some particular goal, but the level of
>integrity, harmony, positive energy.
Betsy, I hope you realize that I agree with everything you say in this
message. What I am trying to do is show the other forces at work against
yours and my idealism. Those are the things that need to be figured out if
we are to go mainstream with any of these ideals. Its hard to go
"partially in the right direction" about any of this and assume you are
doing a damned thing for your own or anyone else's benefit. And I think
all of us know how we are simply scratching the surface of this huge
problem with all our do-gooder recycling, using highly fuel efficient
automobiless, buying lead-acid batteries to go solar, etc. That won't even
make a dent in the vastness of the underlying problem.
>Whatever the ultimate
>outcome--an outcome which *none* of us can engineer, much as we might want
>to--living with integrity seems like the most important contribution we could
>possibly make as individuals.
And I say that until we give up fossil fuels, electricity, large homes,
consumerizing, etc., we will never approach integrity.
-----
tully
Boycott Monsanto
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:02:38 -0500
From: Betsy Barnum
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
tully wrote:
> Are you saying Betsy that you are making none of these rationalizations
> yourself? Have you given up all use of air-conditioning, fossil fuels,
> electricity, automobiles, airlines, large home, etc.? If you can't say yes
> to all of these, and you know the items mentioned are seriously damaging
> the planet when you continue to use any of them, then how can you say you
> are not using some of this "everyone else uses it" rationalization
> yourself? Why haven't you stopped using some of this stuff in my list
> otherwise? How else can you explain why you haven't stopped?
I was referring to the specific comment about not reducing my consumption because
that will leave more for the overusers to waste. *That* is the rationalization I
was talking about that I don't use and don't even think of.
But I am amazed to hear you say that "everybody is doing it" is the only reason why
anyone would continue to have anything in their way of life that is damaging to the
Earth. I am amazed, because I think there are lots of reasons for that.
I do not use air conditioning, except occasionally in my car, which I drive about
60 miles a week. At least half of this is driving my son to his friends' homes when
buses aren't running or it is late at night. (Even the bus uses fossil fuel.) I
live in a metropolitan area (two cities) of over two million, and even though most
of my travel is close to home and can be done via foot or bicycle, I do sometimes
have the need to get somewhere that is farther away, somewhere the bus doesn't go
or takes too long to get there, or it is late at night and I'm not willing to risk
my safety on the bus.
In some ways we are caught in a system that doesn't always give us alternatives,
and the best we can do is the best we can do. If there's any rationalization here,
it's not that "everybody else does it" but "I don't have time" or "It's too hard"
or "I don't know how to do it any other way." These may not be explanations to be
proud of, but they are different from just going along with the crowd. I think it
is too much to expect of people to make theier way of life absolutely pristine,
when living like that in the midst of a culture like ours is very difficult and
requires constant workarounds.
> Give up bananas? Citrus fruits? Coffee? Pekoe teas? Rice? Sugar? Is
> it all or nothing? If its only partial, is that good enough?
This seems to be the crux of your thinking -- if we don't it all the way, should we
bother to do anything? My passionate answer is "yes" -- everyone should do whatever
they can, no matter how small. I think you are setting the bar way too high, and
with this all-or- nothing approach, you will *never* be able to get anyone in
mainstream culture interested in simplifying. There are two reasons why I think it
is good to encourage people to reduce wherever they can, even if they aren't
getting off the elctric grid or selling their car.
One, as has been pointed out here before, a large number of people making small
changes will have a much bigger impact than a handful of people making
comprehensive changes. If everyone left the car in the garage one day a week, the
impact on air quality, fossil fuel supplies, traffic congestion and accidents, road
wear and tear, community life and many other factors would be *huge.* If everyone
turned their air conditioner temp to 78 instead of 72, the amount of electricity
saved would be noticeable. And so on.
Two, I think it is overwhelming for people to think of going from the typical
middle-class American way of life, to one of *no* fossile fuel use, *no*
electricity on the grid, *no* food from farther away than 200 miles, and so on. But
it is very doable to begin with small steps, the "low-hanging" fruit, that is
relatively easy if you're motivated, such as reducing miles driven by 10% every
year, turning up the air conditioner, joining a CSA for local vegetables.
