Community Issues – Thinking About Adaptation

Sharon September 4th, 2008

Today is the last day of the Adapting in Place class, and getting to this point on the syllabus has me thinking about what I’d do differently next time.  The class was designed to help people who expected or were fairly sure they’d be staying more or less where they are.  And most of the participants had big questions about what they should do personally, in their particular place.  So it seemed logical to get that stuff started – to deal with the real basics, food, water, shelter, heat, cooling.  But spending the larger part of a month focusing on how to get your home adapted makes it seem like our overarching focus should be on private homes, when, in fact, that’s just what we were talking about for one month, when the overarching project is not just making our own homes secure, but securing our communities.

That said, however, I think drawing too stark a line between public and private is probably a mistake.  A lot of our “private” resources can be used as public ones.  For example, only one house in the neighborhood has to keep being able to pay the electric bill to keep the internet going for a whole community.  One family with heat can provide a warm and comfortable spot for several elderly neighbors, who may return the favor by rocking babies, peeling potatoes or otherwise offering their time.  The library you and I accumulate can serve not just us, but our larger communities.  Our gardens can both feed the neighborhood hungry and provide models.  That is, this isn’t just about enriching ourselves, and that should never be the only way we look at our adaptation in place solutions.  Besides the moral reasons for not being warm when your neighbors are cold or fed when they are hungry, there are security issues – safety consists in enriching the whole.

And yet, it is the realm of the public itself that has been most stripped by the era of cheap energy, and the public realm that has to be enriched as one of our primary projects.  Yes, we have to take care of our own.  Yes, there may not be time to rebuild every institution we need.  But our coming poverty need not be terrifically frightening to us, if there are ample public resources for the poor – part of our fear is built upon the stripping of low cost, simple public options, and their replacement with increasingly expensive, increasingly private ones. 

So the first question we ought to have begun with was not “What do you (personally) need?” but “What do you (collectively) as a community need?”  And the first place we ought to be looking solutions is towards public, collective resources. Structurally, starting with the personal simply puts too much weight on the purely personal, tempting as it is.  Next time, I’ll start there.


11 Responses to “Community Issues – Thinking About Adaptation”

  1. Rosa says:

    I was a delegate to the city DFL convention, which endorsed School Board candidates. I just sent emails to all three endorsed candidates saying “How is the School Board and the School District going to plan around higher energy costs?”

    Of course, the time to do that was *last year*, just like the time to be obnoxious at Library Board meetings was about 6 years ago before they put way too much money into new buildings. But better late than never, right?

    I’m lucky enough to live in a city with *beautiful* public infrastructure – libraries in every neighborhood, public parks with pump-handle drinking fountains, community centers and churches and a functional bus system. But we have to plan for energy costs so we can afford them into the future.

  2. Heather Gray says:

    Hm, I agree there needs to be more discussion of community resources, etc., but I don’t think it was wrong to discuss personal resources and security issues first. As a general observation (there are always exceptions!), it seems to me that people are more able to discuss shared projects and community concerns when they aren’t “distracted” by wondering how they’re going to stay fed/clothed/sheltered/safe/etc.

    And the fact that people do worry about taking care of themselves and/or their own plays into whether or not they support various community resources. Some people may support these things for the higher good, but others will only do it if they can be sure of having access to it themselves, and if it’s something they care about having access to — and for yet other people only if it’s the only way they can have that access, as they’d prefer to have it given to them.

    Yet other folks may be interested in contributing to the community but either don’t know how or don’t want to stand out in the crowd. Like this past spring when L and I were picking up trash around the neighborhood (lots of good exercise and some meeting of neighbors, plus nicer scenery — win-win-win). We mentioned what we were doing to some folks in town, and the pizza place decided to offer pizzas to people who would walk assigned neighborhoods and bring back the bag of trash as proof. A lot of folks did that, and more! But what I also find interesting is that the pizza place has a list posted with all the pickers on it, including who still has an outstanding pizza to collect — probably 3/4 of the list is still outstanding. Maybe they’ll collect their pizza, maybe not. Maybe the real ‘prize’ was being part of a community project.

