Coordinator HUB

New energy, new conservation will cost us a tiny fraction of the cost of not acting.

Larry Menkes — Sun, 11 May 2008 19:45:57 -0700

One of the real benefits about being part of the Post carbon Institute is the credibility it confers when we respond to irresponsible journalism. The article in question is the lead editorial in today's The Intelligencer (wwwphillyburbs/intel.com). The following was my response. I hope they print it, though at 469 words it's a bit long. They've printed longer.

RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL SUNDAY MAY 11, 2008
New energy, new conservation will cost us a tiny fraction of the cost of not acting.

The lead editorial in the May 11, Sunday edition of the Intelligencer, "Nothing's for free: new energy, new conservation will cost us", takes issue with Governor Rendell's assertion that his $850 million Green Jobs, Energy Independence Strategy (SS HB-1) will not cost the taxpayers. This "straw man" debate ignores the real and very deadly issue of the costs of continued inaction to the economy of Pennsylvania, the nation, and the world.

The proven truth is that every dollar invested in energy conservation and renewable energy has been repeatedly shown to return $4 to $10 or more in savings and benefits to taxpayers. As a trained energy auditor I see proof of that every day. Merely eliminating inefficient use and the ubiquitous waste of energy can save taxpayers billions of dollars.

Instead of haggling over what such programs will initially cost, and what they might return a little later, we do much better to look at the cost of inaction. The best work on that was the Review completed in October 2006 by Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the (UK) Government Economic Service.

"..the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more."

The editorial implies that the Governor's claim that his proposals won't cost the taxpayer anything is "nuts". What is really insane is Pennsylvania's continued failure to take meaningful local action to address global climate change. And since Pennsylvania is the third worst CO2 emitter in the United States, and twentieth worst emitter of any political jurisdiction in the world we have a lot of catching up to do. An $850 million down payment on long overdue action is chickenfeed when compared to the alternative. The possibility of inaction costing 20% of Pennsylvania's GDP "now and forever" is the real risk and the real benchmark to watch. And it's a cost our children would pay.

And that is just the financial risk. What about the secondary costs? The report concludes: "Our actions now and over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes."

Is that the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren? Is this how our generation wants to be remembered? To deny that this could happen is the greatest insanity of all.

Larry Menkes: Coordinator
ECLA PA (a Relocalization chapter of the Post Carbon Institute)
(215) 328-9128 home 267.992.8020 cell
Sustainability advisor to the Ivyland Foundation for Historical and Architectural Preservation
Bucks County Environmental Stewardship Council
Delaware Valley Green Building Council Residential Working Group

Philadelphia Organic Democracy

Tracking Saudi Oil From Space

lifetree76 — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:40:51 -0700

Sustainable Burlington

Gas prices

Toban Black — Tue, 06 May 2008 06:52:23 -0700

A YouTube video

"My response to an email circulating to '300 million people!' about boycotting major gas companies -

I'd just like to take a moment and comment on the flaw of this plan."...

---

In this video Cassandra stresses how driving less is a way to save money while doing good at the same time.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog)

Sustainable Burlington

This Company May Be the Biggest Threat to Your Future Health

Sidroney — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:41:03 -0700

On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/05/01/this-compa...
http://relocalize.net/this_company_may_be_the_biggest_threat_to_your_fut...
It is a documentary most Americans will never see, explaining how the gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years.

For millennia, farmers have saved seeds from season to season. But when Monsanto developed GM seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, Monsanto patented the seeds. For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for seed patents in a five-to-four decision, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply.

Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company. Farmers who buy Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. This means that farmers must buy new seed every year.

Monsanto puts pressure on farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers, and anyone else it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. To do this, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents. They secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops. They infiltrate community meetings. They gather information from informants about farming activities.

Some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics.

Sources:
Vanity Fair May 2008

Local Action for a Sustainable Tomorrow

Future Scenarios - David Holmgren

Sonya — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:42:38 -0700

Sustainable Maleny Project

Re: Capitalism and the Environment

Dave Ewoldt — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:47:13 -0700

On 22 Apr 2008 at 4:02, Holistek wrote:

> I want to respectfully sound a note of caution about this ideological
> capitalism/socialism dichotomy. Capitalism is not the problem, and if we think
> it is, we will go off in the wrong direction. Socialist societies have been
> just as bad for the environment as capitalist. The problem is basically human
> nature, our animal nature in fact. My wife is a biologist, we have discussed
> this many times. Every animal (indeed, every plant as well) expands its
> numbers until it is limited by some environmental factor (usually, food limits
> or predation). What is different for us is that we have been able to use
> technology to exploit the environment (basically, expand its carrying capacity
> for our own species at the expense of virtually everything else). That isn't a
> consequence of any political system, it's a consequence of our inate
> biological drives.

Hey David... I just have to chime in here (bet you didn't see this coming, huh? :-)

First, I fully agree that capitalist and socialist societies have both been bad for the environment, although I don't think equally so (let's take Sweden for our example socialist society). The main problem, as so well pointed out by Roy Morrison in "Ecological Democracy", is the mantra of industrial growth both these modern political theories adhere to. What makes capitalism worse is the additional pathology of competitive financial growth used to propel industrial growth.

It's also true that in order for a capitalist/socialist/communist society to actually function in such a manner that they deliver on their ideological promises of equitable human welfare and progress, they must be democratic. The main problem here is that capitalism is anathema to democracy as it is based on competition and screwing the other guy first. This is a slightly simplified explanation, but this is what it boils down to. The other thing that is hard for proponents of capitalism to admit to is that both capitalism and Marxism are based on the same philosophical foundation -- they are both systems of economic determinism that either devalue or dismiss as irrelevant life itself. These two systems are not diametrically opposed; they merely argue over which class gets screwed the worst. Libertarians in particular get apoplectic over this fact.

But the real reason I felt drawn to chime in here is the continued attribution to human nature behaviors which are socially caused with zero proof, merely belief bordering on religious fervor based on out of context anecdotal evidence, of the veracity of these claims.

Part of what I have a hard time understanding is how can anyone make statements such as this without becoming debilitated by cognitive dissonance? What evidence do you have, taking the Amazonian Yequana tribe as but one example, that they expand their base, foul their nest, or act aggressively? If they don't, then it can't be claimed that it is an immutable aspect of human nature to develop those behaviors. For more background on a more natural perspective of human nature, see this interview from 1998 with Jean Liedloff, author of "The Continuum Concept."

Because we do seem to agree that many, if not all, of our current personal, social, and environmental problems stem from a way of thinking and being that disconnects us from both what we consider to be the natural world, as well as from each other (although they're really just different manifestations of the same thing).

But then you posit as true stories that spring from the exact mindset that is causing the problems. Reductionism, facticity, and separation all supply the theoretical foundation for modern biology to make statements that rationalize the worst of human behaviors as natural, instead of seeing these behaviors as reactions to traumas that are close to untenable. Enlightenment thinking involves seeing life as a machine in a clockwork universe, and blindly adhering to genetic impulses perched at the top of a hierarchy of needs.

Biologists must strictly adhere to this worldview; otherwise their world simply falls apart. The entire paradigm that modern biology works within is disconnected from and fundamentally at odds with the life they are seeking to understand. The world we have created today is rife with evidence of the actual outcomes of obstinately clinging to this ultimately destructive paradigm.

One of the arguments biologists like to use to rationalize their worldview, which you allude to, is intraspecies competition for limited resources within an ecosystem. Invasive species are often invoked to support this argument. Now, it is true that all species expand to fill an ecological niche. But let's think about what this really means, using the example of a forest after a fire. The dynamic process a forest undergoes in these conditions is for "invasive" species to come in and take hold. But they aren't crowding anything out. They are nursing the system back to health, and reduce their population when this is accomplished. It is an example of cooperation, not competition.

Organisms and their environment co-create in a dance of reciprocity. This is nature. Only human rationality is capable of breaking this intimate bond. And again, we experience with all the rest of our dozens of senses the negative consequences of doing so.

We have not been able to "expand" the Earth's carrying capacity. This commonly repeated statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what carrying capacity is. Carrying capacity is a dynamic process amongst population, consumption, and waste assimilation that maintains the conditions necessary for the sustainability of self-organizing life-affirming relationships.

Humans have dramatically and negatively gone beyond carrying capacity boundaries, which is why we have resource depletion and a toxic environment. Natural systems can not create at the same phenomenal rate at which we can destroy. And the only reason we act this way is because we have created a system that doesn't allow our natural expectations of fulfillment to be met in any manner that could be considered natural. Our entire modern society is built on providing addictive substitutes through force-based ranking hierarchies of domination that depend on nurturing fear. This is everything but natural.