Then, once these changes have been incorporated, it's easier to consider making
deeper changes, like leaving the car home one day a week, getting rid of the air
conditioner, reducing the amount of tropical food in the diet or fresh vegetables
in winter. From there, yet more significant changes become possible, don't seem so
overwhelming.
> Yes, but a great deal of the organic food is grown in California in this
> country which means transporting it across for me on the east coast. Is
> that acceptable? That's not local food...
You missed my point. When people are members of CSAs, they don't buy vegetables
imported from California. I avoid this myself, not just because California-grown
organics are transported long distances, but because the farms are essentially
organic agribusinesses. I prefer to support small local growers, and CSA farming
makes this possible for half the year or more, if I can or freeze extra.
My CSA is considering building a root cellar to extend the season, so they could
continue delivering carrots, potatoes, rutabagas, squash, onions etc. into the
winter months. I think more and more CSAs are going to move in this direction.
Personally, I think CSAs are one of the most hopeful developments in the midst of
the market economy, and I think that choosing local organic food is one of the
biggest impacts we can make on the situation.
> Betsy, I hope you realize that I agree with everything you say in this
> message. What I am trying to do is show the other forces at work against
> yours and my idealism. Those are the things that need to be figured out if
> we are to go mainstream with any of these ideals. Its hard to go
> "partially in the right direction" about any of this and assume you are
> doing a damned thing for your own or anyone else's benefit. And I think
> all of us know how we are simply scratching the surface of this huge
> problem with all our do-gooder recycling, using highly fuel efficient
> automobiless, buying lead-acid batteries to go solar, etc. That won't even
> make a dent in the vastness of the underlying problem.
I think you are too pessimistic, Tully. What I hear you saying is, if we can't go
the whole way, it's pointless to do anything. I don't see it this way, as I've
explained above. Do you long to find some set of words or some motivational program
that will make everyone want to give up electricity, auto use, imported food,
double up in housing, and so on? I think you will never find it. You say you want
to reach the mainstream, but you are asking them to do the impossible, if they must
do everything in order for their effort to make a difference. I'd give up right
there, because I *know* I can't do it.
And I don't think this is *all* about making a visible dent in the situation. When
it gets down to my life, my choices, my individual impact, it probably *is*
negligible in the context of the overwhelming size and scale of the problems. But
that is not the *only* reason why I live as I live. This is what I was getting at
in talking about effectiveness. I don't *live* my life primarily to have an impact
somewhere on something. I live my life to please myself, to be happy, to have
harmony within and without. That means I follow my heart, my conscience, I do my
best to reduce cognitive dissonance because it stresses me. I don't view my choices
to simplify as sacrifices, but as actions that are bringing my way of life into
alignment with my values. And I do feel good about the positive impact I *know* I'm
making, even if my actions alone aren't going to save the world.
I really think a lot of the difficulties we have in a consumer culture are about
values. What do we value? What is important to us? Even people who would like a
blank check at WalMart might pause if they actually considered what their deeply
held values are, and whether a spending spree at WalMart would be in keeping with
those values. We live in a culture that not only denies us the alternatives that
would make us more easily able to choose a less consumptive life, but teaches us to
separate our values from our actions in "the real world." Values are something for
church, or for families, not for the economy or the business world, not for our
jobs or our how we meet our daily needs.
In reality, values underlie every decision we make. If we accept consumer culture's
values ("you're number one," "you deserve this expensive treat," "you're in
competition with everyone else," "success means having a lot of money," etc.) we
behave according to those values.
But most people, I am convinced, have another set of values deeper down--the values
of community, of relationships, of love and caring, of honesty and integrity, of
helping each other, of love for the land and for other creatures. We appreciate
natural beauty, we love the scent of fresh air, we'd much rather see a forest than
a parking lot, a clean running stream than a dirty sluggish sewer. I think it's
when people reconnect with these values, and consciously live in accordance with
them, that the superficiality and lack of fulfillment inherent in consumer values
become more apparent, and people seek a life that is fulfilling.
This approach, helping people see what it is they really value, and make voluntary
changes in their lives out of love and joy, rather than fear and obligation and an
effort to be effective against the problems, has potential to move a fundamental
shift in the culture.