    Sorry, no great community ideas in this post I guess, just some thoughts on motivations, etc.

  3. Verde says:

    I find that I agree with Heather. I think people have to reach out from a secure place in their lives. It think it comes across as more genuine and less likely to be seen as userous.

    I’d like to take the AIP class, and I’d be particularly interested in how to build community. Right now my geographic area is in an oil and gas boom and people don’t look around to the larger picture. I feel as if I’m preparing for a Hurricaine during Marti Gras.

  4. Vegan says:

    Good focus, Sharon. I know it’s tempting to focus and overemphasize individual/family preparedness and survival. After all, our US culture in particular and Western culture in general are very individualistic and tend to see people as atoms, but humans are not atoms. In a crisis, we’ll not survive long without a congenial community.

    Cuba comes to mind. A country with such limited resources is able to survive well because of its egalitarian leanings. Cubans are able to feed and educate themselves and have an excellent health care system that caters to everyone because they learned to work collectively in their communities.

    Yes, we Americans can also learn how to work as a community. It’s not easy in our culture, especially since we live in a country whose economy caters to the elites and its institutions do not facilitate dialogue/camaraderie among different groups.

    Scarcity of food and goods does not have to mean that we’ll kill each other in order to survive. Perhaps scarcity might be a blessing in disguise to our individual and collective conscience.

    I know there are communities in the US where people are already working collectively to a great degree — Montpelier, VT, for example. Generally, though, these communities are an exception to the rule.

    Good day!

  5. Theresa says:

    Verde – I also live in an area of oil-related boom (specifically, the tar sands), and can very much relate to your hurricane/mardi gras sentiments. Another tar sands worker was killed here yesterday – he drowned in a tailings lake under a large piece of industrial equipment he was operating before it fell over. The cost of this ‘oil’ is very, very high indeed. But even things like this don’t seem to jar people around here out of their perspective that that oil can and must be extracted from that bitumen, at any cost. That being said, there is a growing community of people here who are quietly living their lives another way, and building a community based on common interests.

  6. Colleen says:

    For this first AIP class, I feel starting with the personal was the best choice.
    With winter on the way & natural disasters effecting more people; having the resources garnered in this class available to share with family & friends (near & far), I find timely and valuable… in both the ‘put on your own oxygen mask first’ vein and in having useful ideas and tools to share with my communities & networks.

  7. Brad K. says:

    Heather – but what if ‘community’ comes to mean you and four neighbors? What if ‘community resources’ means what is available to you and your neighbors, within walking distance?

    When transportation and supplies get expensive, it makes sense to be sure whoever is the best at sewing know what patterns everyone has. That patching and mending are shared out usefully. That as much hay and grain and food is harvested and utilized as possible, regardless of who ‘owns’ the property.

    No one can be secure, in their home, in their food, in their friends, than the least secure of their neighbors. One for-instance is neighborhood watch – if one disgruntled or angry neighbor turns a blind eye, or invites trouble, all can suffer. That vulnerability won’t change. Unfortunately, that implies that expelling or forcing ‘bad’ neighbors to move away may be coming. We need to be careful *we* aren’t seen as ‘bad’ neighbors.

  8. [...] Casaubon’s Book » Blog Archive » Community Issues – Thinking About Adaptation Today is the last day of the Adapting in Place class, and getting to this point on the syllabus has me thinking about what I’d do differently next time. The class was designed to help people who expected or were fairly sure they’d be staying more or less where they are. And most of the participants had big questions about what they should do personally, in their particular place. So it seemed logical to get that stuff started – to deal with the real basics, food, water, shelter, heat, cooling. But spending the larger part of a month focusing on how to get your home adapted makes it seem like our overarching focus should be on private homes, when, in fact, that’s just what we were talking about for one month, when the overarching project is not just making our own homes secure, but securing our communities. [...]