> Now, the issue facing us is whether we can come to terms with this, as a
> conscious species, and modify our nature through conscious choice. If we can,
> it will be the first time ever, for any species.

I don't think we need to modify our nature. What we need to do is pay attention to what it is trying to tell us, and not for the first time ever. But, what often tends to happen at this point in the argument is that people get accused of "romanticizing" indigenous cultures. While some people do, of course, take this to extremes, all this accusation really does is shut down the discussion, because it carries the implicit assumption that romanticizing is non-rational and thus irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst. And we worship rationality to the irrational conclusion that any other aspect of human nature has nothing of value to contribute.

Anyway, thanks for continuing with this conversation. It has been very helpful to me in refining my presentation to local government officials on both the necessity of relocalization and a realistic appraisal of its chances for success.

Coordinator HUB

The shrill sirens

lifetree76 — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:12:39 -0700

Coordinator HUB

Re: Choosing Possibilities

Dave Ewoldt — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:06:03 -0700

On 15 Apr 2008 at 9:41, Holistek wrote:

Your analysis is built on the repudiation of a whole set
> of human archetypal behaviours, and I think that means
> that it cannot work. We need to work with human nature as
> it is, not as we think it should be, or what we propose will
> simply fail.

Hey David... Do you disagree that humans exhibit compassion, nurturance, creativity? That humans enjoy and attempt to maximize healthy, mutually supportive relationships? That what grows is what we feed? You do seem to agree that diversity is a good thing. But this combination is what I find so confusing about the stance that you're taking.

I really believe that if humans were predisposed to acting like Mad Max, and the only thing that keeps us from this scenario is the thin veneer of civilization, then the majority of the atrocities committed by Hitler could not have occurred. Hitler and his SS shocktroops were outnumbered at least 1,000:1 and if the natural human tendency was to revert to violence, Hitler would have been done away with on short order. But humans don't tend to act violently and aggressively; they have to be manipulated and forced into it, and even then only if they can't find some other way around it.

The whole myth of archetypes, like almost all myths, does have some foundation in both subjective and objective reality. People do have tendencies, some of which are based in biology. Men tend to pee standing up. Women lactate to feed the young. The missionary position tends to be good for quickies. After that, though, it breaks down rather quickly and spectacularly.

This whole archetype story, advanced by Jung and others, is based on a set of assumptions -- those being that dominator hierarchies are "normal" and the fantasies, dreams, and nightmares that arise from them are indications of an individual's inability to adapt, not that they arise from a forced disconnection from being fully human. Archetypes, and the stereotyping that results from them, is only possible in a culture that believes in reductionism. As Ervin Laszlo says, "we sacrifice coherence on the alter of facticity."

All we have to do is look at the world around us to see the results of the dominator mindset.

Nature does not work through competition. Competition is a rationalization to excuse the worst of human behaviors. The food chain _is_ a natural aspect of life. It's part of the way life creates more life. Each organism has a role to play which is cooperative, not competitive. As long as we continue to refuse to come to terms with this reality, we will continue to work at odds with evolution -- with disastrous consequences.

There is _major_ contention regarding the theory that extinction is the result of competitive failure. It springs from the same mindset that sees the "selfish gene" as providing explanatory efficacy; that promotes individual selection over group selection and commits massive resources into denigrating the latter (see Howard Bloom's "Global Brain" for a well referenced articulation of this). In a dynamic system, the role of some species is taken up by others, or they simply become unnecessary. The majority of saplings in a climax ecosystem don't fail because there is a "ruthless competition" for light. They don't grow to maturity because carrying capacity has limits on soil nutrition, groundwater, and other factors. When, due to fire or aging of mature trees, the ecosystem has room for more saplings, they will grow to maturity. Since the exact timing of this can't be known in advance, trees create lots of seeds to be ready for this eventuality.

The so-called tension between male and female is another concept that is only possible in a dominator system. Tension assumes that differences infer either superiority or inferiority. Tension infers a loser. It ignores and/or denies the value and strength of diversity.

Cooperation is far from sterile. Cooperation is how we combine our differences to create something better. It is an intimate aspect of diversity. I don't see this as an attempt at ideological purity. It arises from being humble enough to spend five minutes in a healthy ecosystem, quieting the chatter of the monkey mind, and simply observing and experiencing what's going on around me.

If we just assume collapse, and do nothing differently, then collapse is most assuredly what we'll get. If we assume it is impossible to do things differently, because it either goes against or isn't in our nature to do so, then we cut ourselves off from possibilities. We could (there is no _rational_ reason why not) use our intelligence to look around and realize we've been quite mistaken in how we interpret the world and the human role within it, and then decide to do things differently based on taking a fresh perspective on how things seem to work.

Jung and Maslow, while bright, well-intentioned, and an order of magnitude better than totally disconnected thinkers like Freud and Skinner, still didn't quite have their finger on it. Mainly, it seems to me, because they accepted the dominator paradigm as fundamentally correct, and nature, including our inner wilderness, as something that needed to be controlled, subjugated -- transcended in some linear or color-based scheme -- in order to realize our potential. This leads to popular nonsense like Ken Wilbur being accepted by a public that is starving for a different way of being.

Coordinator HUB

Choosing Possibilities

Dave Ewoldt — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:28:00 -0700

On 14 Apr 2008 at 7:11, Holistek wrote:

> I am pleased to say that I agree with Dave here. There is more to PCI than
> personal physical preparation. And given that I think I started this particular

Hi David... Something that may have gotten lost in the discussion is that I actually agree with what you're saying here. Well, at least as far as it goes :-)

I don't disagree that we're heading for collapse, both from the perspective of overly consumptive Western civilization and from being well into the overshoot range of ecosystem carrying capacity. We've already done way too much damage, and there's no possible way to go back to the way things were, at least on a timescale relevant even to the seventh generation.

And, if we don't rationally prepare for a major change in how we relate to the world and to each other, generally bad behaviors will be the _best_ we can expect.

Some people need to be forced into change, others work for it. I don't think it is the wisest thing to do to extrapolate general behaviors based on the actions of a subset. I also think much of our cultural blindness is due to the cultural stories we've accepted, not because this blindness is a hardwired aspect of human nature.

I think a good case can be made that what we have now is not all that great, both socially and personally. There is also a whole lot of evidence that humans can do and have done things differently, as well as being able to change rather quickly. We could use, as a base for creating relationships, cooperative partnerships instead of competitive domination. It seems to me that the former is the way life was created and evolves. It would thus be both easier and require less energy.

The reason I feel that becoming aware of this possibility is of the utmost importance is because we've all been told that there's no alternative possible to the status quo, and even if there were, it would have to be worse because what we have now is the best that could ever be. There are also numerous stories based on both Eastern and Western religions that life is about suffering, that nature is a cruel and heartless mistress, and that humans are inherently flawed -- they can always be counted on to do the wrong thing.

But as our current system unravels in myriad ways, and as it becomes impossible for all but the most obstinate to continue denying it, people will need both hope that change is possible and a framework for change to plug their actions into. Relocalization not only provides these things, but combined with a process for reconnecting with nature, provides a new story that can improve quality of life because it cares for life; that it would be in our and the planet's best interests to change, even if it weren't for catastrophic climate destabilization and general resource depletion.

I very firmly believe that only in a society that intentionally disconnects people from any actual possibility (only providing empty promises) of achieving true fulfillment can you expect the worst of people. I think we can provide a story as well as functioning examples of the benefits of doing things differently that can provide both hope and opportunities that we can work mitigate the worst aspects of collapse and work together to create a sustainable future based on ecological wisdom and social justice. This is what the vast majority of people actually want.

Yes, we may (as a society) refuse to accept this challenge. But that doesn't mean we should all decide not to even bother trying or even putting any effort into making people aware of the possibility, even as we remain honest about the worst that might happen.

Coordinator HUB

Re: Overcoming Homelessness

Dave Ewoldt — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:44:53 -0700

On 11 Apr 2008 at 20:59, elvirawhite wrote:

> I agree with your comment that we should overcome our fear of the other.
> I think you mean that we could then take in the homeless and remove the problem.

Hi Elvira... well, that's part of it, but let me expand a bit on what I see the true power of relocalization to be.

