list of David MacClement's 10 food items;
and his comment on: "what is the need for work?".

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:34:13 +1300
From: David MacClement <d1v9d-at-bigfoot.com>
To: Positive Futures 
Subject: Re: [pf] 20 items on hand in the pantry/fridge/freezer

>In the interests of simplifying yet also making things more 
creatively interesting I wanted to ask you about this idea.
>
>I was wondering if you could have 20 different things (as many 
packages of each that you wanted but only 20 different things 
not including spices, herbs, yeast, baking powder, baking soda 
or salt) in your pantry/fridge/freezer, what 20 would you pick 
to have on hand that would make great food for a week?
>
>This might be stuff you do all the time but would be 
new combinations to me and others on the list.
>

** I like this thread of simple cooking/meal-making. However, please ignore the list below because it doesn't have the same imagination-stimulating potential as Sharon's idea.

** The main difference is that we've actually been living on this 20 for about a year, since our daughter went to live in Beijing. I live on the first 10, the other two (ages 26 & 58) have been living on all 20. We're not sufficiently interested in cooking (& cleaning up afterwards) to do much preparing of meals. I interpret this as: our mental life is much more satisfying than cooking and eating a meal, most days.

1. bread: mostly sliced brown & white, some unsliced from the bakery
2. cabbage
3. carrots
4. butter for me, olive-oil margarine for any who need it (hypertension)
5. plain wheat breakfast cereal: Weetbix here, Shredded Wheat in Canada
6. rolled oats: 1 kg lasts ~8 weeks
7. organic milk: ~8 litres a week for 3 of us, 12-13 now
8. salty (Na & K) B12-containing beer-making-yeast-based spread "Marmite"
9. cocoa (for after I stop drinking tea, in early afternoon)
10. organic honey or homemade plum jam (or cheapest other jam/marmalade)
11. a fruit in season (i.e. plentiful & cheap): apples (grapefruit) now
12. pasta: whatever's still made in New Zealand (most is from Australia)
13. rice
14. whole peeled tomatoes, locally-grown
15. onions
16. cheese: alternating Edam & Cheddar
17. ground beef: cheapest package (e.g. $10 for nearly 2 kg)
18. organic olive oil
19. soy sauce from non-Genetically-Modified soy (Kikkoman amswered me)
20. free-range eggs (or organic, if convenient)

David.
(David MacClement) d1v9d @ bigfoot.com (remove spaces)
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top
**********************************************************

 
[letter #2: ]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:54:50 +1300
From: David MacClement <d1v9d-at-bigfoot.com>
To: Positive Futures list 
Subject: [pf] the place of work, now there's 'too many people for jobs'

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At 07:13 28/10/99 -0400, Diane Olson wrote:
> …  have to take care of our non-working/non-producing public?
At 13:36 28/10/99 -0400, Tom Gray wrote:
>It's also worth adding that we have never done more than a half-baked job
>of taking care of them, at most.  Now the push is on to do away with
>welfare, and I'm of two minds about it.  One abhors the idea, but the other
>says it's a good thing -- folks on welfare have always depended on 
>relatives to survive and will continue to do so, …
>
At 18:37 28/10/99 EDT, Priscilla Richter wrote:
> … Tom raises another good point: we have, as a society, never debated well 
>the real issues of the welfare system.  The stereotypical "conservative" 
>viewpoint does not apologize for the extreme individualistic position that 
>each welfare recipient *should* do the bootstrap thing -- a position which 
>denies our democratic (small d) tradition of caring for the common good. On 
>the other hand, the stereotypical "liberal" position does not confess that, 
>giving people money with no hope really never did what it intended to do. 

At 04:28 18/09/99 -0500, Bill Dellinger wrote:
>The long-term 'answer' is community, that I should be growing food for a
>community, rather than market customers (as in community-based ag
>systems).Community, also is the answer to some of the asked but unspoken
>question here (on this list) as well. But Tully's discussion parallels
>discussions I've had with myself -- small farming is the cleanest 
>I've come to finding a moral life.
>
>David's suggestion that working a small or no amount, is not a solution for
>me -- neither economically or ethically. Unless every child is eating well, 
>it makes little moral sense for me to take personal leisure (and farm work 
>is sweaty Buddhist meditation). And from a semi-arrogant Bodhisattva 
>stance, I feel wrong about leisure, unless all can share such leisure. 
>(I feel leisure is a petroleum-based activity, btw).

