Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:39:41 -0500 From: Betsy BarnumWell, gang, I got a little carried away in this answer to tully, so I'll warn you up front that it's long and if you don't want to read further, feel free to delete now. This has been a very thought-provoking exchange, and in my typical fashion, I have let that carry me into convoluted fields of prose. I acknowledge this, and apologize to those for whom this is any kind of problem. Now, on to the discussion. tully wrote: > 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.I am not saying sustainability is not possible. I know it is. We already know how to do it. And I think a lot of people who aren't leaping with both feet into a sustainable way of life *right now* feel the same -- sustainability is both possible and desirable. I don't really think we disagree, tully, as you said before. What I would like to say is that even if a person like me is not living in a tipi, off the grid, with no car, no furniture and no food coming from farther away than the immediate neighborhood, I can still be committed to sustainability and to pushing the cultural change that has to happen for it to become a reality. Your comments the other day came off as extreme, and it *did* sound to me that you were saying all-or-nothing. I understand now, I think, what you meant. And I do have a somewhat, though not fundamentally, different perspective on these issues. I think it is essential to address the cultural barriers to sustainability--not just the big heavy systems that are in place, but the beliefs and worldviews that block people from moving rapidly toward a sustainable life. How can it be that people see the destruction, know the situation is getting worse, know the life they're living isn't satisfying--and yet they don't do anything? I don't think it's because people are just lazy and have lots of rationalizations and follow the crowd in a sheep-like manner. There are a whole complex of reasons for this.
> 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.This is where you have a job of convincing to do. This is one place where you run into the above barriers, I think--people's unexamined acceptance of consumerism, their fear of economic consequences, their fear and even revulsion at the idea of becoming interdependent with other people in community. I agree that this kind of big change can be very appealing to some people and at some times, but it isn't as easy as just saying, hey, it'll be fun and not a sacrifice. I live in a very community-minded neighborhood near downtown Minneapolis. Lots of old hippies here--to them, this was a place to live and raise their families when they got done with the University. But even here, community is more of an idea than a reality. People want to live in a neighborhood that's connected, but they really don't want to do much to maintain that connection. They want to consume it, just the way they have learned to consume everything else. I'm starting to sound pessimistic here, and I'm really not, at least not most of the time. I've been *very* frustrated with my neighborhood lately, trying to get some interest sparked in organizing a barter network or at least a directory with information about who has what skills and interests. It seems people don't really want to extend themselves to this degree to connect with their neighbors. I have to step back and remind myself of all I've just said -- and not think of these people as lazy and complacent. But it has been discouraging.... [Betsy: ] > >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. [tully: ] > 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 this is the big part, tully -- changing consciousness, changing hearts. Do you have ideas for how to do this? To me, this is the key to the whole thing. It's exactly what my work is aimed at, inviting people to examine their values and habits and assumptions, and bring their living into congruence with the values that really mean the most to them. This is a means to change hearts, and it is a one-by-one process, not fast. But I don't know any faster ways that are as deep and lasting. However, I also think that it won't be necessary for everyone's heart to change, or even half the people, or even a third. I think it will take a small percentage making a worldview shift, comprehending the consequences of their lifestyle, and connecting with the Earth and with each other and *choosing* to make big changes in their lives, to cause a wave that will sweep over the rest and bring the change into fruition. And I agree that lots of people are ready for change. Nan refers to Paul Ray's statement that 25% of the people are "cultural creatives," the opinion leaders, the action leaders, the hopeful ones who are already seeing how things could change for the better. Robert Theobald says that he thinks most people don't need to be convinced that change is necessary, they just need to be shown that it's possible because they're afraid and this territory is uncharted. Which gets back to your "developing and demonstrating ways to do it." I think you and I are both doing work essential to this "Great Turning," as Joanna Macy calls it: I am showing people that they can see the world through a different lens than that of consumer culture and economic growth; so are others on the list, like Nan and Priscilla. And you are showing them how to live in that new world, and so are others on this list like Tom. Everyone who is living simply is a demonstration; everyone who talks with friends and family and raises these issues is helping to shift vision. And everyone who dreams of a sustainable world, meditates on it, prays about it, envisions it, is also doing indispensably helpful work toward the future. > 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.CSA is for