> And I say that until we give up fossil fuels, electricity, large homes,
> consumerizing, etc., we will never approach integrity.
You are wrong, tully. I am not perfect in the ecological soundness of my life, and
never will be, and I know I live with integrity. Your impossibly high standards are
not the only ones.
Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624/
**************************************
It is possible that progress might be nothing more than the development of
an error.
- Jean Cocteau |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:09:01 -0500
From: Nan Hildreth
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
Dear Tully,
I do what I can and try not to kill myself. I mostly don't air condition,
but do now and then. I mostly don't drive, except to go to support group or
political meetings. I garden a bit when I find time.
I can't do it all. I realized a while ago that thinking I can is hubris
and part of the bad old dominator/conqueror paradigm that I shift from.
As we kill ego, we lead better.
We need lots of friends to make it happen. We especially need leaders.
Living things reach for the good stuff. We amble along like an amoeba. I
can't learn or teach any faster than this. I have headaches from it now.
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC28/AtKisson.htm
Look for the good stuff in a simpler life so you can offer a carrot to
people. Cecile Andrews says she prefers to eat out as it makes her life
simpler.
I am glad we are here for you. I am just getting over feeling awfully
alone and weird in my ideas myself. I convene or am part of a half dozen
local committees/support groups about our concerns. A committee friend
laughed hard and happily to hear me talk about eating my rabbits. She
cares about the trends and works for a big law firm. She contributes, in
her way, to the solution. We both enjoyed the conversation.
I hope you to amble out of your tipi and enjoy learning together with
friends who care about the trends. It will be an adventure. I'll bet you
a fruit smoothie, they are out there and feel alone and disconnected too.
I hope you don't try to unbuild Rome in a day.
Nan in Houston
At 07:56 PM 08/18/1999 -0400, tully wrote:
>
>Are you saying Betsy that you are making none of these rationalizations
>yourself? Have you given up all use of air-conditioning, fossil fuels,
>electricity, automobiles, airlines, large home, etc.? If you can't say yes
>to all of these, and you know the items mentioned are seriously damaging
>the planet when you continue to use any of them, then how can you say you
>are not using some of this "everyone else uses it" rationalization
>yourself? Why haven't you stopped using some of this stuff in my list
>otherwise? How else can you explain why you haven't stopped?
>
>I see everyone around me plugged into the electricity grid. Will it make a
>difference if I do not? Will I prove anything?
>
>My loved ones would like nothing better than a blank check and to be let
>lose in Walmart...
>
>Betsy, I hope you realize that I agree with everything you say in this
>message. What I am trying to do is show the other forces at work against
>yours and my idealism. Those are the things that need to be figured out if
>we are to go mainstream with any of these ideals. Its hard to go
>"partially in the right direction" about any of this and assume you are
>doing a damned thing for your own or anyone else's benefit. And I think
>all of us know how we are simply scratching the surface of this huge
>problem with all our do-gooder recycling, using highly fuel efficient
>automobiless, buying lead-acid batteries to go solar, etc. That won't even
>make a dent in the vastness of the underlying problem.
>
>And I say that until we give up fossil fuels, electricity, large homes,
>consumerizing, etc., we will never approach integrity.
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:48:49 -0500
From: Diane Fitzsimmons
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
tully wrote:
> And I say that until we give up fossil fuels, electricity, large homes,
> consumerizing, etc., we will never approach integrity.
I am curious, Tully, at what lines you drawn for use of technology, or
what lines you believe should be drawn for technology. In other words,
what actions do you think you need to take to have integrity? And do
you think your definition of what it takes to have integrity should be
applied to everyone?
I am not trying to be belligerent in asking these questions. I really
think this opens up some fundamentally important topics I deal with on a
personal level:
What is my personal code of behavior?
What is optional in my personal code, negotiable and required?
If I were omnipotent, what in my personal code would I inflict on
others? :^)
My religion speaks of being either for the devil, or against. Yoda :^)
talks of either do or do not, there is no try. Is integrity an absolute
(like pregnancy) or does it come in degrees (hot weather during an
Oklahoma summer)?
