Ludi's links and info

[Pops]

Sure there is no one solution but you know I do like the idea of the localized community, my shift just doesn’t have a cool name.

That last link (I admit I didn’t visit all the sites) certainly has a variety of places not dependant on tourism/books/trinkets/etc.

Point being (for me at least) is not to get caught up in the hype of change without examining the underpinning.

[Ludi]

Point being (for me at least) is not to get caught up in the hype of change without examining the underpinning.

I find some of these places a bit "fluffy" myself, especially their lack of actual self-sufficiency in food (Earthaven I believe only produces 20% of their own food), and reliance on out-of-community jobs. But it's a start. I think I mentioned somewhere in this thread that most of these places still rely on the existing cultural infrastructure, but that incremental steps are still valuable. It's going to be hard to get a new cultural infrastructure in place without first taking steps to get there, don't you think?

I've not noticed any "hype of change," I've mainly seen people fighting against any idea of change, let alone actually implementing change.

[oowolf]

Entropy is inescapable, but that doesn't equate to "life is futile-why bother-we're all toast". Everything will end; even the universe-from "heat death" or back down the black rabbit hole it exploded from.
There are societies that have lived "sustainably" for millenia. They probably learned the hard way. The Kogi learned the hard way-that humans can and will kill and steal from the weaker and to pay close attention to the effects of humans on the environment. The Kogi reject "alien objects" for which they have no use.
The present standing crop of humanity is mostly pathologically dependent on fossil fuel and wilfully(?) perhaps criminally ignorant of what constitutes "real" life.
Dependency and ignorance will be no defense against what I believe Pops called "reversion to the mean".

[Pops]

I've not noticed any "hype of change," I've mainly seen people fighting against any idea of change, let alone actually implementing change.

True enough – I like things the way they are too – Reeses, mmmm.

But I’m kind of talking about the marketing of Change. Change for the sake of reducing our easy boredom. Change for the sake of rejection of the status quo. Change for the sake of making a buck at ones avocation.

Does that make sense?

That’s why we butt heads sometimes Ludi – though I described myself as a LUDIte in my first post here and we talk about the same actions and methods for the most part, I have suspicions about any published, packaged, promoted, and paid for ‘New Paradigm” – I guess because advertising for other’s “Better Deal” supports me in the current one!

[Pops]

Dependency and ignorance will be no defense against what I believe Pops called "reversion to the mean".

Dang, oo, I wish I had kept a record of all my old taglines!

[Seeker]

Kochevnik, no one presented anything as The Truth. Far, far from it.

Also, question for you: Without the population, centralization, and levels of hierarchy of this civilization, would you have your precious internet, mint chocoalate chip ice cream, and your "machines doing your work for you"? (Which is incorrect, by the way, the overwhelming majority of people now work far more than people used to in the past. Even a large percentage of the elite work more. Not to mention that we who benefit from the horrifying oppression of civilization's economic systems are a very small minority.)

The point you seem to be missing is that this way of life isn't going to continue, even if you would like it to. Civilization is an inherently unsustainable system, as it tends to destroy itself. This is the meaning of unsustainability... not some entropy rationalization that "everything ends anyway".

The human nature argument is irrelevant and, I think, unsupportable. Human fallibility is universal, but saying that humans are doomed to be stuck in oppressive and destructive schemes like civilization is untrue. In other social organizations than civilization, we see accomodation for this fallibility. In civilization, we see the promotion and even glorification of this fallibility by our systems. Greed, war, ecological destruction, and endless consumption are actually encouraged and incentivized by civilization.

At some point, people are going to recognize two things: that this civilization is not worth it, and that it going to end soon anyway. Until then, true fundamental change is not going to occur.

Peace,
Devin

[TheTurtle]

If so add me to the list as well - I'm stuck in first.

You left California, moved to Mizzourah and took up farming, Pops. You hardly qualify for the list. Sorry.

I wasn't saddened by Kochevnik's criticism of a couple of trendy ecovillages, in fact I agree that driving a Ford 4x4 PU is not exactly Earth-friendly.

I wonder, though, if making money off the tourists isn't just something to fill in until more sustainable methods are developed. After all, last month I was down in what I take to be your neck of the woods, where I bought some fruit and vegetables from a roadside stand run by a Mennonite farmer and his daughter. Selling food to me didn't make them any less self-sufficient and doesn't imply that come PO they couldn't survive without my dollars. Similarly, the fact that I was buying the produce to take with me into the woods for a few days to supplement what I foraged doesn't mean that come PO I will starve in the woods without Mennonite raised produce. It was simply trade ... we each had something the other wanted. And after selling food to me, the "tourist", they were still part of the Mennonite community, with all that entails.