community-supported agriculture. An organic vegetable farm sells memberships, people pay up front and then receive fresh produce once a week through the growing season. You eat what is grown, in season, so in June the bags contain lettuce, radishes, spinach, peas, and in the fall they are heavy with squash, onions, potatoes, tomatoes, corn. In between is eggplant, broccoli, kale, carrots, cauliflower, fennel. Every week herbs, basil, cilantro, parsley, enough to use fresh and dry some. You get the best available organic veggies, you support a farmer in a non-harmful form of agriculture, and you get to be part of a community of other urban dwellers who care about the land and want to be connected to the source of their food. It's really, really wonderful, and a rapidly growing movement in the U.S. [Betsy: ] > >I'd give up right there, because I *know* I can't do it. [tully: ] > Why? Because you'd feel you were sacrificing something not worth sacrificing?Not "not worth sacrificing." Just not replaceable in my current life. I'm no complacent, me-generation boomer. I long for a sustainable way of life. I long for community. And I am working continually on reducing my resource use, including putting in a masonry heater that will heat my whole house on about four logs of cordwood a day, and a solar water heating system. Where I live (Minnesota) and the orientation of my house won't allow complete solar. And it's expensive. But I am not going to go off the electric grid or get rid of my car, certainly not all at once tomorrow. I simply don't have the alternatives available. *Lots* of people are in this situation. It doesn't mean I am not working toward sustainability. I think it's very unfair to imply that people are selfish if they don't give up everything *right now* and live in a tipi. [Betsy: ] > >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, [tully: ] > Ah, the mantra of the "me" generation...Ouch. Really, though, don't you think at bottom we all do what we do because it pleases us in some way? Don't you live as you do because it pleases you? It pleases me to reduce my consumption. I don't regard it as a sacrifice, but as a desirable thing. The key to simplifying society, I think, is not expecting people to make big sacrifices (pretty Calvinist, don't you think?), but helping them to see that the consumer lifestyle is *not* pleasing in the deeply satisfying ways that a slower pace of life with more focus on relationships is. I sometimes think the work I do (study circles regarding values, check my web site below if you want to know more) is more trouble than it's worth--requires me to have a computer, use up paper, spend a lot of time writing grants trying to get a little money, drive sometimes, speak in public, make a lot of phone calls...if I weren't doing this, I could get a part-time job at the local cafe for income and spend a lot more time gardening, rig up a rain water catchment system for my house, knit, mend, can a lot more than I do, take long walks, organize my neighborhood. In some ways, that would please me more than staying as hooked into the culture as I have to be to do my work. But this work calls to me, and ultimately, I do it because I must, and because I know I would *not* be pleased with my life if I turned my back on it. Is it a worthwhile tradeoff to do this "good work" and still drive a car and use a dishwasher? I don't know. I do think that all the evidence points to the fact that many, perhaps most, people are not really pleased with their lives in the modern world. Showing them how sustainability *would* be pleasing and satisfying is, I think, our best bet for saving the planet. [Betsy: ] > >I do my best to reduce cognitive dissonance because it stresses me. [tully: ] > Whereas I am a warrior and am willing to fight if I must.Cognitive dissonance arises for me when I know that the consequences of my choices are negative, and I must sooner or later choose to stop doing that which is causing the distress. This is one of the missing pieces in modern life, an awareness that actions have consequences, and I think there is a deliberate effort on the part of corporate consumer culture to blur this, especially when the consequences aren't immediate and local but far away and fall on someone else. The Mall of America, that egregious shrine to consumerism which hulks near the Minnesota river bluffs about five miles from my home, had a slogan a year or so ago: "Who told you you can't have it all?" This is the message being hypnotically droned to people in advertising and commercial messages, of which the average person is exposed to 3,000 every single day, from waking up to falling asleep and every minute in between. It's a deliberate effort to soothe down the cognitive dissonance that information about the ecological crisis creates. [Betsy: ] > >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. [tully: ] > 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.Tully, I really object to this! Of course I want to save the world! Haven't you been reading anything I've written on this list lately? I did a whole treatise on saving the world [see below], just a couple of weeks ago! I'll send you a copy if you didn't get it. I'm aware, however, that my actions alone are not going to save the world, unless in some metaphysical way I am at the fulcrum of the universe (which I do believe is possible, but it is not likely). I've been in the place of believing that I had to save the world myself (some long-time list members may remember a conversation about this, around 2 or 3 years ago), and it is not healthy. I need to keep a perspective to avoid the panicky, ungrounded, rushing-around frenzy that I've experienced when I have the notion that it's all up to me. > 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.Yes. We all have this, it is