I guess the only comment I’d have is, the ultimate problem here is really that what is unsustainable, like, can’t… be sustained. It’s no good yelling at poor people when the very ecology of the situation is what is speaking. The problem is really that we’re living on what John Gray calls ‘prozac politics’. Nobody can say what is really happening because it will spook wall street.

Transition in the UK had a visit from a government minister who ended up saying, ‘You’ll never sell a no-growth lifestyle to the public at large.’ Never mind that this is our one hope for a sane or livable future! You can’t sell it, and that’s that.

In the end, that problem (the ostrich problem) is what we’re really dealing with. People who write things like what Sharon linked to here still think their paradigm corresponds to reality, and no-one has the nerve to start talking about the other side of things.

We live extremely comfortably on one tenth of the income of an acquaintance of ours who this year had to forgo the purchase of a gorgeous second hand bicycle for $1200 because he is cash-strapped. He makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and is so over-extended that he cannot afford the bicycle he really wanted. He is poor. But banks, credit card companies, Walmart (yes, he shops routinely at Walmart with that income) – they are getting rich off of him. This is what msnbc is promoting.

George Monbiot writes something to the effect that “Someone who can live on $5000/year is six times as secure as someone who needs $30 000 per year”. That’s been our goal. Suddenly we have more savings. Our savings can go further because we have fewer needs. We can turn down work because we don’t need the money. We have more time to work in the garden and cook at home because we aren’t working so damn much. This saves us money….which frees us to…well, I’ve rambled enough. I just feel really passionately about this subject. Thank you for this post.