It does start with overcoming our fear of the other, but it's more than just taking in the homeless. It means giving every human the opportunity to be a responsibly contributing member of their community. Yes, there are true sociopaths, but let's put that unique problem aside for now. Everyone else has the need to have their senses of belonging and acceptance fulfilled.

Let's take a deep look at homelessness, especially in America. While some people are just natural nomads and perfectly content with that lifestyle, the homeless population got a big boost when the mental health hospitals started shutting down in the 1970s. It is also a sorry reflection of the way in which we honor our veterans. But homelessness is closely tied to poverty, and the fact that on the official accounting ledger of capitalism, an unemployment rate of 3-5% is deemed _necessary_, and is said to be a reflection of a healthy economy. What it really is is a way to curtail the power of labor, but that's another story.

The aspect of relocalization that addresses social equity comes into play here. Community support networks can both take care of those in need and provide means of right livelihood. I always find it instructive to point out that we could all be working two-thirds less and have full global employment and still produce all the stuff that's produced today. We could get away with not only producing much less stuff, but producing a higher quality of what we do need. Of course this doesn't contribute to economic expansion, which is why the decentralization aspect of relocalization then becomes so important.

Responsibly contributing to one's community can occur in more ways than flipping burgers or punching out rubber washers ten hours a day for a product that will be in the landfill within six months. Weeding a neighbors garden or telling stories to their children are but two of hundreds of examples of ways self-worth and esteem can be built, even in those with what we consider to be physical and mental handicaps. Decreases (not disappearance) in crime and drug addiction could also be expected from a core reordering of social relationships and more equal opportunities. Mimes, poets, janitors, teachers, caregivers, cobblers, and blacksmiths are all equally necessary to keep a community functioning with a high quality of life.

One of those synchronicities is a story my wife related to me yesterday. She's reading an historical fiction to her second grade students about the Buffalo Bill Cody show as they study the Civil War and westward expansion. The main character is a little girl whose mom paints the sets for the show. Sitting Bull, the Lakota Sioux chief who toured with the show, is baffled that so many of the children around are so poor, while other people are so very rich. He says to her (through a translator), "In my tribe, it is shameful for one to own more than the others in the tribe." It's both Interesting and hard to imagine today that whole communities lived this way at one time. I don't want to start the argument again that I'm romanticizing tribal culture. My point is only that there are other ways of being and relating that are perfectly natural -- that we can choose.

This is what informs my thinking and activism. We must have a vision for what we want, while realistically allowing ourselves to be informed by what may happen if we don't change our ways (mainly from a social perspective, but individual as well). Simply preparing for collapse is inadequate, and I really don't see it as being the best use of limited energy and resources, although the possibility must factor into our daily work, if for no other reason than to help us do our best to avoid it.

Coordinator HUB

The End of Suburbia Screening

lifetree76 — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:51:46 -0700

Start: 2008-04-20 19:00

End: 2008-04-20 20:45

Postcarbon Macomb

the Power of Community

lifetree76 — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:47:48 -0700

Start: 2008-04-19 19:00

End: 2008-04-19 20:30

Coordinator HUB

Re: Recommendation for Diesel Generator and Welder

Dave Ewoldt — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:08:27 -0700

On 12 Apr 2008 at 10:02, aangel wrote:

> Can someone please point me to a quality diesel electric generator and combined
> welder? Here is what (I think) I'm looking for: 1. diesel instead of gasoline;
> my understanding is that diesels are more reliable (I know they are more

Hi Andre'... let me just throw out a couple of ideas for consideration. I haven't kept up on manufacturers/brands, but I generally tend to discourage combined units. What I always have preferred is a unit well built for a specific purpose, as opposed to one that trys to do everything.

For the generator, I'd lean toward diesel as well, from the perspective that biodiesel is somewhat easier to create for a small community than ethanol, and based on projected supply availability, I'd go for a 1-200 gallon tank. After all, you don't have to keep it filled to the top for it to run.

The generator we had for our off-grid cabin on San Juan Island was enclosed in a small soundproofed shed that housed the welder and a small workshop (just a sturdy bench really with shelves above, and a vise on the end positioned so that long pieces could extend out the door). A good bolt and heavy duty lock kept it secure, and we could barely hear it in the house, so we didn't worry about the neighbors, although we weren't all that close on 5 acre parcels.

I have a small 120v Century wire-feed TIG welder with an argon bottle, which is a good all purpose welder and should suit your stated purposes well. Future welding rod supplies might be iffy, though, so get a couple of extra rolls. A decent set of oxy-acetylene torches/hoses/regulators isn't that expensive, doesn't require the generator to be running, plus makes some metal cutting tasks much easier. So, if you have the resources to acquire, and space to keep, I'd suggest having both. These are also good skills for trading.

When doing the electric intertie, I'd also suggest at least planning for future connection to PV, and if possible go ahead and run the wiring for a 12v lighting system that can run directly off the PV. A 12v system can also take care of a 12v backup refrigerator, and run the heating element and fan on a waterless composting toilet. These are some of the small quality of life issues than can help make hard times tolerable.

Hope this helps.

Coordinator HUB

Regional Powerdown Blog

Sonya — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:00:32 -0700

Well, it's one month today since the local council election and the amalgamation of three councils into one.

The EDAP is still being written, but in reality, we it wouldn't have been appropriate to deliver it to the old council and we need to give the new council a little breathing space before we deliver it to them.

Janet and I had a meeting with State Government this week, which was really encouraging. We have a relatively new Minister for a new portfolio called Climate Change, Sustainability and Innovation and he had already commissioned a report on oil vulnerability in our state prior to his appointment as Minister.

It was through his office that we had the meeting and discussed all the things we been setting up here on the Coast.

It all looks very promising, media interview requests are rolling in via the website as are other contacts in universities, councils and community groups around Australia.

Our next step is to meet with the new Mayor, discuss what we have done and plan to do. Keep in contact with State Govt, finish the EDAP and start developing a Transition Team Troika Network to start to really get this out in the community and around the region.

This week is very busy for me - I have meeting to plan the layout of a mock "Transition Town" at our World Environment Day celebrations in May, then on Thursday night Janet and I are presenting at a film screening of The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil which includes special guest Roberto Perez, then on Friday I'm helping Janet all day with a huge school garden seminar she has organised with 45 schools attending (teachers, principals, groundspeople and parents) to discuss how permaculture and all its uses can be incorporated into school curriculums.

On Saturday we have an all day expo on sustainability. Guest speakers include Roberto Perez, Geoff Lawton and locals Bob Cameron (sustainable business owner) and Frances Michael (Green Harvest business owner).

I'll be doing a presentation on Transition Towns and what the community can do about climate change and peak oil. Andi Hazelwood will be there talking Relocalisation and I'll also be doing a compost demonstration.

Busy times and momentum is definately building... exciting times and lots to do!

Sonya

Sustainable Maleny Project

Re: This List is Too Busy...

Dave Ewoldt — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:16:30 -0700

On 11 Apr 2008 at 19:12, Janet Millington wrote:

> end we have to count on ourselves. Katrina proved govt can’t help people on a
> large scale and business may be better but not the answer.Our govt. here can’t

Hi Janet... This is a particular hot-button of mine, so please bear with me for a moment, but it actually has more than a little bit to do with relocalization.

The only thing that Katrina "proved" was that the US government was more than willing to let a mini genocide occur against minorities and poor whites, and to permanently relocate the survivors in toxic trailers situated next to even more toxic chemical plants and petroleum refineries along Cancer Alley. This was done so they could reclaim New Orleans for the new generation of plantation owners.

The real main lesson from Katrina is that the current sociopathic executive branch of American government is hell-bent on getting the masses to agree with neoconservative "thinker" (there's an oxymoron) Grover Nordquist whose goal is to shrink government down to a size where it can be strangled to death in the bathtub.

The more people who think that government is useless and worthless, based on the example set by current right-wing administrations around the world -- although, truth be said, so called "liberal" adminstrations over the past 40 years haven't been much better -- the more willing people become to hand necessary social functions over to business, which is even _worse_ in the long run, at least if one is at all concerned about life itself.

What we need is bioregionally networked systems of goverance that work for the planet and all species. Let's not let ourselves become blind to the necessity of government, especially while free-market forces are still allowed to roam free, just because of the current sorry examples of government we're suffering under.

> house homeless even after 17 years of economic growth….the homeless figures
> have doubled so how can they help in a recession or a decline (of fuels)?