in our bones, in our blood, in our DNA. We are social creatures biologically adapted to live together and cooperate, to be connected with other beings and to gape in awe at the beauty of the universe, as Brian Swimme says. What we have to overcome, as I see it, is the cultural conditioning--we have to unlearn the messages of individualism and consumerism and competition, and let those naturally adapted tendencies of togetherness and connection and awe come to the surface once again. I don't think it's really easy to do this, but I think it's very possible and I am very hopeful about the potential. I don't think it will happen by ladling the guilt onto people for not making the right choices, but by having compassion for each other, and for ourselves. I know a lot of people don't like this idea, but I think we are all damaged by the culture we live in, and I think it will be several generations even after changes start to happen on a large scale, before people will be completely free of the negative cultural values and behaviors and attitudes that are typical of peoplewho grow up in an industrial, patriarchal, capitalist, consumer culture. I've gone on *way* too long, and I apologize to those with small mailboxes. This stuff is very close to my heart, and I welcome the opportunity to expound. And I know I tend to take it too personally at times, and overreact, and I apologize for that, too. Tully, you say you are a warrior. I admire you for that. Warriors are essential. But I don't think everyone can be a warrior, do you? Somebody needs to be keeping the home fires burning while the warriors are out fighting. Somebody needs to be ready to do the healing, the soothing, the caring for the warrior when she gets wounded in battle. And somebody needs to be doing the negotiating, the intelligence work, the infiltration and behind-the-lines stuff,. Somebody needs to keep growing the food and washing the clothes and caring for the babies and elders, and somebody needs to keep praying, to do rituals for the warriors, to plan the celebrations, to play the music and make the art and write the stories. Maybe the war metaphor doesn't really work, but my point is surely obvious--we each have our contribution to make, and we can't really any of us do what we do without the others doing what they do. Your impatience and high expectations help push us slower ones, and hopefully our reasons for slowness can help nurture you when your impatience gets too much. And, in the final analysis, the final battle, if you will, we'll all have to fight, and if it comes to that, I hope to take courage from you in that moment. Betsy. -- Betsy Barnum http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624/ ***************************** Anything we love can be saved. --Alice Walker |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:30:08 -0500 From: Betsy Barnumtully wrote:Organization: Great River Earth Institute To: positive-futures@igc.org Subject: Re: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
> 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?This list *is* trying to find ways towards a sustainable future. Most of the folks here think that simplicity and sustainability are broad areas that involve things like energy-efficient motors and greywater systems as well as things like healing ourselves and learning to work together (and if you're really interested in intentional community, I think you'll find that the challenges of working and making decisions together are just as important if not more important than the practicalities of buildings and technologies and transportation).
I like this list for this very broadness, for people's willingness to explore and offer information on topics ranging from toothpaste and shampoo to the global economy, from alternative health care to dumpster-diving. I like hearing about what people do in their homes, in their jobs, with their families, on their vacations. I like the fact that people here live in cities, towns, suburbs and rural areas, and bring all those perspective to the discussion. I learn a lot from hearing people talk about how they think about their lives and what they struggle with.
I'm sure there are lots of lists out there dealing with alternative technology, ideas for being off-grid, the nuts and bolts of very low-impact living. Since you have said you're interested particularly in housing, I recommend a list about Earth Ships managed by CSF at the University of Colorado in Boulder <http://csf.colorado.edu/env/> List name is ESSA, Earthfriendly and Self-Sufficient Architecture.
Earth Ships are a form Earth-sheltered housing made with all reused materials like old tires and cans and bottles, and designed to be completely self-sustaining in terms of energy and water. I thought about building an Earth Ship for a while, but I feel my place is to stay in my less-than-perfectly-self-sufficient house in the city and find ways to reduce my footprint here and, maybe, help find ways to make cities sustainable, because I think that has to happen. But the ESSA list had lots of interesting stuff about reducing energy use and pointers to instructions about water systems and pumps and wells and other low-tech stuff.
(And, you can be there *and* stay here...)
Betsy
-- Betsy Barnum http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624/ ***************************** Anything we love can be saved. --Alice Walker - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 12:02:28 -0400 From: tullyAt 06:39 PM 8/20/99 -0500, Betsy Barnum wrote:{at: http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/jun99/msg00756.html } To: positive-futures@igc.org Subject: Re: [pf] Re: Giving things up when no one else does
>Well, gang, I got a little carried away in this answer to tully,I'm honored that you took the time to discuss this.