  9. Political Will, Political Won’t

    The accepted wisdom of today’s environmental reform movement is founded on two core assumptions. The first is that most of the technical solutions we need to address the world’s various crises are available, or at least could be swiftly developed by sufficiently intelligent, hard-working people. The second assumption is that all that’s lacking for a successful outcome is the political will to put these technical solutions into effect.

    Whether the discussion turns to replacing coal-fired power plants with wind turbines and using electric cars instead of gas-driven SUVs, converting industrial agricultural practices to organic permaculture, or reversing the decline of ocean life though international regulations, it is an article of faith in the reform movement that we know what we need to do and all that’s lacking is a sufficiently visionary leader to put more planet-friendly solutions in place.

    Both those assumptions ignore significant aspects of the situation – aspects that must be addressed for the envisioned reforms to be successful. This article examines those two assumptions with an eye to uncovering the confounding issues.

    The array of problems
    As the following laundry list of negative trends clearly illustrates, the scale and diversity of the problems we face are significant.

    The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is approaching 400 parts per million.
    We are emitting carbon dioxide 10 times faster than one of the world’s largest known volcanic eruptions (the Deccan Traps) that was implicated in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event 65 million years ago.
    Ice caps and glaciers are disintegrating.
    World oil production is on a 4 year plateau despite prices that have quadrupled during that time.
    In our oceans the coral reefs are dying, dead zones are expanding, and predatory fish species (the ones we eat) have declined by 90% in the last 50 years.
    The biomass of prey fish in the Great Lakes has fallen by 92% since 2000.
    The estimated extinction rate for plants and animals is at least 75 species per day.
    The Great Pacific Garbage Dump is full of plastic.
    Over 75,000 square miles of arable land is lost each year to urbanization and desertification.
    A billion people in over 110 countries are seriously affected by desertification.
    Nearly a third of the world’s cropland has been abandoned since WW II because of damage by intensive agriculture and erosion.
    On the American Great Plains, half the topsoil has been lost in the last hundred years.
    The Ogallala aquifer in the western United States is being drained up to 100 times faster than it is being refilled.
    Indian farmers have drilled over 21 million water wells using oil-well technology. They take 200 billion cubic tonnes of water out of the earth each year for irrigation.
    We have eaten more grain than we have grown in 7 of the last 8 years.
    World carry-over grain stocks were 130 days of consumption in 1986 – today, it’s only 53 days.
    The global per capita grain supply has fallen from 340 kg in 1984 to 300 kg today.
    The world price of fertilizer is rising exponentially.
    The IPCC predicts that climate change will cut African food production in half by 2020.
    The cost of food is skyrocketing world-wide. Some countries have responded by banning exports of wheat or rice.
    We are in the beginning stages of a global financial crisis that could result in either a deflationary or hyper-inflationary depression lasting for a decade or more.
    These sorts of problems are known as wicked problems. That means they are messy, circular, aggressive and interlinked, so that trying to solve one may worsen others. Each problem shows a trend, and all the trends appear to be worsening inexorably. In some cases the trends have been visible for centuries (for example the loss of arable land and desertification), sometimes for decades (as with the loss of aquatic biomass), and some like Peak Oil for a scant few years. In all cases the global trends show no signs of reversing, however much effort has been expended to alter their local or regional trajectories . As their effects become more pronounced, it becomes easier to see their potential to hit our globalized industrial civilization like a planet-sized version of Hurricane Katrina.

    As daunting as the individual problems are, the key to understanding the importance of this list is recognizing the degree of the linkages between them. In many cases, trying to solve one problem can inadvertently make others worse. One prominent example is the attempt to address global warming through the use of ethanol as a vehicle fuel. While there may have been some merit to that primary intention, the secondary effects – increasing dead zones in the oceans due to fertilizer runoff, and rising food prices due to the use of food crops as fuel – eliminated the overall benefit of the effort, and even created a net negative outcome.

