80 comments on Localism and some thoughts on Social Change
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
80 comments on Localism and some thoughts on Social Change
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Ya' gotta' love the way Professor David Hess defines innovation:
"Innovation – creating new processes and techniques that allow further exploitation of the habitat;"
Gee, and one would hope that innovation could help
(a) Get a greater amount of benefit out of each BTU consumed
(b) create structures of recycling and streamlining of consumption so as make production more efficient, and reduce demand on natural resources (i.e., products built with life cycle use in mind, and methane recapture from waste in which the methane would be used instead of being vapored off as a damaging greenhouse gas)
(c) create alternative ways to take advantage of heat and energy that is all around us but which does not reduce the amount of said heat and energy by using it (i.e., geothermal and heat from solar energy)
But no, sadly, innovation means only "exploitation".
Imagine education of our young based on the premise that innovation is exploitation....should it then be avoided?
The so called "green" and "sustainable" intellectuals though, cannot figure out why the average educated citizen shakes their head sadly and turns away.
This discussion is now being framed by the deep green and anarcho-neo primitivist philosophy. That's o.k., but it should at least be admitted by way of disclaimer if nothing else.
RC
I have two "solutions" that have nothing to do with localism:
1) Implementing a draconian world government which begins reclaiming all resources back into the commons, greatly restricting use and taking them out of ("off") the market - restricting the power of individuals and of corporations.
This would, btw, probably require WAR (solution nr. 1) to implement.
2) Growth and building "more": much compacter cities (like Hong Kong) which are built vertically (saves land resources) or are even suspended above ground. Solar and wind are collected better at higher altitudes anyway, creates shade to help grow plants /develop wildlife in presently desertified areas..
Draconian world governments? Resources reclaimed into the commons? Restricting power of individuals AND corporations?
You seem to have an affinity for that which lumps individuals and corporations together when it is the "fictional entity" known as the corporation that ALREADY "eats" its fill of individuals daily.
Are you by chance some perverse mutation of the "constant gardener"?
How about instead simply removing the legal concept of the corporation as "fictional person" (revoking corporate personhood) for starters?
That would go an awfully long way toward restoring corporations to their logical status as OBJECTS with NO RIGHTS other than what is permitted them by the people, or barring such a doubtful miracle, requiring that for every "human rights and freedoms" demanded by corporations, an equal share of responsibility is shouldered, from each according to "their" ability, thus rendering the "fictional persons" known as corporations more...."human" and thus more "local".
After all, as you well know, it's in vogue these days to remind everyone that "freedom isn't free".
Localization is simply a natural part of the ELP triumvirate
Economize
Localize
Produce
War torn humans smashed into compact cities with little or no resources will have no will or inclination to produce. Rather, they will be inclined to SUCKLE at the teat of the "mother state", they will be turn on each other and civility will be reduced to that of an animal level.
Why be civil when one's life has no value, when the individuals are, to quote Howard Beale, "utterly without value and as replaceable as piston rods"?
Hong Kong functions as a compact city because of its enormous wealth and production OF resources.
I think I'd like to pass on your Bladerunner-style dystopian bergscape.
:-)
Well, I can't reply to everything at the moment, so I'll take a chunk a time.
I never watched Bladerunner :-( , so I don't know which images are passing through your head.
"Are you by chance some perverse mutation of the "constant gardener"?"
Again, I'm not sure of your reference, found le Carre's book/movie with the same name, but is there something else behind it? (I'm beginning to feel pretty illiterate, or at least media-illiterate)
My point is, if you want to change the way we use (i.e. "exploit":-) our resources, you also need to change the way things work.
"Localizing" is a nice title, but it does not change the biggest problem:
MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS PLAYING BY THE "NEW" RULES TOO.
If "growth" is going to be reversed or channelled, then we have to make major, major changes on the free-market system, on the present world socio-economic-political system.
How do you do this? By taking away everyone's rights.
- Individuals need to be revoked of the right to consume at will (my example was the right of building anywhere, which is especially a US problem)
- Corporations need to loose the right to expand/operate at will in unregulated regions (moving offshore AND exploiting resources of 3rd World..)
- Nation/States have to be revoked the right to pass or not pass laws at will. Who's going to force the US to ratify Kyoto? Who's going ot enforce world wide laws??
The free market has its advantages. It however MUST be heavily, heavily regulated - which, on the global level, it is not at all presently...
--
My grandfather pumped oil with an engine-house,
my father pumped oil with a 20 lb. electric motor,
can't I just pump it online?
Or as Luis put it:
"Is in fact Sustainability self-evident on a local scale?
...
What stops me from sending my waste downstream? It’ll disappear from my local environment, why bother further?"
The movie "Bladerunner" is probably Harrison Ford's best early work. It was based on the SciFi Novella "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", written by Phillip Dick and also wonderful.