>I am not saying sustainability is not possible. I know it is. We already >know how to do it.We do? I don't think this is true. I believe this is the one huge unanswered question that is the most critical to find answers to. How do we live sustainably? Not answered in abstract ways like lightening our footprint, connecting to nature and each other, etc., but in what actual concrete ways can it be accomplished? This is exactly what I want to devote every spare minute of my time to. Finding real, honest-to-gaia ways to live sustainably. I don't need to be talked into it anymore. I'm already convinced and I'm ready to do something, anything, in some other direction than the direction we are going now.
>I have to step back and remind myself of all I've just said--and not think >of these people as lazy and complacent. But it has been discouraging ...I think this is one of the greatest benefits of the internet. Here we can "meet" and share ideas with thousands of people that share a similar sort of dream. In our home town's of conservative, frightened, cynical people, we're luckly to find a handful of people who are interested in what we want to do.
>But this is the big part, tully -- changing consciousness, changing hearts. >Do you have ideas for how to do this?I think so. I can be one that sets one example, demonstrating one possible reality for sustainable living. Finding something that I can personally make work and when I succeed, share it with others, showing what I did, how I did it, how I feel, how much simpler my life is and how much less my monetary needs are as a result. I can buy a house for $1500! A very comfortable and beautiful house. I can take this house wherever I want to go. I can find a vacant lot in a city and put up my house and see what happens. Or I could buy a piece of land somewhere with a good climate (the Olympic Peninsula is where I want to be) and start a community and invite whoever wants to join me to come. I can live on next to nothing and show people how much their current lives cost them, in terms of money, time, and pleasure. I'm being pushed hard in that direction from within and it has become a very powerful force that I simply must follow at this point. Everything else in my life has lead up to this point as purposefully as if I'd planned it that way.
>To me, this is the key to the whole thing. It's >exactly what my work is aimed at, inviting people to examine their values and >habits and assumptions, and bring their living into congruence with the values >that really mean the most to them. This is a means to change hearts, and it is >a one-by-one process, not fast. But I don't know any faster ways that are as >deep and lasting.I think my way could be quite fast. If ways to live sustainably can be verified as workable, fun, and directly shared with many others, I believe that my dream of seeing a critical mass shift is possible. How did I switch to hippie consciousness in the old days? I found myself in the company of some fascinating and admirable people and was immediately captivated.
>However, I also think that it won't be necessary for everyone's heart to change, >or even half the people, or even a third. I think it will take a small percentage >making a worldview shift, comprehending the consequences of their lifestyle, >and connecting with the Earth and with each other and *choosing* to make big >changes in their lives, to cause a wave that will sweep over the rest and >bring the change into fruition.Yep. I envision it exactly the same way. A critical mass situation that once started will simply pull everyone in because of all the excitement, love, and understanding demonstrated in the company of those who have "turned."
>Robert Theobald says that he thinks most people don't need to be >convinced that change is necessary, they just need to be shown that it's >possible because they're afraid and this territory is uncharted.And my part in this is to show one way of doing it. But please do not misunderstand. Mine would not be the only way. There are bound to be many ways of becoming sustainable. Some of us will do it in the cities and again the cities will flourish. Some will do it in the remote areas. Many will be inbetween somewhere. Some will share large buildings and resources with each other. Others will share little places on the land. The ways are as infinite as are our imaginations. I can hardly wait since I think I will see the shift well within my lifetime.
>Which gets back to your "developing and demonstrating ways to do it." >I think you and I are both doing work essential to this "Great Turning," >as Joanna Macy calls it: I am showing people that they can see the world >through a different lens than that of consumer culture and economic growth; >so are others on the list, like Nan and Priscilla. And you are showing them >how to live in that new world, and so are others on this list like Tom. >Everyone who is living simply is a demonstration; >everyone who talks with friends and family and raises these issues is helping >to shift vision. And everyone who dreams of a sustainable world, >meditates on it, prays about it, envisions it, is also >doing indispensably helpful work toward the future.Isn't it a marvelous picture of a complete approach? I especially agree about the latter, about those who dream, meditate and pray for it. We create our own reality with our thoughts and our prayers and our visions.