And, if we can establish some specifics on what technology the group
thinks need to be done away with to establish a sustainable culture (the
last time I brought this I'm afraid I sounded alarmist), I would like us
to speculate the positive and negative changes that would result -- just
as an exercise in being visionary.
Diane Fitzsimmons
Norman, Okla.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 00:11:52 -0400
From: tully {at: http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pfvs/jun99/msg00733.html }
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
At 10:02 AM 8/19/99 -0500, Betsy Barnum wrote:
>I was referring to the specific comment about not reducing my consumption
>because that will leave more for the overusers to waste. *That* is the
>rationalization I was talking about that I don't use and don't even think of.
OK. That was one rationalization and you've provided others, so it seems
fair to say that lots of rationalizations surround this idea of why
sustainability is not possible.
>But I am amazed to hear you say that "everybody is doing it" is the only reason
>why anyone would continue to have anything in their way of life that is damaging
>to the Earth. I am amazed, because I think there are lots of reasons for that.
I can certainly agree with that, but I think that the one reason I
mentioned is a big one. One that ways to address it must be found.
>In some ways we are caught in a system that doesn't always give us
>alternatives, and the best we can do is the best we can do.
But that is what we *can* change. We can create alternatives. I think we
simply don't think about them, granted for many different reasons, but I
still have to think a major one is because everyone else does it that way...
If I were asked what the single most important thing we could change would
be, I'd answer: what is the largest expense we generally have? Housing,
right? Our current housing is terribly unsustainable. We place most of
our single family homes on highly arable land, and proceed to grow grass on
it, while we subscribe to Chemlawn services to broadleaf herbicides
(ridding ourselves of highly nutritional and medicinal dandelion and
chickweed), fertilizers that kill all the micro-organisms in the soil and
make the lawn addicted to chemicals, motorized thatching because there's no
live soil left... whoops, I was talking about housing... sorry for the
side-track...
Anyway, we insist on home with hundreds of square feet (thousands
sometimes) per person which makes no sense at all. The traditional
Japanese know far better how to manage housing than we do, with a few
multipurpose rooms, and simple items that stow away when not in use, so the
rooms feel open and spacious. In our nation, we have rooms devoted to each
separate use, dining rooms, living rooms, bedrooms, family rooms, breakfast
nooks, which means that most rooms are vacant most of the time, since we
people really take up little when we are sitting or laying about. Yet all
these rooms are generally heated and cooled which wastes incredible amounts
of energy. And all these rooms are generally stuffed to the gills with
tons of heavy non-portable furniture. Look what it takes to move an
average small family's worth of stuff. A friggin 45 foot moving van whose
tare weight is like 30,000 pounds! Add to this the massive amounts of
material that go into building these homes and all the junk in them... and
don't we have a clear demonstration of where our heaviest footprint is upon
the earth? Imagine if all 6 billion of us tried to live this way. The
world's resources wouldn't last a day.
>If there's any rationalization here, it's not that "everybody else does it"
>but "I don't have time" or "It's too hard" or "I don't know how to do it
>any other way." These may not be explanations to be proud of, but they are
>different from just going along with the crowd. I think it is too much
>to expect of people to make theier way of life absolutely pristine,
>when living like that in the midst of a culture like ours is very
>difficult and requires constant workarounds.
It was only 100 years ago that all this madness really started. Are we
really so spoiled that we can't look into the older ways? We don't need
refrigerators. Instead of canning and freezing, we can use root cellars or
dry our food, the latter being a far more nutritious and far less energy
intensive way to preserve food. Have you ever had any "real" beef
jerky? The stuff is so incredibly delicious and can be reconstituted into
stews or ground up for flavoring. Vegetables and fruits are much tastier
dried than any other preservation method. Drying is easier than canning or
freezing, and takes up less space and energy. Civilizations have been
doing it for thousands of years...
> > Give up bananas? Citrus fruits? Coffee? Pekoe teas? Rice? Sugar? Is
> > it all or nothing? If its only partial, is that good enough?
>
>This seems to be the crux of your thinking--if we don't it all the way,
>should we bother to do anything?