Allowing the homeless situation to continue as is, when it could have been dealt with centuries ago, serves no other purpose but to keep the masses in line. It's the fear that if we don't keep our noses to the grindstone -- which is an absolute necessity in order for the Exxon CEO to deposit his $30 million salary (as it serves no other purpose that I can see) -- we'll be out in the street.

> So we need everyone in a community or region….even a neighbourhood, to
> share their skills, knowledge, resources and experience. When you have all
> learned all you can from each other then each person then focuses on a direction
> that they are strong in ….housing, water, transport, advocacy, food, clothing,
> communication, health etc and they go and find out all they can and they bring

But you are so correct in that this is what we must do. Build the social safety nets that are missing in a culture that breeds a fear of the other, from which springs the sense of isolation and alienation so commonly expressed today. If we were to overcome our fear of the other, homelessness would disappear.

Coordinator HUB

Re: Addressing technical & web support issues

Dave Ewoldt — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:50:03 -0700

On 11 Apr 2008 at 14:51, asher wrote:

> respond to coordinate@, please be sure you are sending from the right
> address. If you are still experiencing issues, however, let us know.

Ok, I'll give this another try and see if this reply makes it to the list. As
I've mentioned, the above isn't my problem, as I only have one eddress.

> * Cleaning Up Forum Threads. We understand that one of the
> draw backs of the> mailing list is that the entire discussion thread
> gets reposted on the web site with each individual reply.

This only happens (automatically, anyway) if you reply _on_ the website, as you
aren't given the option to either delete the message you're replying to, or even
(that I've been able to figure out) to quote only the portion you wish to
respond to (as I'm doing here). Some forum software has this ability, but this
requires a full-featured editor with links to the message database, and not just
a very large text box that can do some HTML markup.

When this happens when someone replies in their own e-mail reader/editor, then
it's appropriate to give a mini lesson on netiquette.

> Forum Privacy
>
> We´ve received a number of questions and complaints about privacy in group
> forums. Without belaboring the point, there are is no perfect solution in
> establishing privacy rules for groups: Making groups more private makes it
> more difficult and thus less likely for new members to join. Making groups
> less

My relocalization group is open to the public. If someone has something they
want to say in private, that's what e-mail is for, either to an individual, or
to a limited distribution list.

In regard to the suggestion from Andre' to set the default "reply-to" field, this will only be effective for those whose mail editors are also set to use the reply-to field. Most decent mail editors allow the user to select the default handling of this option. Mine is set to reply to the "from" field, which will most often send it to the list it came from, and not the poster, although every time I reply I get a pop-up dialog box allowing me to change the default setting. My number one suggestion to people who use e-mail alot is to get a decent mail editor, like Pegasus, instead of that semi brain-dead MS Lookout that assumes Microsoft knows better than the entire Internet community how to handle e-mail.

P.S. Well, it's been over an hour now since I sent this reply by e-mail, and it still hasn't showed up in the forum, so I'm manually pasting my reply and entering this bit after logging into the website. For the techies, here's the log entry from my mail server, so I know it was accepted without errors on your end:
20080411170429-0700:SMTP-Deliver:20080412000126471.AAB126@lazarus.reststop.net:Delivered:2859:ns2.greenseek.net::

Good luck with this, and thanks so much for all the good work and effort all of you put in to making this system available to us.

Coordinator HUB

Addressing technical & web support issues

asher — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:49:26 -0700

My apologies for hitting you all with two topics on the same day (especially when so many of you are already feeling overwhelmed by emails!), but I wanted to address some of the more pressing and common technical issues people are having and to ask for your feedback on an important site question.

Technical/Web Support Issues

Issues emailing to coordinate@. A number of people have told us they can’t reply to the mailing list. What we’ve found in most cases is that this is due to people attempting to email the list from an email address not associated with their account. This is an understandable confusion, particularly if you have multiple email accounts that you read through clients like Microsoft Outlook or you have mail aliases. Therefore, if you are experiencing this issue, please visit your account page to be sure to which email address your subscription belongs. To do this, see our FAQ here. Whenever you email or respond to coordinate@, please be sure you are sending from the right address. If you are still experiencing issues, however, let us know.
Changing Mailing List Subscription. If you would like to change how often you are receiving emails from the mailing list, please see detailed instructions here.
Cleaning Up Forum Threads. We understand that one of the draw backs of the mailing list is that the entire discussion thread gets reposted on the web site with each individual reply. This can make the forums extremely long and cumbersome to read. We are looking into developing a way to minimize these. But in the meantime, I’m sure everyone else would really appreciate it if you took the time to delete the existing thread from your email when you reply.
Log in Issues. A couple of you have expressed issues when you log in, specifically that you are asked to create a new password each time you visit the site. Our technical team is looking at this issue as we speak (I won’t bore you with the technical acrobatics involved).
Other technical/web support issues. We’ve set up a specific email address for all technical issues or web support questions: websupport at relocalize dot net. Please feel free to email us at this address if you encounter any issues or need assistance. Emailing to this address will help us respond more quickly.

Forum Privacy

We’ve received a number of questions and complaints about privacy in group forums. Without belaboring the point, there are is no perfect solution in establishing privacy rules for groups: Making groups more private makes it more difficult and thus less likely for new members to join. Making groups less private makes it more difficult for members to speak candidly, thus making it more challenging to share information and make members feel confident they are in a trusted space.

Based on all the input we’ve received, we’d like to recommend that we make all group forums private from now on. This would allow groups to maintain an area that they could be sure was private and secure for their members (we are working right now to make sure that the “Recent Comments” box on the homepage does not include comments from private forums), while still having the ability to make other areas (events, blogs, news, etc) public.

But before taking any steps, we’d like to hear from you. Do you wish to keep your group’s forums public?

Thanks,

Asher

Coordinator HUB

Ensuring that the mailing list benefits everyone.

asher — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:34:01 -0700

To all on the CoordinatorHUB,

First, I just want to let you know that we’ve been closely observing the recent dialogue taking place via the mailing list. We didn't step in earlier because we want the discussions and knowledge sharing that takes place here to be driven by you all. But we’re glad to see a vibrant discussion taking place. At the same time, we're sensitive to the perspective of those who are feeling, well, a little overwhelmed by the sheer number of responses.

That said, I want to respond en masse to some of the concerns people are having about the number and nature of comments on the mailing list.

Comments to the Mailing List:

As in any dialogue amongst a group this size, what is of value or interest is subjective. Many of you are eager to engage in the big questions associated with personal behavior change, psychology, societies, etc. Others are more focused on practical applications. We want the Relocalization Network to be a forum for both of these, and more, but recognize that like any other community, each of us have to choose for ourselves what works best. All we ask is that we treat one another with respect.

One practical solution we’re exploring is either creating multiple mailing lists for groups (so, in this case, a mailing list for projects and a separate one for theory) or allowing members to subscribe/unsubscribe to individual discussion threads. But this requires some work on the technical end. So, in the meantime, we ask each of you to recognize that the CoordinatorHUB can serve a different purpose for different people. With that in mind, I have a couple of specific requests/recommendations:

Before replying to the mailing list, please ask yourself whether your comment in meant specifically for one person or the whole group. By changing the “reply to” email address to the person(s) you wish to reach (to say thanks, ask an off-topic question, etc.) you will save a lot of others time.
If you prefer to receive fewer emails, you can change your subscription settings. There are two options: You can receive a digest (one email a day that serves as a summary) or you can unsubscribe from the list (which means you will no longer receive emails from the mailing list but can read and respond to comments on the website). Please note: We are double checking right now to make sure that there are no kinks in the daily digest. If you experience any issues with this, please let us know at: websupport at relocalize dot net.

To change your settings, visit your “My Subscription” Page on the Coordinator HUB. Under the “Group Email Messages” heading, you will see your current configuration. Below are detailed instructions for how to do this, or you can see this handy visual demonstration that Shelby made.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHANGING MAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS
If you see the following three options (web only; individual mail; digest) under the “Group Email Messages” heading:

Select the best option for you. (Bear in mind that if you select “web only” you will not be notified of any new discussions happening in the Coordinator HUB forum.)
Click on the Submit button at the bottom of the page. At the top of the page you will see a box appear that says “Subscription saved” in green.