    Similar knock-on effects have occurred in in other areas. The attempt to raise food production through irrigation and the use of petroleum-based fertilizers has depleted water tables and reinforced a style of agriculture based on a finite resource. The attempt to increase global living standards (and thereby reduce population growth) by exporting production facilities to regions with lower wage and environmental standards has backfired by increasing levels of water, air and soil pollution – increases that have been felt well beyond the boundaries of those regions. One dark quip that addresses this sort of backfire is, “Around every silver lining there is a cloud.”

    When viewed from this perspective it becomes obvious that dealing with the panoply of problems besetting our world involves considerably more than just knocking them down one at a time. If we don’t apply holistic, system-level thinking to the converging crisis, our well-meaning efforts stand an excellent chance of making the overall situation worse.

    I have concluded that it is a mistake to think of “solving” these problems in any global or final sense. Some of them may be improved regionally, especially if they are not in local conflict with other competing problems. The logical corollary is that there will be other regions where those same problems cannot be solved, due different local circumstances.

    The big question, however, concerns those problems that are not contained, that do not respect national or regional boundaries. Global warming and the death of ocean biomes affect us all, and failures to address these problems in any region can make the situation worse for everyone. In these cases, it’s obvious that a collective global response is called for – a response that brings together the political, economic, industrial and opinion-making institutions of our world. If these institutions acted together they might have a chance of implementing the deep and wide-ranging changes the situation calls for.

    Unfortunately, until now we have seen precious little evidence of such a collective response. For example, we have repeatedly seen climate change conferences break down or issue watered-down statements that fail to address the scale of the accelerating crisis. While individuals, citizens’ groups and even some governments are obviously aware of the urgency, collective action repeatedly fails to gain the required global traction.

    This state of affairs is no accident. This is not because of some dark and sinister cabal or conspiracy to hold back change in the name of personal profit, though there probably are some instances of that. The real reasons are at once more banal and more worrisome than the Bilderberg watchers assume. In the next section I will examine the structural reasons for this sorry situation.

    Politics, the high art of civilization

    In order to understand the role that politics plays in our collective failure to address the predicament described above, we need to examine the nature of modern civilization.

    Now, when I use the term “modern civilization” I’m not just talking about the growth of industrialism over the last two hundred years. I’m not even talking about the growth of Western culture over the last two thousand years. What we usually think of as “modern civilization” is the development, refinement and culmination of cultural changes that began ten thousand years ago.

    In turn, in order to understand modern civilization, we need to look even farther back, at how humans lived before we became “modern and civilized” and what happened to push our species across that threshold.

    Human beings have been around in one form or another for two and a half million years, first as homo habilis, then as homo erectus, and finally as homo sapiens. For virtually all of those 2.5 million years, we lived in harmony with our environment. While it may not always have been a comfortable life (how could it have been, without color cable television or cars?), we were nonetheless perfectly adapted to our habitat. This statement is supported by two facts: over most of that period our presence caused little or no damage to the planetary biosphere; and during that time the human population was essentially stable, growing to only 5 million or so in two and a half million years, for a net addition of a scant two people per year.

    Recently there have been some remarkable discoveries about the quality of life in the times before modern civilization. We have always known that society back then consisted of hunter-gatherers, organized as tribes. The classical impression was that the lives of these savages were, in the words of Thomas Hobbes, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Recent investigations have shown that in fact hunter-gatherer societies enjoyed a remarkable quality of life characterized by low levels of effort, plenty of leisure time, good nutrition, low levels of disease, egalitarianism, very low levels of suicide, homicide and warfare, a high degree of personal autonomy and close-knit communities. In the words of Marshall Sahlins, hunter-gatherers were “the original affluent society.” In one of our more damaging semantic restatements we have defined “subsistence” living as bad and “sustainable” living as good – even though in the context of a hunter-gatherer society, they mean exactly the same thing.