No, I am not saying anything of the sort. I am trying to say that we can
no longer afford to take these little steps. We have to start taking *big*
steps. We may already be too late to get the consciousness of the citizens
of this country turned around. We certainly cannot do nothing. We *must*
get this thing turned around in a major way. Let's quit diddling around
with ideas about how to get more recycling done or more energy conserved
and start looking at reducing the need for items and energy in the first
place. In other words, let's get absolutely serious about this idea of
sustainability.
>My passionate answer is "yes"--everyone should do whatever
>they can, no matter how small. I think you are setting the bar way too
>high, and with this all-or- nothing approach,
I'm an idealist, Betsy, and I admit I am saying go "all." But not all or
*nothing*. Forget the nothing part. We simply can't allow "nothing" to
happen. I just want to move alot faster than I see anyone else wanting to
move toward the "all" because I think the "all" is not only necessary but
quite possible and can be done in a way that we can all enjoy very
comfortable lives, and especially have lives with real purpose, meaning,
and integrity. Its only a sacrifice when no one else shares it with you.
>you will *never* be able to get anyone in
>mainstream culture interested in simplifying.
I disagree. I think we *can* take big steps and show how beneficial and
self-satisfying they can be, as well as how much less impact will
result. Simplifying can simply mean changing, not sacrificing anything of
real importance.
>There are two reasons why I think it
>is good to encourage people to reduce wherever they can, even if they aren't
>getting off the elctric grid or selling their car.
>
>One, as has been pointed out here before, a large number of people making
>small changes will have a much bigger impact than a handful of people making
>comprehensive changes.
But think in terms of the long run. If a handful go ahead and show others
that it can indeed be done, and the news is distributed (this part is
important), we will have more and more people brave enough to take big
steps. Look at the "back to the land" movement and how many people
actually tried it. Those were major big steps taken. True, most of them
failed and the families went back to the cities badly disillusioned, but we
can provide that same sort of inspiration in a slightly different way,
where instead of a family trying to make it on the land, alone, an entire
community does it. That *did* work and is still working. That is the way
IMO to change the world. And we can start developing communities
everywhere like this. Every city should have a tipi zone, don't you
think? :)
>If everyone left the car in the garage one day a week, the impact on
>air quality, fossil fuel supplies, traffic congestion and accidents, road
>wear and tear, community life and many other factors would be *huge.*
>If everyone turned their air conditioner temp to 78 instead of 72,
>the amount of electricity saved would be noticeable. And so on.
It is unsustainable. Even at 1/100th the use today, airconditioners,
internal combustion cars, fossil fuels, electricity grids are
unsustainable. We *must* face this. Conservation can simply postpone the
inevitable by maybe a few years... Many indigenous cultures make decisions
based on its impact on the 7th generation in the future. How many of you
think there will be anything left for the 3rd generation from now to enjoy?
>Two, I think it is overwhelming for people to think of going from the typical
>middle-class American way of life, to one of *no* fossile fuel use, *no*
>electricity on the grid, *no* food from farther away than 200 miles, and
>so on.
Not if the ways to do it are developed and demonstrated properly. Not if
the consciousness of the people is changed to where we all *feel* the
horror of what we are currently doing. Not if we can reach people's
hearts. I think alot of those hearts are ripe for the picking, so to speak.
>But
>it is very doable to begin with small steps, the "low-hanging" fruit, that is
>relatively easy if you're motivated, such as reducing miles driven by 10%
>every year, turning up the air conditioner, joining a CSA for local vegetables.
Personally, I think it is too late for that. But that is just my opinion.
>Then, once these changes have been incorporated, it's easier to consider
>making deeper changes, like leaving the car home one day a week, getting rid of
>the air conditioner, reducing the amount of tropical food in the diet or fresh
>vegetables in winter. From there, yet more significant changes become possible,
>don't seem so overwhelming.
What will be overwhelming is the unpreparedness when the end of certain
resources is reached, when we fight wars over resources, where life becomes
a struggle just to survive because the water is no longer fit to drink,
when plants can no longer grow because there is a climate change and our
seeds will no longer germinate, or there is no soil for them to grow in, or
the acid rain has killed them all, or the ozone layer thins so badly that
none of us can survive. I'd prefer to take a few big steps now to prevent
this from happening to me or my children or theirs. Can you imagine what
the generations ahead of us (if they survive) will say about the "feeding
frenzy" that happened during our generation? And we think the Roman
gladiator age was sick...