If you see “Your personal profile is configured to: Always receive email notifications:"

Click on the personal profile link. This will take you to the page where you can edit your personal account settings.
Scroll to the bottom of the page until you see the heading “Email notifications.”
Click on the option “Selectively send email notification based on the checkbox for each of my group's My Subscription page.”
Scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the Submit button.
Go back to the CoordinatorHUB “My Subscription” Page. You can either do so by following this link or clicking on CoordinatorHUB in the “My Groups” box on the right side of the page and then clicking on the “my subscription” link under the heading “MEMBERSHIP.” You will now see that you have three options under the “Group Email Messages” heading:
- Web only
- Individual mail
- Digest
Select the best option for you. (Bear in mind that if you select “web only” you will not be notified of any new discussions happening in the Coordinator HUB forum.)
Click on the Submit button at the bottom of the page. At the top of the page you will see a box appear that says “Subscription saved” in green.

You should now be all set.

I hope that we can all move forward to have rich, engaging, beneficial discussions while respecting everyone’s limited time. I, for one, am truly glad to see the level of engagement and critical thinking taking place here.

Best,

Asher

Coordinator HUB

Re: This List is Too Busy...

Dave Ewoldt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:23:46 -0700

On 10 Apr 2008 at 9:01, denise4peace wrote:

> I thought the Coordinator's Hub list was for sharing ideas (as I did with my
> original posting about the Suburban Ecovillage Project andvarious activities
> we're involved in here) about how we can more effectively motivate and guide our
> various relocalization efforts.

Hmm, I thought that's what we were doing. There is more to relocalization than planting organic veggies in your backyard, water harvesting, passive solar techniques, and decreasing our individual eco-footprints. Just about all you have to do to find details on any of that is search the Mother Earth News archives. But please don't think I'm devaluing any of that, as it is all also necessary for a sustainable future, and I'm involved in those aspects as well.

Part of the relocalization effort includes getting local government and the business community to go along with instituting widespread policy changes, such as steady-state economies and rebuilding urban environments to be not only walkable, but to deliver a sense of security as well. An aspect of this is getting the support of your neighbors. This often requires explaining to all the parties involved that change is both necessary and, perhaps more importantly, possible, and being able to deal effectively with their fears and uncertainties.

Anyway, that's my motivation for engaging in this conversation. While there may be aspects of it that appear esoteric, it directly relates to the relocalization work I'm actively engaged in.

I mean, this list should be busy, as we've all got a whole lot of work to do in a number of different realms. Each of those realms calls to us each differently in the expression of our passions. But as they say, it's going to take us all.

Coordinator HUB

Re: Lifeboats and collapse - expanding the dialog

Dave Ewoldt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:44:27 -0700

On 10 Apr 2008 at 2:52, Holistek wrote:

> The key insight to this whole question of culture is to
> really get that at present cultures are unconscious, by
> which I mean that people are not aware of the processes
> by which they reach their opinions about what is right
> action and right thinking, what those opinions are really
> based on,

I don't think cultures are unconscious in the sense I think you are using it. All one need do is notice the steadily increasing number of people who are aware of what's going on and why. Cultures _can_ be setup, though, to keep as many people in the dark and believing in disconnecting stories as possible in order to retain control in the hands of the few. Connecting the dots is something just about anyone can do who puts their mind to it. We're wired for it, even if that ability has atrophied.

People may not weigh all relevant factors in a particular decision, and most of the time it's actually not necessary that they do. After all, life has evolved to support life. For any species that remains within its ecosystem's carrying capacity, about 99% of its time is spent in abundance, enjoying and finding fulfillment in the unconditional love and acceptance of a nurturing world. This includes acceptance at some level of its own role in the food web.

That we have consciously (and I believe that denial is a conscious, if not admitted, phenomena) allowed ourselves to be put in a situation at odds with life, that we accept this situation as normal, and create complex rationalizations (such as "decision efficiencies" based on the industrial model) for why our created plight is actually superior does little more than nurture the root of global crises. It is hardly conducive to maximizing our potential.

I guess my core argument boils down to the fact that we humans, due to dominator control hierarchies that have intentionally disconnected from the way nature works (and which create our seeming paradoxes and dualisms), have created a dire situation that is headed for catastrophe and massive suffering -- perhaps even the end of life on Earth. While we can't immediately (or on a time scale relevant to an individual human life) reverse the damage we've already caused, we can realize that we've done this based on nothing more than a story we tell ourselves, and we could say to ourselves, "Oh, I guess we've royally fucked up." Upon doing so, we could decide to create a new story that is as holistically integrated with the creative direction of life as we can, based on the rational, emotional, and spiritual knowledge we've gained over thousands of years. It would be both perfectly natural and rational to do so.

The first step on this journey to a sustainable future based on ecological wisdom and social justice is to start implementing the process of relocalization, become fully aware of what all this means and entails, and the numerous ways that it can improve what the majority of people mean when they talk about quality of life. Relocalization is a systemic alternative to the life-threatening and soul-deadening status quo. Just about the only people who will "suffer" from its implementation are central bankers and insurance salesmen.

The evidence is abundant that people can make new choices. This is, after all, the core of the scientific method. The mere fact that people don't always make new or even good choices does not in _any_ way invalidate the fact that they can.

So, it's up to us. Do we want to plan and work on creating a new future, while remaining aware of the fact that people who are disconnected will require differing levels of support in getting reconnected, or do we want to isolate ourselves from the world and plan on a Mad Max transition, if not a totally dystopic future? When it comes to humanity, the overwhelming evidence is that what we plan for is what we get.

Coordinator HUB

Planning for Peak Oil in Logan (Qld, Australia)

Kim — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:28:22 -0700

Coordinator HUB

Re: Lifeboats and collapse - regression?

Dave Ewoldt — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:09:14 -0700

On 8 Apr 2008 at 19:51, Larry Menkes wrote:

leadership might be at it's best. But, in an addictive, sibling society,
> shouldn't we be preparing for potential of mass regression under acute stress,

Hi Larry... well, this is the part I've been wondering about. When I look at Western civilization as being a forced situation that requires massive amounts of energy to control and maintain, as the energy fades and the fog lifts, people will be "regressing" to a more normal state of being. So much of the stress seems to arise from the way we're living now. While there is always a certain amount of stress associated with uncertainty, would it be more or less from what they suffer from now if people were aware they had an opportunity to improve their actual quality of life?

The big question seems to be what is our "normal" state of being? Are we naturally meant to be in harmony with the creative force from which we have emerged, or are we meant to toil at odds with it? The latter just doesn't make any rational sense to me. But the dominator control story, based on force-based ranking hierarchies that depend on engendering fear of the other, which arises from unmet natural expectations for fulfillment, explains quite a bit. It also lays the foundation for what we could naturally do differently.

is a really apt metaphor, but there's a lot of denial. A few years back, when I
> opened a sustainability workshop like it was the beginning of a meeting of
> Oilaholics Anonymous, the audience didn't quite know how to respond, and very
> few got the joke until I explained it. Larry

A number of years ago we were invited to table with other local non-profits at an event sponsored by a large regional shopping mall. It was their way of trying to show how much they cared about their local community and environment. I put a big sign above our table that said, "We can help you overcome your addiction to shopping." The mall management was not amused.

Coordinator HUB

Re: Lifeboats and collapse - expanding the dialog

Dave Ewoldt — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:42:37 -0700

On 8 Apr 2008 at 13:42, Holistek wrote:

>DS reply: being disconnected from nature is an essential
>part of the learning of adolescence.Carl Jung explained
>that we can't learn paradoxical thinking directly: we have
>to learn one side, then the other, then integrate

Herein lies our core philosophical difference. We cannot disconnect from nature, and in the futile attempt to do so we plant the seed of our ultimate destruction. Nature provides all of our sustenance. Nature, of which humans are an intimate and inextricable aspect, is necessary for our physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being.

Disconnection from nature makes the integration you speak of impossible. Disconnection is what allows us to believe in hierarchies and human specialness -- which is subtlely but importantly different from uniqueness.

Freud, Jung, and all the rest only make sense if we accept all the underlying premises of Western Enlightenment thinking, the most damaging of which is that humans are separate from nature, and that nature -- including our own inner nature -- is something to be feared and controlled. If someone has problems adapting to this way of thinking and being, then they are diagnosed as pathological in some manner and must be treated or locked away from "civilized" people. Our dreams and desires are interpreted as being expressions of our inability or fear of not being able to fit in or adapt to a society said to be normal, instead of being examined as an indicator of a deeply wounding trauma.

This relates to the problem I see with many of the stage models of either development or response, which is their assumption of mechanistic linearity. Now, sometimes it does make sense to use this model, in limited contexts, but even then we tend to forget that it's a model, and not reality. We think something's wrong if someone skips a stage, or requires more or less time in a stage than "average", or regresses to a previous stage, or if we don't allow context to play a part in the relative importance or order of stages.