    So here we have a species that was exquisitely adapted to its environment, living an affluent yet sustainable life, treading lightly on the earth, never outgrowing or overrunning its habitat, at least in terms of the species as a whole. We lived in this harmony with our world for two and a half million years, or 99.6% of the time we have been on the planet. Then suddenly, in the last ten thousand years – a mere 0.4% eye blink of time – our population increased over 1000 times, we decimated the earth’s stocks of non-renewable resources, we cut down over 90% of the planet’s forests, we fished her oceans to the edge of extinction, and we live in a near-constant state of conflict with each other. In this grievously short time we have brought about all the wicked problems listed above. Pardon my French, but what the hell happened?

    In a word, it was agriculture.

    About 10,000 years ago humanity developed organized, settled agriculture. Over the next couple of thousand years our predominant social model changed from hunter-gatherers to cultivators. We settled down (as one has to, to raise crops), and started to form larger social structures – villages, towns and cities. Nobody is precisely sure why we developed agriculture, when our previous ways of life had been perfectly satisfactory for millions of years. It may have been precipitated by climate changes, or growing populations in some areas, or it may have been just one of those things. There is no doubt that the threshold of radical human change is clearly demarcated by fields of grain.

    The shift to settled cultivation entrained a host of other changes. Our diet was dramatically impoverished. Levels of chronic disease and malnutrition increased. Levels of social violence escalated. However, the most significant change was the introduction of hierarchies that had not previously existed in our social systems.

    Why the development of agriculture resulted in the simultaneous appearance of social hierarchies is still a matter of debate. My opinion is that it happened because the risk to farming communities from crop failures was very high. If the crops failed, these communities contained too many people to survive on local foraging or hunting – both because population densities were so high and because the habitat destruction caused by farming had reduced the amount of local wild food. There was also no way to bring in food from some other unaffected region. Therefore the risk of crop failures had to be mitigated. This mitigation involved many activities. For example, local hunting kept larger crop-eating pests at bay, irrigation helped in times of drought, and shamanic intercession took care of storms and blights.

    Each of these activities of hunter, irrigation engineer and shaman was highly specialized in comparison to the more generic farming skills required for planting and harvesting. Such specialization conferred power on the holders of those skills. This was especially true in the case of shamans, whose power could not be entirely learned, but was said to emanate come from a mysterious connection with the supernatural. Their attempt to exercise control over nature gave the shamans the real ability to exercise control over other people however (”Obey me or the gods will frown on us, and the crop failure will be your fault!”), and the first systematic hierarchies were born.

    The other significant change introduced by organized agriculture was the psychological effect of reliable surpluses of food. While the previous two and a half million years of our existence had been shaped by sustainable subsistence, agriculture introduced the possibility of producing more food than we needed, letting us distribute the required amount to the members of the community and store the excess.

    Centralizing the production of food and managing its distribution reinforced the development of hierarchies. Since some of the food was needed by people who had no direct hand in producing it (such as weavers, shamans and granary guards), some means had to be found of giving them equitable access to it. This meant coming up with a way of defining relative values for different kinds of work, and establishing a medium of exchange. In one stroke the concepts of money and wages appeared, resulting in a further transfer of power to those who established the value of work and controlled the money supply (and indirectly the access to food).

    As important as that development was, there was yet another fundamental cultural change brought about by the simple existence of a food surplus. For the previous two and a half million years, human wants had been satisfied by the concept of “enough”. People worked until they had enough, then they stopped. Now there was almost always “more than enough”. The perception that there was more than enough food caused a radical change in how we looked at the world.

    Food surpluses and the development of a medium of exchange made trade for non-food goods possible. The continued trade of ongoing food surpluses enabled a continuous growth in the material comfort of peoples’ lives. It did not take long for people to become accustomed to this new state of affairs. As memories of the past faded over just a few generations, the new conditions of growing abundance were rapidly accepted as the “natural” order of things.