>My CSA is considering building a root cellar to extend the season, so they
>could
>continue delivering carrots, potatoes, rutabagas, squash, onions etc. into the
>winter months. I think more and more CSAs are going to move in this direction.
>Personally, I think CSAs are one of the most hopeful developments in the
>midst of the market economy, and I think that choosing local organic food
>is one of the biggest impacts we can make on the situation.
This does sound like an excellent direction. What does the acronym CSA stand for?
I take it is somewhat different from your standard organic food co-op.
>I think you are too pessimistic, Tully.
I'm not a pessimist at all. Just too idealistic. :)
>What I hear you saying is, if we can't go
>the whole way, it's pointless to do anything.
I explained this above. I am not saying that.
>Do you long to find some set of words or some motivational program
>that will make everyone want to give up electricity, auto use, imported food,
>double up in housing, and so on?
Something like that, yeah. I want to bring back the hippie philosophy.
>I think you will never find it.
I think I will. I think its already there, it just needs recognition.
>You say you want to reach the mainstream, but you are asking them to
>do the impossible, if they must
>do everything in order for their effort to make a difference.
Perhaps I can't hope for "everything" right away, but I can hope for alot
more than you are, it seems.
>I'd give up right
>there, because I *know* I can't do it.
Why? Because you'd feel you were sacrificing something not worth
sacrificing?
>And I don't think this is *all* about making a visible dent in the situation.
>When it gets down to my life, my choices, my individual impact, it probably
>*is* negligible in the context of the overwhelming size and scale of the
>problems. But that is not the *only* reason why I live as I live. This is
>what I was getting at in talking about effectiveness.
>I don't *live* my life primarily to have an impact
>somewhere on something. I live my life to please myself, to be happy,
Ah, the mantra of the "me" generation...
>to have harmony within and without.
Does that harmony not include feeling harmony with the world or those in
it? I know it does since you admitted it below.
>That means I follow my heart, my conscience,
As do I.
>I do my best to reduce cognitive dissonance because it stresses me.
Whereas I am a warrior and am willing to fight if I must.
>I don't view my choices to simplify as sacrifices, but as actions that
>are bringing my way of life into alignment with my values. And I do
>feel good about the positive impact I *know* I'm
>making, even if my actions alone aren't going to save the world.
But your actions "could" save the world. So could mine. So could anyone's
actions. I want to try to save it. It is well worth saving.
>I really think a lot of the difficulties we have in a consumer culture are
>about values. What do we value? What is important to us?
I think we have come to value convenience too highly. Sometimes I can
actually get to that marvelous zen state that allows me to push aside my
job, or the day to day stresses and other trivial aspects of life and fully
appreciate the meaning and feeling within the manual washing of a dish. I
sometimes see it as the most meaningful thing I've done all day. I
recognize the value in that zen, I treasure it, and disappoint myself again
and again when I resort to the dishwasher for "convenience" at the expense
of my soul.
>We live in a culture that not only denies us the alternatives that
>would make us more easily able to choose a less consumptive life,
How can our culture deny us the alternatives unless we let it? Isn't it we
ourselves who deny ourselves the alternatives? Because of our Madison
Avenue brainwashing? The hippies did a grand job of denying materialism
and a consumptive life for that marvelous and too short a time in our
recent history. Have we forgotten all that so quickly?
>but teaches us to
>separate our values from our actions in "the real world." Values are
>something for
>church, or for families, not for the economy or the business world, not
>for our jobs or our how we meet our daily needs.
I agree that the message is taught. The problem is that too many of us
listened to those teachers. We have the choice to unlearn it. We can
unlearn many things. Like how we need fossil fuel...
>In reality, values underlie every decision we make. If we accept consumer
>culture's values ("you're number one," "you deserve this expensive treat,"
>"you're in competition with everyone else," "success means having a lot of
>money," etc.) we behave according to those values.