What I see as a great danger here is equating childhood with Aboriginal. The fact that we have shinier toys does _not_ make us more advanced. Rationality is only one small aspect of being human which. unfortunately, we have elevated in importance to the detriment of our psychological and spiritual health and well-being. Clinging to technology and rationality as the evidence mounts that they either don't work or must be tempered with other ways of knowing is pathological. It is the basis of Einstein's remark that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We are not descending into adolescence, we are refusing to mature beyond it.

When it comes to hierarchies, we tend to confuse size with importance. We think the oak tree is more important than the mushroom. We see the food chain as having a top and bottom, instead of realizing that it is a circle in which each organism contributes chemical changes necessary to the organisms on either side of it.

I also must state that I am not anti-technology. I remain a geek at heart. Other species build shelter and use tools and rudimentary technology to gather food. I think the Internet, as a peer-to-peer system where computers act as both generals and privates depending on context, serves as an excellent example of technology deployment. I think the promise of technology to deliver increased quality leisure time can be fulfilled -- but that's not how we're allowing it to be used today. We are using it as an addictive substitute for natural expectations of fulfillment in a culture that has become disconnected from who they really are and have thus made it impossible to ever reach their potential.

Coordinator HUB

Re: Lifeboats and collapse - expanding the dialog

Dave Ewoldt — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:52:19 -0700

An excellent challenge, David, and thank you for stating it so clearly and honestly. I hope the following flows coherently enough. I started jotting down some ideas as I read through your message, more thoughts occurred as I read a few messages from other participants, then I fleshed them out and added more. If this were to be a stand-alone article, there are a few paragraphs that I would reorder and reorganize. Anyway...

I too have been proven wrong more than once, and am quite willing to change my mind. Not only based on rational input, but on sensual and spiritual information as well -- both directly experienced and by proxy. I see the human species and society, as well as the rest of the universe, as a dynamic unfolding process. Whenever anything quits changing -- becomes static or reaches equilibrium -- that means it is dead. But even then it actually continues changing as it transforms into new and different life. From the perspective I hold based on natural systems principles, death is an entirely human invented concept; it doesn't exist in the natural world. All life contributes to more life in an expanding network of complex relationships.

So, let's further this inquiry by seeing if we have some fundamental agreement on some core principles and concepts. We come from the Earth, we're part of nature, and healthy climax ecosystems exhibit the core aspects of what we mean by sustainability over a time-frame measured in centuries. And, that this time-frame is meaningful in the human context, even if we don't currently don't seem to have a lot of experience in using it for planning.

If we can agree on these fundamental concepts, let's both see where they lead, and analyze what we have now that diverges from these core agreements. Because my goal really isn't to convince you, but to lay a rational and sensual framework where you come to this conclusion on your own. My core belief is that if we're brutally honest about what we're actually facing, from whence it springs, and what we actually have to work with then we can create effective responses. I believe humans have an innate ability to do this. Yes, there are roadblocks, and the current system has quite a bit of inertia. But let's be honest about what we could do in order to focus our energies on creating the sustainable future that appears to be a common goal while being smart enough to have fallback plans.

I also have to ask if you're really taking the stance that people _can't_ change through rational, conscious choice? This seems quite silly, as all we have to do is notice that collapse has yet to occur, yet thousands of people are joining the voluntary simplicity movement -- to point out only one of dozens of examples from the alternative lifestyle movement. Many of these people were pulling in six figure salaries and had their "dream" house on the hill.

The tentacles of modern culture are deep, tenacious, and myriad. What I see in many of the assumptions of the changes that will result as this system collapses is at their foundation lies an acceptance of the correctness and immutability of the dominator control hierarchies of the current system that created all the problems; that the fear based exploitive story that has created the problems will continue to hold sway even after no one can continue to deny it is nonfunctional from a sustainability perspective. Social chaos and anarchy assume that this violent, individualistic root is both normal and without alternative. If we're to truly do things differently, then this root must be replaced in order to have a foundation that will support the systemic changes necessary.

Planning for the end result of Peak oil and the collapse of the doomsday economy, which will be a sustainable society, will entail a fundamental shift in our relationship with the "other" to one that both accepts and enhances an interconnected and interdependent unity.

One of the things I'm trying to do is get people to examine their assumptions, and open up to possibilities they may not have imagined possible due to the cultural stories we've all been bombarded with all our lives. These stories say in different ways that there is no alternative; alternatives are not possible; alternatives would make things even worse. The way of the world is to be competitive and aggressive.

It's a view that ignores the manner in which living systems have evolved to create mutually supportive relationships; that is not willing to admit or even consider that a healthy, vibrant, resilient ecosystem is sustainable; that refuses to admit that humans embody those same principles since we are a part of nature; that we emerge from a living world; that we could look to sustainable ecosystems for the models and metaphors necessary for humans to create social systems and institutions that exhibit the same degree of sustainability.

I hope I haven't been mistaken as saying I think we can prevent the changes that are occurring in the biosphere due to anthropogenic catastrophic climate destabilization, or that we can (or even should) find some miracle replacement energy source that will allow the Industrial Growth Society to continue basically unabated. This is all that the call to "green" consumption is, as well as all other attempts to mitigate catastrophe through techno-fixes while protecting economic growth without admitting that economic growth is a fundamental aspect of the current global crises. In looking to sustainable ecosystems for examples, I have to ask where the central bank of the worms is where they charge usury rates to the oak trees for their ecological services.

I mean, humans are naturally inquisitive and inventive. They don't require financial incentives to remain this way. In fact, I would argue that financial incentives more often than not get in the way and derail many worthwhile attempts at improving the human condition and preserving natural resources.

What I do think we can plan for is a transition that doesn't bring the uglier aspects of humanity to the fore, while remaining diligent to those possibilities. But staying on guard to those possibilities isn't the same as planning for them. It's much like the whole growth debate in urban development -- growth is what you get when that's what you plan for.

And, of course, if we just give up and don't even try, then chaos, deprivation, and mass suffering will most likely be our fate.

One thing I think is idealistic is thinking that we can continue as we are (an aspect of which assumes we are immune to the consequences of carrying capacity), or not make the necessary changes to become truly sustainable, and still avoid extinction as we continue destroying the ability of the food chain to support life. I see this in the calls for building little enclaves of eco-villages away from civilization. Now, in theory, these could provide wonderful examples people can draw from as we fundamentally recast our social infrastructure to be in harmony with the natural world. However, one of the things missing today are healthy relationships between cultures. An interdependent world can't exist in separation or isolation. We also must realize that we can't continue breaking new ground. We've already broken too much ground. What we must do is mitigate the destruction we tend to thoughtlessly inflict as we rebuild.

It seems as if we all agree that things are changing, will change even more, and that there are some things that are going to occur that we can't plan for because they simply can't be foreseen. We seem to agree that a sustainable future is going to be necessary that doesn't use up the Earth's resources faster than they can be replenished, regenerated, and recharged. This requires being honest about population overshoot

In my critique of Pinker, I put him in the category of thinkers whose philosophy springs from the well of Cartesian dualism, Newtonian mechanics, and Enlightenment reductionism. These are all incomplete at best because they are divorced from the system they necessarily exist within. Not only do these schools of thought not adhere to the principles of natural systems, they dismiss them as irrelevant and immaterial.

This has fundamental ramifications for our on-the-ground responses and actions in creating a system that doesn't repeat the problems that emerge from a fundamentally disconnected world view.

One of the reasons I point out the research studies that I draw from is to counter the arguments that we couldn't do things differently even if we wanted to because it's not in our nature to do so. These studies point out that not only is it in our nature to do so, but it would require less energy expenditure because it is in keeping with the actual direction of the creative life force that is an intimate aspect of who we really are.

I'm not trying to convince you that you're incorrect, but that there may be possibilities that you haven't considered, or have discounted due to incomplete analysis, or based on a story whose own assumptions are based on ideas that run counter to living in harmony with the natural world. I'm saying that there may be a more productive, and less time consuming, way of reaching our common goal of a sustainable future, that moves more directly toward that future and is more in keeping with what we're coming to understand is the creative force of life itself, and has a greater possibility of delivering those benefits people say they want from life.