>CSA is for community-supported agriculture.Oh, okay, I know what you are talking about now. I've read that this is happening, but I haven't stumbled across one in my travels yet, but maybe I just need to look more. I count myself lucky to have a very good organic food co-op within 20 miles of where I currently live. I'm trying to make it my sole grocery store, which gets difficult with a 15 year old son who would live on junk food if given half a chance. But shopping in that funky little coop is actually fun compared to the torture of shopping in the megastores. Oh how I hate even going in those places.
>I think it's very unfair to imply that people are selfish if they >don't give up everything *right now* and live in a tipi.I didn't mean to imply that a tipi was the only way to go. There are many ways to go. But building or living in big houses with many hundreds of square feet for one or two people is very "unfair" to gaia, don't you think?
>Really, though, don't you think at bottom we all do what we do because it >pleases us in some way? Don't you live as you do because it pleases you? >It pleases me to reduce my consumption.There is tremendous personal pleasure in altruism for many of us. For me it becomes downright thrilling to think that I could make a positive difference in the lives of many others (not necessarily only human others). And if you have fun at the same time, nothing of a selfish pleasure can beat it, IMO.
>I don't regard it as a sacrifice, but as a desirable thing.It can even be fun. To me the pleasure of camping and especially backpacking where everything you need, you carry, is one of my favorite activities. Talk about the simple life...
>The key to simplifying society, I think, is not expecting people to make big >sacrifices (pretty Calvinist, don't you think?), but helping them to see >that the consumer lifestyle is *not* pleasing in the deeply satisfying ways >that a slower pace of life with more focus on relationships is.Yes, many of us have not heard or thought about that message and they must be reached. But so many of us are already to that point and now we also need to get the ball rolling toward accomplishing the actual task of changing our lives instead of just talking about it. What better way to preach our values than to live them? Actions speak louder than words. Let's start getting down in the dirt and figure out what all aspects of a sustainable life should be. Yes, we will disagree, yes, it may get loud, but our purpose makes us strong and we can work it through if we just start with that first step of concrete discussion of how.
>I sometimes think the work I do (study circles regarding values, check my web >site below if you want to know more) is more trouble than it's worth -- requires >me to have a computer, use up paper, spend a lot of time writing grants trying >to get a little money, drive sometimes, speak in public, make a lot of phone >calls...if I weren't doing this, I could get a part-time job at the local cafe >for income and spend a lot more time gardening, rig up a rain water catchment >system for my house, knit, mend, can a lot more than I do, take long walks, >organize my neighborhood.I suspect that most sustainable communities will be set up where some residents commute away to work, while others stay "home" and take care of gardening, food preparation, cleaning, etc. When the commuter gets home, s/he won't have to do anything about obtaining a meal, it will be done for them, since they've done the work they needed to do for the community (bringing in money) and are entitled now to free time. One of our major problems now is that we believe we must all be commuters and leave no one at home, so now the commuters must do it all, which is why fast food is grabbed on the way home or a frozen dinner thrown in the microwave. Our lack of mealtime sharing is destructive to us, our quality of food poor, all because the important tasks of "home" are not given enough time.
Yet I'm sure that many of us would be delighted if we never commuted again and instead used our labor to provide for the community. Some of us could tend/pick gardens of organic vegetables, or orchards of organic fruits, care for chickens, grind organic hard wheat into fresh flour to make bread, or sew/knit clothes for the community members, or gather/split wood, or prepare meals, or cleanup, or any number of other productive activities that could reduce the need for commuters and the grids. I don't think most of us have any idea of how much money we spend for convenience. I know that it is substantial when in my marriage, one of us stopped commuting and we only lived on one salary, yet we lived so much better and could put more in the bank than we did before because of the value of the work done by the member who stayed home and worked. I can easily imagine adding more people to this picture.
>In some ways, that would please me more than staying as hooked into the culture >as I have to be to do my work. But this work calls to me, and ultimately, I do >it because I must, and because I know I would *not* be pleased with my life if >I turned my back on it. Is it a worthwhile tradeoff to do this "good work" >and still drive a car and use a dishwasher? I don't know.I don't either. I really admire what you are doing. Its a job that needs to be done and is a job you can be proud of. I'm glad you can follow your calling. I think too many of us have no idea what our calling is. So we decide our calling is what Madison Ave. tells us it is, success, power, prestige, money, and accumulation. What a lousy substitute for what our hearts say.