The concept of economic sanctions could be used against the US. The Bush administration is the most dangerous government in the world and the European Union and other civilized nations should have banned imports from the US long ago. That they haven't means the Europeans actually approve of the US's use of military power in poor Asian countries and its flaunting of Kyoto and other international laws such as kidnapping "terrorists" from their homelands and imprisoning them at Gitmo and other secret prisons.
Might help, but I'm not that fit in law to tell you what the consequences would be.
I think calling a corp. a person only means that you can deal with it as a separate legal entity..
Meaning, that it's the same thing as calling the corp. an "object", as you propose. Any lawyers here?
There's a book (and DVD!) called The Corporation, that explains the advantages that being a person in a legal sense entails for a corporation.
IT means the first paragraph of the 14th amendment applies.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
IOW, a state cannot close down a corporation's operation, nor deny it permission to open up, nor can it seize property in compensation for damage suffered, nor can it decide to regulate a particular corporation to protect its own local suppliers, etc, etc.
And the question of Luis' post ist, does this make sense?
He puts it in question. On a personal level, it is certainly the thing to do: "simplify" !!
On a political level, I think this is exactly the wrong thing to do.
If you plan on avoiding dieoff on the level of the human race (which I don't think is anywhere near inevitable), there are going to be a lot of non-voluntary changes in everybody's lifestyle. And like I've been saying, these changes will have to be enforced, probably from above..
How would you propose taking away "rights" from individuals, corporations and up til now sovereign states? I'm afraid the UN is not a very good response.
You might be imagining the worst case. I'm just assuming that these three groups will all demand their own advantage during the reorganisation..
..if that's the way you see ending suburbia. If you want to "save" the earth in any acceptable way, it will have a lot to do with sacrificing living space on the ground.
as if we had a great choice.. Resources WILL be strained.
And then you continue my example of Hong Kong. Funny that the Chinese there didn't roll over and suck on socialist teats.
Yes, Hong Kong is a good example of what will probably be a viable organisational solution, if not Cuba..
Yes but the "Hong Kongians" (is that right?) haven't had all their rights taken away by said "draconian world government"...not yet anyway. You're definitely leaning toward Cuba with the DWG model for sure...not that we can't learn an awful lot from the Cuba model to be sure.
Depending on how things go in the next couple of years we may very well see large parts of this country wind up looking very "Cuban".
Roger, "exploitation" was my choice of words.
It has no intended negative semantics; think of it like using fertilizers to increase crop yields per hectare, or putting a thermal solar panel on your roof.
Luís,
Please accept my apology for the misatribution, and if I engaged in rhetorical overreach, I again apologize.
I have been on something of the defensive, attempting to provide any technology with the justification to exist, so yes, a thermal solar panel would be welcome, and I will attest to the miracle of composting in the garden, so that is more than enough for me. :-)
I think I am going to save the very nice article and string of posts on concentrating solar power from TOD the other day, and just go off and study for awhile!
Thank you for your post, it made me think of a simpler time, of the "Village Homes" Development of Micheal and Judy Corbett from back in the '70's, and the "New Urbanism" ideas. As us boomers get older, we are going to learn to live in communes again.....only now they will be called "Senior Towers" "Retirement Communities.", so our lifestyle is already set anyway....:-)
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
I'm not trying to push either way; Innovation or Social Change, both have its goods and bads. The all point is about "Silver Bullets", and how complex are the problems the Hubbert Peak raises.
Great RC, You have just made ten points in The Great Flummox Google with Innovative Jargon, game.
Your search - anarcho-neo primitivist - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
* Try fewer keywords.
Think of the innovation of using wind power to create electric power to use for personal warmth compared to grabbing a sheep chopping off it's hair (yes I know professionals use the term wool but I want to be all inclusive with my jargon) anyway, chopping off it's hair and knitting a sweater to keep warm...of course if you would prefer new innovation even here, possibly a new glue to apply that hair with would be more to your tastes? ;>)
(edit)
I shouldn't get carried away like that but when I read something that avoids the problem and then you, Thats it, feed into that avoidance how can I be serious.
we get this:
and then nothing but wallpaper.
"Your search - anarcho-neo primitivist - did not match any documents"
Well, re-enter it now, because it does...my reference on TOD!
Holy Cow, I've created a catch phrase! :-)
Well, actually I didn't, I just mis-combined a well known set of philosophies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Anarchist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Tribalism
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
I think the point was to highlight the differences between the strategies; without social change, the application of technology will indeed focus on further exploitation of resources, not diminishing their use (that is explicitly included under social change).
I think thats slightly unfair. efficiency gains are increased exploitation in a sense.. It would be odd to if hess is against efficiency gains
process that further exploitation can be seen as efficiency.
semantics aside I think we can stretch boundaries... In essence you are attcking the meaning of a single items wording here...
how about the general analysis or thrust of his argument...do you find that equally unsound?
Boris
London