The idea that we have to take baby steps, settle for compromise, and can't expect people to change too drastically or quickly is all nonsense. It is a story that has been promulgated by the powers that be in order to ensure that nothing really changes that negatively impacts existing control structures. This has been the mantra of the progressive movement in American since the late 1800s. This is why power has become more entrenched and the overall situation of the planet and the vast majority of people has deteriorated. It is part and parcel of the regulatory environment set up by banking and industry to ensure they didn't get regulated, but that people did. As has been pointed out by many people in many contexts, in the global growth economy we don't regulate pollution, we license it. This is the core philosophy behind all the carbon trading and offset scams, which all do somewhere between little and nothing to actually decrease overall global greenhouse gas emissions. But they do make certain financial sectors more money.

And so, here is the core crux of my argument: One of the things I've learned from the ecopsychology process of reconnecting with nature, is that when people do more than rationally understand their connection and place in the web of life, but sensuously experience it is well, and then begin the process to integrate these two ways of knowing, they consciously desire to begin making new choices without having a brick fall on their head. It is often said that people won't fight to save what they don't love.

I fully agree with you that Gore, Suzuki, Lovins, Hawken, et. al. are merely advocating reform and not the fundamental change necessary. This will be too little too late.

Yes, we may fail in this endeavor. But I believe that assuming the worst, or that we're incapable of better, does little more than ensure that despair and loss of hope is part of our planning process and thus increases the likelihood of failure.

Coordinator HUB

Community and bioregion inventory mapping

Dave Ewoldt — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:28:25 -0700

On 7 Apr 2008 at 11:32, Sarah Edwards wrote:

Steve, do I get you right? Are you saying it's past time to map an inventory
> of our communities and bioregions? I wouldn't agree with this. We don't know
> how late is too late and any progress made will most liking be better than
> none when

I'd have to agree with Steve. It's long past time to begin the mapping process,
especially if we want to prioritize transition steps to a sustainable future.

What we're doing without a complete environmental, social, and economic
inventory of our communities and bioregions is pretending to plan while
remaining in the dark and too fearful to reach for the light switch. One of the
primary reasons inventory mapping hasn't been done in any holistic way is that
it would be near impossible for any local planning department to continue the
business as usual approach of approving any development plan presented that
simply includes the appropriate permit fees. Especially of their local councils
and mayors have signed on to any of the initiatives for sustainable development
such as the Earth Charter, or Council of Mayors agreement on global warming.

Our planet is well into the overshoot range. The core mandate of any government
that purports to be democratic is to protect the commons. State Supreme Courts
have ruled that human health and safety trumps vested development rights. These
scientific, political, and legal facts provide a basis to work from. A
comprehensive sustainability inventory (also known as a growth threshold
standard) would give local planning departments the legal documents they need to
deny building permits, as well as provide local governments with a framework for
deciding what's necessary for beginning the relocalization process and what they
have to work with.

As you know, Sarah, we've developed a process (the Community Assessment and
Sustainability Inventory) for doing this. What we're trying to find is a
community whose leaders have the foresight and courage to implement it. It's not
a cookie cutter approach, as each bioregion (and watersheds within bioregions)
is unique, but carrying capacity requirements can be calculated to the degree
necessary to start the process. Since it's a dynamic framework and not a recipe,
it also allows the process to be fine-tuned as feedbacks emerge and can be fed
back into the system.

For the Earth...
_dave_(this entire message is composed of recycled electrons)
Natural Systems Solutions
http://www.attractionretreat.org/NSS
http://naturalsystems.blogspot.com
Sustainable lifestyles, organizations, and communities

Coordinator HUB

Lifeboats and collapse - expanding the dialog

Dave Ewoldt — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:12:16 -0700

One thing about taking a deep and reflective look at the natural systems processes that keep an ecosystem healthy, vibrant, and resilient is that it gives one an entirely different perspective on how any living organism -- in particular humans -- could be doing things differently. While some people like to insist that humans aren't ruled by the laws of nature, and continue to believe that humans can actually control nature, they generally tend to confuse making an absolute mess of things with controlling things.

This is the situation we find ourselves in today -- a major mess due to our disconnection with the natural world. This is not mere philosophical musing, but based on real world experience from my ecotherapy practice and work with local governments and businesses.

Humans are amazingly resilient and resourceful. Positing that we could "readily and elegantly" transition to a better way of relating to and being in the world is hardly a fantasy, as change to better support life is the one thing the universe does best. Neither do I find it naive nor hopelessly optimistic, because it is based on empirical evidence from a number of different fields. It also draws from indigenous wisdom thousands of years old.

I'll briefly list just a few of the scientific ones I use in my research and work:

* Neuroanatomist Marian Diamond's pioneering work at UC Berkeley on enriched vs. impoverished environments that showed significant (measurable) neuronal growth in as little as 45 minutes by going from an impoverished to an enriched environment. Today, we live in an impoverished environment in more ways than one. It takes slightly more than flashing web ads and game boxes to enrich a cultural environment built on isolation and Madison Avenue shallowness, as well as myriad losses of natural fulfillment from a degraded natural environment.

* Paulo Freire's literacy work with indigenous people in South American. People that the Western mind would assert were incapable of literacy could become literate in as little as three weeks with only two conditions being met: 1) teach them who, and/or what, was oppressing them, and 2) teach them what they could do about it.

* The study from the early 1960s by Breland and Breland that explained the spectacular failures of operant conditioning in radical behaviorism. All species quickly revert to more natural behaviors as soon as the artificial stimulus is removed, or as the subjects are moved closer to their natural environment. That is, operant conditioning is really only effective for any length of time in an artificial, sterile environment that can be constantly controlled. This leads directly to...

* Affluenza. American economist John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out in the late 1950s that people don't actually desire more stuff once basic needs have been fulfilled. Maintaining consumer culture requires massive energy and a 24x7 effort to manipulate people into doing things they wouldn't do of their own free will.

* The concept from wilderness therapy that culture is only three days deep. It takes an average of three days for people to leave the stress, depression, and worries of their daily, industrial lives behind when they go on three week wilderness excursions. The reverse is also true. It takes three days to get back to those same pathological levels when they return to the artificial world of Western civilization.

* America is ranked 149 out of 150 countries on the happiness scale; 50% of Americans take at least one prescription drug daily, with 20% relying on 3 or more; the average American's body burden is over 90 toxic chemicals and industrial pollutants. The guiding principle of American psychiatry is to make people feel sane about living in an insane world.

However, as J. Krishnamurti said, "It is not a sign of good health to be well-adjusted to a sick society." The majority of people today would love to do something differently -- to get out of the rat race. Numerous studies over the past 60 or so years have shown that the things people actually want are inherently sustainable: to have more time with family and friends, pursue education, spend more time in nature, develop personal pursuits... to have more quality leisure time in general. However, since none of these enrich the captains of industry, instead of more quality leisure time, Americans spend about one billion working hours per year in order to buy more leisure wear.

It is hardly "nostalgic nonsense" to point out that some Indian tribes planned for the seventh generation. To simply dismiss out of hand this fact because some of them overhunted, ignores that one of the better known instances of this -- the hunting to extinction of the North American elephant by the West Coast tribes -- was followed by the realization that they screwed up and so they changed their pattern of living with the land so it didn't happen again. Western civilization has yet to achieve this level of cultural advancement and maturity. Just because we have iPods and bunker-busters doesn't mean our technological prowess makes us better.

To buy into the intellectual paucity of revisionism such as Steven Pinker's is to believe a story that rationalizes the worst of human nature to help sell the myth that what we have now is the best that could ever be. If you're going to use the appeal to authority, at least be honest about that authority's standing in the cult of the technofetishist along with its other reductionist luminaries like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. This is like quoting Fred Singer on global warming.

Does it really make any sense to throw out everything another culture did simply because they did one thing wrong? We're supposed to be an intelligent species with the ability to learn from our mistakes, even if we seem to rarely demonstrate this ability, or if pop culture refuses to acknowledge it. Can't we take a good aspect of one culture, combine it with the good aspects of other cultures, and create something even better with the advancements in knowledge we possess?

One of the chief arguments for maintaining the status quo is that it is human nature to be domineering, aggressive, and competitive and we can't act differently. However, other cultures put the lie to this assertion. It is every bit as much a part of human nature to be nurturing, compassionate, and cooperative. In fact, the aspects of human nature that we choose to nurture are the ones that grow and flourish. Change begins with making new or different choices. Pointing out that there are examples from our past of people making conscious decisions to live more in harmony with the natural world and attempt to provide for their offspring's future is hardly a call to return to the cave, start carrying water, chopping wood, and dancing naked around the campfire with feathers stuck in our butts -- regardless of the fact that many people derive great satisfaction from doing so. This is merely an example of natural diversity at work, a diversity from which we derive our greatest strength.