    Modern Civilization
    We now have the two critical preconditions for “modern civilization”. The first is the belief that a continuous growth in material prosperity is the natural order of the human universe. The second is the belief that a power hierarchy is essential for the smooth functioning of the system.

    As always happens with hierarchies, power flows uphill. Along with it go the perquisites of power, the most important being the right to higher levels of material abundance than those lower in the pecking order. In order to ensure that this comfortable situation is maintained, part of the accumulated social power is used to protect the situation. This is done by strongly defending the two fundamental preconditions: the idea that both material growth and the need for hierarchy are natural, essential and unquestionable. Indeed, the status quo is best served if the rest of the community sees this situation as simply part of the matrix of the universe, the only possible way life could work, and that any suggestions to the contrary are the result of either some nefarious agenda or outright insanity.

    Guardian Institutions
    Over the centuries an interlocking system of guardian institutions has grown up to protect and defend the two key ideas of growth and hierarchy.

    Our economic and financial institutions cooperate with business and industry to set the value of work and control the money supply (thereby controlling access to food). In this role it doesn’t make any difference whether an economy is capitalist, socialist or communist. The core belief it guards is always the same one.

    Our educational institutions teach successive generations how the system works, giving them the tools to integrate into it and manipulate it at the same time as training them to see this as the only possible way the world could work.
    Our communications media reinforce this message by enlisting people in the growth paradigm. They do this both though overt messages like advertising and covert messages embedded in the story lines of entertainment.
    Our religious institutions (as distinct from the religions they purport to enshrine) are primarily normative social structures. Many incorporate an overt message that one should be content with things as they are. There are often injunctions against questioning authority, as all authority is seen to devolve from the supernatural – just as it did for the shamans of the early agricultural era.
    Our legal institutions enforce the norms of hierarchy in ways too numerous to count. These range from the protection of privilege (one law for the rich, one for the poor) to the preferential defense of property rights over human rights.
    Our political institutions sit at the tip of the pyramid. Political institutions encode, enshrine and manage the application of social power. Politics is the institution that legitimizes all the others. Because of its unique ability to make laws and its access to the legalized violence that defends those laws, politics is the fullest expression of the power hierarchy of modern civilization.
    At the base of the hierarchy, supporting it all, are an ever-diminishing number of farmers who apply ever-increasing amounts of knowledge, technology and petroleum to ensure an ever-expanding supply of food. Because at the core it is their food that makes the whole edifice possible.

    So where does that put us in relation to the array of wicked problems we listed at the beginning? Simply put, every one of these problems is the result of unbridled growth. They are the logical results of the continual exercise of the first precondition of modern civilization, the drummer we have been marching to for ten thousand years since the invention of agriculture.

    Why politics is the problem, not the solution
    In light of this analysis it should be obvious why we are repeatedly failing to address any of these wicked problems. The only permanent “solution” to any of them is the secession of growth. That idea is anathema to our guardian institutions. And as the occupants of the pinnacle of power, our politicians have every reason to derail efforts in that direction, no matter how small.

    Politics, regardless of party or ideology, is part of the problem and can never be part of the solution. While it may be easier for the average person to live under the rule of a more humane parcel of rogues, at its heart politics is the primary guardian institution of modern civilization. The role of all politics is to ensure that power is managed, and power is always managed for the benefit of the holders of power. It doesn’t matter whether the power managers are Democrats, Republicans, Tories, Grits, Social Democrats, Communists or a military junta. They all fulfill the same role in service of the same beneficiaries.

    In order to fulfill that role they unite with the other guardian institutions – the economic, industrial, legal. religious, educational and communications organizations. Together these institutions create, maintain and guard a noetic milieu (a globalized intuitive, non-rational consciousness) in which any values that challenge the two fundamental preconditions to modern civilization are seen as incomprehensible, self-evidently absurd, dangerous or even insane. Since the primary value system these guardians protect is the paradigm of continuous material growth, the most dangerous of all radical ideas are any proposals to limit, halt or reverse that growth.