At 23:10 28/10/99 -0500, Bill wrote:
>I don't share the negative attitude toward work. It is what I have 
>to pass the time. It is all I have of worth; to do good work. 
>Certainly, I don't want to live on the suffering of others. …
>Any who believe that real life is based upon anything but hard work have not
>seen food grown, wood sawn for energy, built shelter, fences, and worked.
>Neither have they shared that joy. But human life is based upon such work, 
>even if temporarily displaced by the enslavement of the world's majority 
>to support our leisure, or based upon the use of nonrenewable resources. 
>There is no social justice in leisure.
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

** Even Bill's "we have to work to ensure our food and shelter, and that's what gives meaning and value to one's life" (my paraphrase) is only part of the picture, though his underlying theme of community is basic to a better world.

** The big change from any time in the past is that, as of a few decades ago, if all people were spread over all the arable land on the planet (people-density dependent on soil fertility), it would be extremely easy to provide at least food necessities for everyone, with only a tiny amount of work per person (dependent on the season). Another way of saying this is that, again on the assumption that the rich and powerful aren't parasitising us, a fraction of the people working full-time (~40 hours a week, though they may enjoy it so much they want to do more) would supply enough food for everyone; in my view, most would not have to work at food production.

** If this is true, then we as a world-wide culture have to re-think what work is for.

** To me, this opens up a great freedom. Provided one puts in at least the minimum social requirement* to ensure one's own survival (and people that can but don't, should be ostracised, outlawed), one is free to follow one's own inclination, whether that's learning, one of the arts and/or crafts, helping others, building up a business, or doing nothing (as I do).
(* a calculated amount of work per person, going to all, not that person)

** However, the reasoning is based on (1) a single right (not to be interfered-with by anyone, as long as you've fulfilled your single duty); (2) the rich and any other parasites/free-riders don't exist - they've either changed or have been forced to die; and (3) there's very little in the way of heirarchy or leadership - probably similar to the town-council plus Sheriff in Old West days, in its best form. Peer-pressure can work quite well.

** My ancestors were peasants and artisans (stone-mason, hatter, etc.), and I believe with our present knowledge and a little technology we could make that whole scene work a lot better than it did then. I'm not scared of an unknown future; I'm scared of what I _know_ will happen if our current rich-and-powerful continue to force their way into every nook and cranny of human life.

David.
(David MacClement) d1v9d @ bigfoot.com (remove spaces)
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top
**********************************************************

[letter #3: ]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:45:37 +1300
From: David MacClement 
To: Positive Futures 
Subject: [pf] 'normal' is not normal

At 08:31 6/08/99 +1200, I wrote to another list:

>** … what's wrong, in my view. People in highly developed countries have 
>a distorted, overly-luxurious opinion of what life should be like.  
>They expect to not be sick, to not have inconvenience, to get 
>what they want within minutes of when they want it, to have no
>noticeable risk of major injury or dying. No wonder the earth suffers 
>when a billion people think they should be like gods. On a limited world,
>there's a limited number of gods that can be supported without damaging 
>the whole thing.
>**  I think three or thirty gods is enough, certainly not hundreds of
>millions.

** Getting sick is normal; dying is normal; having a fancy high-priced medical-and-drug system is not normal. Keeping yourself in good health is normal. I grew up before there was any other antibiotic than penicillin and sulfa-drugs. I was often sick (my breathing-system was allergic). One or two of my friends died (accident or illness). That is normal.

** Having a truly excessive range of things one might buy is not normal. Saving up to buy (or otherwise working to get) the materials to extend your house (in a working-bee with the neighbours) is normal. Building a huge mansion for two or three gods (and a _lot_ of stuff) is plainly abnormal for humans. Buying and preserving whatever food is locally-grown, making do with what you've got, is normal.

** The usual idea of Progress is a pernicious myth.

David.
(David MacClement) d1v9d @ bigfoot.com (remove spaces)
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top
**********************************************************

Return  to  David's main  page  Go to David's RainForest Page

Please send any questions or comments to the site Editor

This is: http://www.oocities.org/davdd.geo/Sunday_Letters.html#top