I really have a hard time seeing the above leap in logic as anything more than either intellectual dishonesty or immaturity. I don't want this to seem either gruff or demeaning, and please try not to take it that way. What I do think we all should spend more time doing, though, is to deeply and honestly examine our assumptions and seek to determine from whence they have arisen. Who profits? Whose sacred cow remains ungored?

This even entails the terms we choose to use to describe our situation. If we talk about the "collapse" of Western civilization, then that's what we'll suffer through. There is no doubt that Western civilization is unsustainable, and if left to its own devices will bring life as we know it on Earth to an end. This is the fate of all force-based dominator control hierarchies. (Some people like to differentiate with hierarchies of actualization, but all hierarchies are at odds with natural systems. There are better ways to describe the relationships in chaotic systems of increasing orders of complexity than by using terms derived from mechanistic linearity.) If we talk about creating something new instead of reacting to collapse, we shift the energetic focus of our actions and responses.

The collapse scenario does directly assume a Mad Max transition. This is because it believes we're willfully addicted to consumerism because we actually enjoy it, not that it's being forced on us, and that we would react negatively to being offered the opportunity to participate in gaining what we really do want. As I pointed out above, severe deprivation of many human needs and desires is what we have now. Not allowing ourselves to think about this is part of the consensus trance, and I don't think the red pill needs to be as strong as many people think it does. This became even clearer to me when I was running for public office. People across the political spectrum are willing to engage in this conversation, they just aren't aware of an alternative to the status quo. However, they can quickly connect the dots as soon as they are pointed out to them.

Now, with all this said it would be the height of foolishness to ignore the fact that we must protect ourselves from those few true sociopaths; that we're surrounded by a culture that has been raised to not believe in themselves while simultaneously worshipping individualism; and that thinks it is perfectly ethical to screw the other guy before he screws you. But this is simply not normal, healthy human nature. It is a response to unmet needs. I mean, we do live in a society in which the Darwin Awards have been created to celebrate the three most common last words of the Southern Redneck: "Hey! Watch this!" But all this really does is point to the failure of both American education and Western culture, not to an innate deficit in human nature.

We could, of course, choose to let ourselves be overcome by despair, believe in the worst of human nature and that there's nothing we can do about it on our own. This is, after all, the actual foundation of Western religion. Or, we could look at the creative, cooperative direction of life, and rationally, sensuously, and spiritually decide to work with it for the benefit of the web of life.

But you're not going to be doing anyone any favors whatsoever by telling them they're muddle headed at best to believe we could consciously make different choices, or that they should ignore the fact that the power of the current dominator paradigm comes from nothing more than a story which we grant legitimacy. For example, the reason feminism became widely accepted was not because it was a reaction against patriarchy (damaging as this mindset is), but because it pointed out how much we were missing by ignoring and denigrating the contribution of over half the population.

A lifeboat is what takes you away from imminent disaster. Relocalization is a lifeboat that takes us to an alternative in creating a partnership society that adheres to the natural systems principles that allow us to maximize the potential of who we really are. It is not wasting our energy on fighting the old, but offering it hospice as we create the new -- a sustainable future based on ecological wisdom and social justice. A steady-state economy is but one aspect of this that consciously adheres to the population and natural resource limits of ecological carrying capacity.

A scientifically validated process for starting us on this journey is consciously and sensuously reconnecting all of our senses to their roots in the natural world. This is a remembering that when we're in holistic integration with the natural world -- which necessarily includes each other -- nature provides an abundance to meet natural expectations of fulfillment, as well as the models and metaphors necessary to create a sustainable future.

The best way to transition through times of chaos is to try to ensure that doesn't become our reality in the first place. Part of this is to help return meaning and purpose to people's lives, which relocalization's alternative to corporate globalization does.

"You can never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -Bucky Fuller

Yes, we humans have become highly conditioned and habituated to our current deprived state of being. But, as the current structure fails to maintain its functions and more and more of us begin to realize that the next "fix" is never going to come -- when we can no longer ignore the widening cracks in the foundation of our culture, nor the unraveling of the strands in the web of life -- the first instinct will be to look for an alternative, not who we can beat to a bloody pulp to steal their PopTarts.

The purpose of beginning the relocalization process NOW is to fulfill the promise of Buckminster Fuller's quote. People will be drawn to what is working, a way to both survive and thrive without The Beast that turned us into consumerist slaves.

Coordinator HUB

Forum problems with e-mail

Dave Ewoldt — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:55:15 -0700

I'm just wondering if I'm the only one with this problem.

When I reply to one of the posts in the coordinator forum that gets sent to my e-mail inbox, my mail server connects to the mail server that handles the coordinator hub list, delivers the reply message, but it then seems to disappear into cyberspace. It never shows up in the forum. In order for me to have a reply seen, I have to log-in the this system, create a new forum topic, cut-n-paste from my e-mail sent mail folder, and submit it on-line.

In playing around with this system, I also now see why replies tend to have the entire damn thread included with them when they show up by e-mail. It's not that people are intentionally ignoring netiquette. When replying on-line, there's no way to delete it all, or to reply to just a small section of someone's message. This is why the threads are so frustrating to read on-line -- they're about 20 times longer than they need to be.

Coordinator HUB

Re: Saying hello.

Dave Ewoldt — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:29:03 -0700

On 4 Apr 2008 at 14:02, Holistek wrote:

> The question facing us, as I see it, is whether it is time to focus on building
> lifeboats rather than trying to save the world. I see little possibility of

Hi David... I guess this depends on what you mean by the world. Are you referring to the planet Earth, or to Western civilization and its reliance on a doomsday economy?

The lifeboat analogy is a good one, and it's garnering a lot of press lately, as anyone who's seen the documentary "What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire" will attest. Referring to American government as the Titanic Deck Chair Rearrangement Committee goes back at least a decade, so most people will grok your meaning.

Building lifeboats is what Post Carbon communities are all about. We have the technology today to get by just fine without fossil fuels, as long as we start reducing population down to a sustainable two billion or so over the next couple of generations, and get over the idea that a growth economy is the only path to prosperity, progress, and well-being. Although it really does run deeper than that, as a growth economy is actually keeping us from achieving all those things.

We're in the overshoot range now on the fisheries, soil, and fresh water necessary to sustain human life, so we may have to even get down to a lower population level for the next century or so while they replenish. However, this can be done by making rational, conscious choices. Which leads me to...

In the post you're replying to, Henry Swayze said:

> is a Harvard professor that has the theory that humans are crummy about studding
> long- term situations and then actually taking action on those findings but we a
> superb at reacting to immediate threats. He argues that this in encoded in our

There are also Harvard professors who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, and there's a group of scientists at CERN who want to play with their shiny new toy, saying there's only a remote chance it could turn the Earth into a black hole. So, don't assume just because someone has tacked the initials PhD to the end of their name that they are either grounded in reality or have anything useful to say. While the majority of them probably do, applying the rules of formal logic shows it doesn't hold for all.

Humans are living systems. They have an innate ability to think systemically, even though this ability has been schooled out of the majority of people today. If people's attention span couldn't extend beyond the next sabre-toothed tiger, then bonobos, dolphins, or elephants would be the current pinnacle of evolution.

American Indians planned for the seventh generation, and just about every other global culture has been able to plan for the future since humans moved out of the caves. The Mayans, for example, even though their society collapsed. What we're experiencing today, with force-based ranking hierarchies of domination that are bent on destroying the world and all species on it is a case of devolution, not evolution.

So, I seriously wonder whether or not the end of "business as usual" will put society into such a tailspin that it will look like Mad Max. This scenario assumes that what we have now is the best that could ever be. Or is even all that good. The vast majority of people aren't getting the majority of their basic needs, such as community and self-expression (not to mention the 30,000 or so dying every day from starvation and easily treatable disease), met today. Meaning and purpose has been subsumed by religious systems that separate us from our very souls. The petro-chemical industry has turned us all into the walking dead.

What the end of business as usual will be is the end of a financial system that places and keeps us all in servitude. It will be the end of a ruling hierarchy that still believes in the divine right of Kings and the necessity of the noble lie. It will be the beginning of us all having increased opportunities to become fully human. How, exactly, does this translate into chaos and anarchy (although anarchy in its true sense would be a vast improvement over what we have today)?

Coordinator HUB