    The influences of our guardian institutions are firmly embedded in our global culture. They have such power and such general support at all levels of society that it is ultimately fruitless to try and remove them from power by either direct or indirect confrontation. The penalties for trying this are severe and ruthlessly applied.

    In light of this, is there any hope for a return to a sustainable, egalitarian, interconnected, considerate and just civilization? I strongly believe that there is, but getting there will be neither sure nor easy.

    The institutions that stand between us and such a future are trapped by their dependence on the very paradigm they are sworn to protect. They defend the belief that permanent material growth is natural, possible and inevitable. While they defend that belief with laws, guns and television, ultimately their power comes from people who accept that premise. If people stop believing that such growth is possible the institutions’ power declines, no matter how many defense mechanisms they engage. If growth falters, the people lose faith and the institutions crack and crumble.

    Look back at the list of problems that led off the article. Every single one of them is the result of our growth encountering limits. While we may be able to figure out ways to temporarily circumvent some of these limits, the pattern is now clear. The growth of modern civilization is slowing down, and is even showing evidence of coming to a halt. For a guardian institution that depends on growth for its very survival, this is like a diagnosis of terminal cancer.

    What that means is that these institutions will inevitably start losing their monolithic top-down power. This dis-integration will leave “cracks in the sidewalk of civilization”. And just as grass grows through cracks in real concrete, small communities and individuals will start to appear through the metaphorical concrete of our industrial civilization.

    No one can predict when, where or how the dis-integration will appear. It will take different forms in different places. The response of the guardians will probably be violently draconian in most cases. But there are places where communities have already formed in anticipation of such an opportunity. Like “Gaia’s antibodies” they will work to heal the wounds, widen the cracks, and let the sunshine and fresh air revitalize the hidden earth. As the seed stock of the next phase of civilization they will spread their values on the wind.

    The next cycle of human experience on this planet will be very different from any that has gone before. We will have fewer resources, but more knowledge. We will have to deal with toxic landscapes, a warming climate, shifting rainfall patterns and the emergence of new diseases. To balance that we will have better communications and longer memories than any civilization that has gone before us. We will not fall back into the stone age, but neither will we motor off happily into the sunset in our electric cars. There will be hardship and misery, but there will also be joy – the joy that comes from looking forward, from participating in our communities, from the love of those around us. Above all, there will be the future.

    I’m indebted to the writing of Daniel Quinn and John Zerzan, as well as to Riane Eisler for her book “The Chalice and the Blade”. I’d also like to acknowledge the philosophy of Anarcho-Primitivism for its critique of civilization (though perhaps not for its suggested solutions).

    September 3, 2008

    © Copyright 2008, Paul Chefurka

    This article may be reproduced in whole or in part for the purpose of research, education or other fair use, provided the nature and character of the work is maintained and credit is given to the author by the inclusion in the reproduction of his name and/or an electronic link to the article

  10. dowcipy says:

    Hi,very good post. Informations are really exciting and saved me a lot time which I spend on something else instead of searching :) Thanks and waiting for more posts like this one.

  11. Dear Sharon,

    We are fiddlin’ while the Earth begins to burn, are we not?

    Your words remind me to mention a quote of Oliver Cromwell, which I would like to direct to the ideologically-driven talking heads, opinion makers, thought leaders and spin doctors in the mass media: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

    Sharon, every time a friend like you has shown me a new example of what our finest ancestors could see that would be occurring in our time, I am reminded of the remarkable number of splendid people throughout our history who raised their voices loudly… who tried to let us know as you do now. Of course, as great human beings with feet of clay have known all too well, the powers that be, the self-proclaimed masters of the universe today would complete the work of the greedy kings who came before them. Ancient kings (named by Ozymandias) have set the stage for the final act in a play presented by ideological idiots, unless, of course, we choose a different way f i n a l l y – - – b e f o r e i t i s t o o l a t e.



Leave a Reply