So all we have to do is unlearn that crap, right? The deal is to find new
teachers to listen to. Where do we find them? Perhaps here on the internet
or in our local communities? Perhaps in our hearts? Perhaps in God?
>But most people, I am convinced, have another set of values deeper down
> -- the values of community, of relationships, of love and caring, of
>honesty and integrity, of helping each other, of love for the land
>and for other creatures.
And here is the key IMO. This is the opposite of "me" that is there in
many of our hearts, and we only need to resurrect it, remember it, if you
will, since it is at the core of our being, I believe and I think of it as
our spiritual source, our connection to each other and the whole
world. Our love for all creation and how we can again be part of it, if we
choose to be. How can we continue to hurt ourselves and all we love so
much by continuing our materialistic and utterly selfish ways? We can't
and we must stop it.
>We appreciate natural beauty, we love the scent of fresh air, we'd
>much rather see a forest than a parking lot, a clean running stream
>than a dirty sluggish sewer. I think it's when people reconnect with
>these values, and consciously live in accordance with
>them, that the superficiality and lack of fulfillment inherent in consumer
>values become more apparent, and people seek a life that is fulfilling.
Yes. We are seeing an end to materialism in the baby boomer generation I
think. Our generation were the original hippies and I think we still have
the seeds of that genius within us. If we can only end the rampant
cynicism and see value in the idealism, pacifism, and love that we felt so
strongly back then, I think this world will turn itself around almost
immediately. I hate to think it will take some catalyst like the Vietnam
War to rattle us all enough.
>This approach, helping people see what it is they really value, and make
>voluntary changes in their lives out of love and joy, rather than fear and
>obligation and an effort to be effective against the problems, has potential
>to move a fundamental shift in the culture.
I agree. I hope to see a brand new spirituality bloom in this country.
> > And I say that until we give up fossil fuels, electricity, large homes,
> > consumerizing, etc., we will never approach integrity.
>
>You are wrong, tully. I am not perfect in the ecological soundness of my
>life, and never will be, and I know I live with integrity. Your
>impossibly high standards are not the only ones.
I think they are the only sustainable ones.
-----
tully
Boycott Monsanto
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:08:47 -0500
From: Rob D'Entremont
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
At 08:11 PM 08/20/1999 -0400, tully wrote:
>I must admit I am disappointed. I was hoping this list was trying to find
>ways towards a sustainable future. But it seems it is more about healing
>ourselves and developing self-confidence. Does anyone know of a list that
>is seriously into the design aspects of sustainable living?
No, but I'd love to start one. And not just a list, but a list with an
accompanying website where the listmembers have shared the elements of
their sustainable lifestyle. To me that's the only way a newcomer can
catch up with all the progress that the email list has generated.
I threw together a webpage that lists what I do to live sustainably, and
asked what more I can do, and also asked a question about whether it is
better to drive to a store that gets food from a locally, or to ride a
bicycle or walk to one that gets its food from a long distance.
The page also asks if people would like to contribute to a database of
sustainable acting people who would like to take part in a new movement
called Leading by Example. (If something like this exists, please let me
know and I'll join it, as long as it's free.)
The page is at http://www.dfwbike.com/sustainable.htm.
Rob D'Entremont
Richardson, Texas
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:46:03 -0500
From: Jill Taylor Bussiere
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: [pf] Real steps toward a sustainable future
Tully,
I feel badly that you are disappointed. It seems that you are far on your path toward a sustainable life. Many of us are moving more slowly
than you in some respects. Maybe you need more challenge than you are
finding here.
For me, this list is a great help in taking sustainable steps. You have not been with us very long - so maybe you can't see the steps that
people are taking. Or maybe to you, they are baby steps, when you are
wanting to take giant steps. But you and David are both inspirations to us
all - that people can make such changes in their lives as you both have.
For me, the list helps me focus - whatever size steps I am taking,
it helps me head in the direction of sustainability.
We all have things that we are passionate about - but they tend not to be the exact same things. It helps to hear about each other's though -
for inspiration.
Whatever you choose to do, I thank you for sharing with us, and hope that you will check in with us now and then.
Jill
Next section
This is: http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/ShiftingTo-aSustainabLife.html
Return to Athens/Delphi: David's Page
Return to RainForest: David's Page