>I do think that all the evidence points to the fact that many, perhaps most, >people are not really pleased with their lives in the modern world. Showing >them how sustainability *would* be pleasing and satisfying is, I think, >our best bet for saving the planet.Yes. So many are aching to know what to do. Let's start figuring it out for them.
[tully: ] > > 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. [Betsy: ] >Tully, I really object to this! Of course I want to save the world! Haven't >you been reading anything I've written on this list lately? I did a whole >treatise on saving the world, just a couple of weeks ago! I'll send you a >copy if you didn't get it.I do not doubt you for a moment. I'm just pleased to hear someone else say that they do want to "save the world" and not have that cynical sneer on their face instead. I know you know the look Betsy, the "God, how naive can you get?" look that all the cynics love to throw at us when we dare to show we care about something beyond ourselves. It aint cool to care... You are just a do-gooder idealist. A bleeding heart. A tree hugger. And there is such disdain in their voices. You've heard it, I know. Every idealist has. It takes a very strong and brave person to be an idealist nowdays, doesn't it? Well, I say I'm proud to care and if that makes me naive, fine, then I'll wear the badge of naive proudly as well.
>I'm aware, however, that my actions alone are not going to save the world, >unless in some metaphysical way I am at the fulcrum of the universe (which >I do believe is possible, but it is not likely).Its people like you and me and all the rest of the idealists that are the critical fulcrum point, are the ones that together can save the world. If we can band together, nothing can stop us from being as Atlas and lifting the whole world up. There are many hidden idealists out there Betsy, just trying to get up enough bravery to come out of their cynical closets...
> I've been in the place of believing that I had to save the world myself >(some long-time list members may remember a conversation >about this, around 2 or 3 years ago), and it is not healthy. I need to keep a >perspective to avoid the panicky, ungrounded, rushing-around frenzy that I've >experienced when I have the notion that it's all up to me.In a lot of ways, we must do some things individually to have an impact collectively. But with support groups like we can develop here or elsewhere, anything is possible. Anything we can imagine, because then others can imagine it, too.
>Yes. We all have this, it is in our bones, in our blood, in our DNA. We are >social creatures biologically adapted to live together and cooperate, to be >connected with other beings and to gape in awe at the beauty of the universe, >as Brian Swimme says. What we have to overcome, as I see it, is the cultural >conditioning -- we have to unlearn the messages of individualism and >consumerism and competition, and let those naturally adapted tendencies of >togetherness and connection and awe come to the surface once again.And isn't that just a matter of finding enough support from others to motivate us onward? Isn't that exactly what will swing the critical mass over to the other side? We only have to connect with each other and work together. We've made a possible start right here.
> I know a lot of people don't like this idea, but I think >we are all damaged by the culture we live in, and I think it will be several >generations even after changes start to happen on a large scale, before >people will be completely free of the negative cultural values and behaviors >and attitudes that are typical of peoplewho grow up in an industrial, >patriarchal, capitalist, consumer culture.I think we are more resilient than that and that once a positive direction is found, there will be a stampede in that direction. But then again, I'm a hopeless optimist on top of all that idealism.
>Tully, you say you are a warrior. I admire you for that. Warriors are essential. >But I don't think everyone can be a warrior, do you? Somebody needs to be >keeping the home fires burning while the warriors are out fighting. Somebody >needs to be ready to do the healing, the soothing, the caring for the warrior >when she gets wounded in battle. And somebody needs to be doing the negotiating, >the intelligence work, the infiltration and behind-the-lines stuff. Somebody >needs to keep growing the food and washing the clothes and caring for the babies >and elders, and somebody needs to keep praying, to do rituals for the warriors, to >plan the celebrations, to play the music and make the art and write the stories.Absolutely Betsy and its those polarities that make you and me more whole when you put us together. Those polarities are important, even necessary for the insights and perspectives each brings to the other. They are not to be disparaged, but prized, for the worth each view provides. One view is never whole. Even two views are not enough. We need all different polarities, all different personalities, ways of thinking, feeling, loving. We are lopsided without it.