What saddened me was the notion that humans are somehow inherently bad and that we are somehow doomed to overreach our carrying capacity.
This is what we have been taught our entire lives. It has been the dominant cultural attitude for thousands of years.

But that doesn't make it right. I would be pleased if more people could step outside of the cage and see that we have been trapped therein for a long, long while.

I'm no expert, as I say, I'm just a citizen presenting some ideas, which people correctly see as absolute crapola.

Your ideas are good, Ludi. Don't underestimate yourself.

Maybe TheTurtle will discuss more what he sees as the "essential paradigm shift."

I think Seeker summed it up quite nicely a couple of pages back. I feel no urge to reiterate, when, as Seeker has discovered (I think), most everyone here seems to reject the notion anyway. I have neither the time nor energy to engage in long, drawn out debate. There are writers (as you have mentioned, Ludi) such as Quinn or Jensen who have already devoted a great deal of time discussing it much more eloquently than I could.

The present standing crop of humanity is mostly pathologically dependent on fossil fuel and wilfully(?) perhaps criminally ignorant of what constitutes "real" life.
Dependency and ignorance will be no defense against what I believe Pops called "reversion to the mean".

Exactly!

[Ludi]

Change for the sake of reducing our easy boredom. Change for the sake of rejection of the status quo.

Though I'm never bored, I reject the status quo, while of course being quite dependent on it.

That’s why we butt heads sometimes Ludi – though I described myself as a LUDIte in my first post here and we talk about the same actions and methods for the most part, I have suspicions about any published, packaged, promoted, and paid for ‘New Paradigm” – I guess because advertising for other’s “Better Deal” supports me in the current one!

I hope you don't think my moniker refers to Luddite/Luddism! It refers to "ludicrous." It's interesting that you see ideas being "published" being somehow, how should I put it, less honorable? This seems unfair. But for what it's worth, I haven't seen a "New Paradigm" being promoted in the commercial way you seem to see it (?), I would be surprised if such a thing were to happen. If you could direct me to where this New Paradigm is being promoted in this commercial way, I'd be really interested to see it.

I wasn't saddened by Kochevnik's criticism of a couple of trendy ecovillages, in fact I agree that driving a Ford 4x4 PU is not exactly Earth-friendly.

I believe their vehicles are run on biodiesel. (correct me if I'm wrong) Do you not drive then, TheTurtle? I do, and I don't use biodiesel. Again, I see their steps as incremental, and don't see them promoting themselves as saints (though they might be doing so and I've just missed that part), nor do I see them as saints. But interesting, I think, that being anything short of a saint is seen as - unworthy of respect?

[Raxozanne]

I agree with Seeker about civilisation and I encourage anyone to read 'Story of B' by Daniel Quinn. I know everyone likes their ice-cream and mints but do you also like the lack of communtiy, stress, anxiety, instability and fast-pace of life inherent in our society today? I know that tribal life wasn't perfect or utopia but I seems to me that it is the lesser of two evils. Also it caused far less ecological degradation than civilisation and no global wars and far less slavery also. I read somewhere that the Romans made parts of Africa soil infertile because they used it as their bread basket for so long. I realise that you say if population was less dense there would be no problems in todays social organisation but there would still be people being exploited in the hierarchies formed in civilisation. Like the slaves of the Romans or the peasants in Feudal times someone would be oppressed.

I also realise that most ecovillages today do still rely on the system and the trappings of the system to an extent. But this I believe is because a lot of knowledge on how to live self-sufficiently has been lost (a lot of skills like shoe making etc.) also because the system will not let anyone leave (you will still have to pay taxes, land tax, council tax etc.) which means that you cannot ultimately reject this monetary system and therefore must have an income of sorts. Also the system is very smart at making laws that force you to purchase services from other people instead of doing things yourself (e.g.: the UK passed a law that stopped people from doing their own electrical work in their houses).

[Ludi]

Yeah, here we go:

"Currently we run all our vehicles on 100% biodiesel."

http://www.dancingrabbit.org/energy/biodiesel.php

Not many of us (any of us?) posting in this thread can say the same.

Like the slaves of the Romans or the peasants in Feudal times someone would be oppressed.

Many people here at po.com see us returning to a feudal system. I'm really hoping we can avoid that. What I find interesting is that people never speak out against a return to a feudal system, but speak out loudly against a return to tribal social organisation. Why is tribal life so much more offensive than feudalism?

[Pops]

I hope you don't think my moniker refers to Luddite/Luddism! It refers to "ludicrous."

Haha – yea you fooled me Ludi!

I wonder, though, if making money off the tourists isn't just something to fill in until more sustainable methods are developed. After all, last month I was down in what I take to be your neck of the woods, where I bought some fruit and vegetables from a roadside stand run by a Mennonite farmer and his daughter.

Could be. I don’t think selling books or Amish crafts are dis- or less –honorable, and yes transitions and experiments are all to the good. Certainly most of us are dependant on the system to one extent or another, I don’t know how long the SF 49ers will be around but the ads for Suburbans and Corvettes I just made for their Gameday program probably won’t always support me!

But the Mennonite farmer selling produce seems to me to be in a better position to support himself in hard times than if he were selling a book on how to be Mennonite or tours of the farm – or making car ads. People will always want tomatoes but they may not always be able to support the ‘communities.’

Anyway, I think Ludi’s term ‘fluffy’ is as good as any …

[Ludi]

We have to remember though that most Mennonites don't have to pay off enormous loans taken out in order to purchase property, like some of these ecovillagers. Earning money by giving tours or working off-site jobs makes sense in that context. They may very well want to support themselves in more "sustainable" ways but aren't in a postion to do so yet. Which I understand, having a loan to pay off myself.

[Seeker]

BUT LUDI THEY ARE COMPLETE HYPOCRITS WE CAN'T LEARN ANYTHIGN FORM THEM!

Wait a minute, here, Ludi. You mean to say that it's not easy to build another way of life? That we can't just instantly transition to 100% sustainability?? But everyone knows that Our Glorious Leaders just have to start this new political program and then everything will be okay!
-----

... I'm not sure how they could be hypocrites when they're just trying to live as best they can with the resources that they have. I think they do a good job, considering. If their way of life is "fluffy", what the hell is OURS? How many people here produce 20% of their own food? Run their cars on biodiesel? Have passive solar energy homes? Have built their own way of life?

Show of hands. Anyone?

[Ludi]

I call them "fluffy" mainly because of the lack of concentration on food resources - "it all comes down to food," as my husband says. But that's just my own personal issue. And of course I'm nowhere near food self-sufficiency. Maybe at 15%. The other details of my way of life you know, Devin. I posted those examples because I think they are good examples of society in transition, with nice websites! I wish Gaviotas had a website but they seem to be too busy living to do one...

[Seeker]

No worries... I was just joking around. Directed at many of the other people here, not you.

[Pops]

See, now we seem to be thinking (or at least posting) about different things. Where do these folk get enough money to buy a place outright? Their ‘social’ structure allows them to make money out of thin air?

Amish don’t borrow?

The fellow I purchased my place from (an Amishman) bought 120 acres 7 years ago and only had 40 to sell when I bought.

Why was that?

Well, he had built beyond his means, borrowed beyond his income, sold to make up the difference and surprisingly can’t get a bank to back him now in his new home and job.

Not an Amish!


Dang, and I thought a social construct would make all the difference.

[Seeker]

Social constructs don't change the fact that people still have to buy land from the government or else be considered "squatters", to be evicted. The U.S. government (and all governments) have taken over the world... attempting to exist outside of these boundaries (without money, having to pay taxes, build to code, etc.) is very difficult to do.

It's not THEIR social construct that is the problem...

[Ludi]

Maybe if we communicated more clearly we would be talking about the same things, Pops. I don't understand your post.

Amish borrow from each other at no interest. I don't know anyone in my society from whom I can borrow at no interest.

Amish also often inherit land from their families, this gets to be a problem a few generations out after land has been subdivided into such small parcels no one can make a living on them

Amish way of life has been around for 150 years or so*, most intentional communities, maybe 10 years, up to 30 years or so.

A "social construct" just beginning is struggling against terrific odds, can't be expected to be as integrated as one which has been around for a century or more.

Am I making myself clear?

*edited to correct - Amish sect founded 1693-1697

[Pops]

Am I making myself clear?

Yes, I understand perfectly.

[JohnDenver]

I'll feel more sceptical of PO when the needed changes are being done on the needed scale.

In case you're new to peakoil.com, this is like the 1000th time Ludi has posted this comment. If fact, if you eliminated all of Ludi's posts repeating this comment, she'd probably be demoted back to "Tar Sands".

So... before we all fall asleep from the mind-numbing monotony, let's see if we can't settle this once and for all.

Ludi, what specifically are the changes you feel need to be done, and on what scale? What specifically would need to happen to set your mind at ease?

Note: We really need some criteria here, so we can all look forward to the day when you stop making this comment. Otherwise, you might end up neurotically repeating yourself forever, no matter what happens.