>Maybe the war metaphor doesn't really work, but my point is surely obvious >-- we each have our contribution to make, and we can't really any of us >do what we do without the others doing what they do. Your impatience and >high expectations help push us slower ones, and hopefully our reasons for >slowness can help nurture you when your impatience gets too much. And, in >the final analysis, the final battle, if you will, we'll all have to fight, >and if it comes to that, I hope to take courage from you in that moment.You have a true gift with words, Betsy. I feel that you and I are great parts of the magnificent whole, just like everyone else, with all their wide variety of contributions, skills, and wisdoms to add to this. Together we can make happen whatever we choose to do. I hope you and I do get the chance to work together. I very much admire your practicality, wisdom, and good sense. I need someone to check my tendency to lose my head in the clouds somewhere. ;)
-----
tully
Boycott Monsanto - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:18:12 -0400 From: tullyI'm with ya Rob. Its quite possible to start a list. I started one once though I never really got it off the ground. You can use egroups.com to start a free list which means you have to put up with advertising at the bottom of each message, though that can be cutoff if you want to pay $4.95 a month for that freedom from commercialism.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: >Does anyone know of a list that > >is seriously into the design aspects of sustainable living? > > At 09:08 PM 8/20/99 -0500, Rob D'Entremont wrote: >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.What a grand idea, Rob. Like a magazine of sustainability which has been a dream of mine for some time. Mother Earth News truly tried at first to provide that magazine, but seems to have fallen back into mainstream consumerizing like everyone else since Shuttleworth (I think that was the founder's name) left. I can see where a website is even better since it doesn't depend on advertising or paper. I have access to some webspace on my ISP that could also be devoted to this. I would very much like to join you in this endeavor.
>I threw together a webpage that lists what I do to live sustainably, and >asked what more I can do,Sounds great. Those sort of success stories can do so much to motivate us and help us find new ways to approach problems. In the face of all the overwhelming sensationalism and yellow journalism, such a "good news" publication could really do so much to bring balance to our psyches.
My mother just told me about some guy in Brazil who in some incredibly short time supposedly turned around an entire large city there, making the downtown off-limits to cars, providing clean light rail service, and complete rejuvenated the city. One of the ideas he implemented was in response to a serious problem involved with the collection and disposal of the garbage, so he made a deal with local farmers to exchange garbage for bags of vegetables and the city was cleaned up entirely in a day or two. I suppose the farmers then composted the garbage to use later in their fields.
>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.Excellent. These are just the sort of decisions that a plan for sustainability would need to address. There are so many difficult questions to address. In discussing some of this with my mother, she expressed the strongest opposition to the idea of smaller living space saying how claustrophic she felt in smaller spaces. How do we address that particular rejection of our ideas?
>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.)So would I, even at a charge. I know of nothing. We can always start a movement. The Leading by Example Massacree. Surely Arlo will do a song for us... :)
>The page is at http://www.dfwbike.com/sustainable.htm.I loved your site and its pictures. The yard is beautiful. The curved outline running diagonally across the front yard is particularly appealing.
I've been very pleased with Rosalind Creasy's "Edible Landscaping" book and highly recommend it to you. All landscaping can also be a food provider and her book is full of highly beautiful and functional designs. Trees can bear fruit and nuts (pecan trees are nice though, they drop lots of wood around the yard, though that is great for tinder and the woodstove... I have 12 fully matured (actually too old) pecan trees in my yard. We also planted apple trees, which are nice but are too much trouble IMO, and pear trees, which are gorgeous and require nothing. I've yet to have any luck with cherries or peaches. Grapes are easy to grow and make beautiful natural fences. Blueberry bushes are perfect for shady areas and are beautiful plants. Strawberries make marvelous border plants and all sorts of herbs can fill in a lawn with little paths between. Peanuts, peppers, tomatoes, peas, potatoes, spinach, lettuces, all can be combined in lovely ways to add to the beauty of the yard. With some care, certain companion planting and not having monocultures in one massive group can do a great deal to to deter insects and other pests. I've found marigold borders to be a great insect repellent and their cheery faces add so much to the overall appearance. A garden can double as landscaping and the result can be incredibly productive, especially when as many edible perennials are used as possible. Mulch with your compost to keep weeds down and you'd have something very special I think.
One thing I feel it is important to warn about is to not place or eat any edibles growing around the foundation of your house. You can't avoid the massive amounts of termite poisons that fill the soil in those places and those poisons unfortunately last for dozens of years. I do not believe that it is safe to eat anything planted close to the foundation of a house.
But yes, Rob, I am very interested in pursuing this idea of yours and I hope we can talk others into discussing it as well. I believe you are definitely on the right path toward sustainability.
-----
tully
Boycott Monsanto
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 19:08:42 -0500 From: Betsy BarnumNan Hildreth wrote: > We talk about saving the planet. What a howl! > > Who do we think we are? Lovelock says Gaia, the system of life on earth, > is a tough old gal. She survived the big meteor that killed off the > dinosaurs. Life came back as strong as ever. Lovelock wrote that about 2 > billion years ago, green beings had a population explosion. Their toxic > waste, oxygen, polluted the methane atmosphere, threatening the whole > system. But after a paradigm shift, Gaia found a new equilibrium. > Methane based creatures took refuge in swamps and later in intestines. > Life learned to eat the green things and burn it inside themselves using up > the green things' excreta, oxygen, to complete the cycle. <snip> >Humans rescue the algae and bacteria and insects and other life? What a joke!I've thought a lot about the discounting of people's desire to "save the planet." I think it's is unfairly dismissive to call it hubris, or to say Gaia doesn't need us. Since it is human activity that is threatening Gaia, it seems competely appropriate to me that humans would want to save her by stopping the destruction they themselves are causing. No other life form can do that--only humans can stop what humans are doing. The huge changes you cite, the adaptation to an atmosphere of oxygen and the extinction of the dinosaurs, were different from what's happening today. The meteor, if that's what it was, came from outer space. The pollution of the atmosphere with oxygen happened without any conscious intent on the part of the one-celled creatures that produced it. The current massive alteration of Earth's systems is being done deliberately, knowingly, by one species, and it is many members of that one species who passionately seek ways to stop the alteration, to save the planet. (If anything about the situation could be labelled "hubris," I think it should be the idea that humans are not part of Gaia and can shred the web of life and expect technology to provide them with all they need.) Whatever humans do, undoubtedly Gaia will readjust her systems and go on. But if human activity does cause devastating extinction and huge changes in climate and conditions, I think it is doubtful whether the incredible variety of life forms that has flourished on Earth will ever again develop here. The life that is here today, including the thousands of species already made extinct by human activity, has evolved over millions of years. There is a certain linearity to this process, as there is to the story of the universe. I think it is quite doubtful that life on Earth would simply "start over" if we humans manage to mess up the life support systems of Gaia for the current life forms, and most of the more complex ones cease to exist. What might very likely happen is a return to some equilibrium with algae, bacteria, some insects perhaps some deep-sea creatures, but with such a devastated genetic pool that there would be no chance for complex life to develop ever again. Each of the previous extinctions or crises in Earth's development cleared the way for new possibilities--in the case of the oxygen atmosphere, a bursting forth of numerous new life forms; in the case of the dinosaur extinction, a surging of mammals into the niches where before they couldn't compete with the dinos. What's happening now, if human alteration of the Earth leads to disaster, is the blasting of the landscape, toxification of air, land and water, severe climate alteration, destruction of millions of acres of forest that will probably never regrow--and with it the loss of untold genetic heritage millions of years in the making. But there's even more to it than that. To say that it's overweening pride for human beings to want to "save the planet" misses the point: People *are* the planet--we are not just living *on* the planet. We are Gaia and Gaia is us--us and all the other creatures. People who talk about "saving the planet" are talking about trying to preserve the interconnected web of life that has co-evolved for 15 million years, a magnificent, even miraculous, beautiful and sacred family of beings that includes humans and that, in a very real sense, *is* Gaia. According to Lovelock, it is the *life* on the planet that makes Gaia alive--Mars, with no life, is a dead planet. So Gaia isn't the planet, in the sense of a ball of rock circling the sun. Gaia is the life on the planet, and that is us. People who want to save the planet are, I believe, hearing the cries of the other creatures who also want to live, and are transmitting the consciousness of Gaia as a whole--not just to save human life, but to save *every* form of life, to save the *web*--to save Gaia. Far from hubris, I think this is the deepest kind of compassion, and we need much, much more of it, not less. Betsy P.S. Hi, all -- I've been away for a couple months, good to be back. -- Betsy Barnum http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624/ ************************************** There is a fire burning over the Earth, taking with it plants and animals, cultures, languages, ancient skills and visionary wisdom. Quelling this flame, and reinventing the poetry of diversity, is the most important challenge of our times. -- Wade Davis: Shadows in the Sun: Essays on the Spirit of Place [Return to Betsy's letter above] |
Previous section | Next section
This is: http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/ShiftingTo-aSustainabLife2.html