Many of us do not see the current model of corporate democracy as able to address issues such as energy depletion, climate change, species loss, or universal health care (ask GM if publicly funded health care would better their financial position).
Thus, a new political/economic/social model is needed to tackle these problems in a timely and comprehensive manner. This model will need to be drastically different since mere tinkering will not be sufficient. The following two thinkpieces are a beginning to the discussion...
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Parallel Culture, Part I
I attended a regional planning conference in Providence, RI yesterday and was pleased to hear the terms "peak oil" and "relocalization" stated without the batting of an eye. One session was about global warming adaptation rather than mitigation which means that urban planners are now well beyond the convincing stage and thinking more in terms of how to address the certain impacts. But while most planners fall on the windward side of progressive, their lack of numbers and reluctance in many cases to influence politics will not likely result in significant cultural impact. Progressives collectively do not carry the cultural water nearly enough to effect a strong cultural shift as yet.
But relocalization encompasses a fascinating collection of engineers, commodity analysts, progressives, environmentalists, cultural skeptics, nationalists, survivalists, IT folks, and others who share a rational and detached focus on the trending of World events and see a perfect storm of indicators moving toward a tumultuous future. There is no question that U.S. conservatives are more foundationally plugged in to the dominant social paradigm and work to facilitate its greased workings. Yet Democrats and centrist Independents are also beholden to one degree or another to this system of greed, profit, consumption, planned obsolescence, fashion shifts, beauty aids, disposable culture that is the prime driving force behind global heating, ecosystem destruction, frankenfood, energy depletion, species loss, community fragmentation, etc., etc. Even the latter are clearly too afraid to say what needs to be said to put us on a track to make the substantive shift to a sustainable economy and culture. They feel that they must play up the religious, military, and economic growth mantras and frankly they probably do need to do that to merely get elected. But they always seem to disappoint in office as well in the few times they are lucky enough to get elected. There is a clearly definable spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1974) preventing the discussion of sensitive issues that need to be bluntly and persistently discussed.
Thus, anyone concerned with issues of peak oil, global warming, or other degradations of our living and working space, should not look to established institutions to take us by the hand and lead us to higher ground. More likely they will find new ways to repress our dissent, cloak present realities, and prevent independent actions that threaten the dominant social paradigm. Frankly we cannot wait another four years for "leadership" to either be struck with an epiphany or be informed by corporate handlers that action must be taken. There are too many vested interests preventing needed change that some very creative and persistent steps need to be taken. One possibility is the energetic development of a parallel culture, including intentional community building.
Parallel culture is not a new concept. It has been pursued as academic exercise, literary thinkpiece (see B.F. Skinner's Walden II), and practical exercise (ecovillages, communes, etc). Up to now, most of these initiatives have been pursued as independent efforts without linkage to each other and not always goal-directed for self-sufficiency. Yet linkage and coordination would accelerate their implementation since best practices would emerge faster and provide models to pursue without needing to reinvent the wheel. Instead of singularly building brand new ecovillages or transition towns (as per Transition Culture), we could also identify small villages and towns throughout North America and, if they were abandoned or destitute, acquire them as cooperative ventures. Less terminal communities that fit the model for sustainability could be targeted for purposeful resettlement.
While this would be quite an ambitious exercise, one model for acquisition and development could involve selling shares in a co-op, others could be developed by benefactors or wealthy patrons, others still, particularly the less terminal, could be settled organically one family at a time. Note that I am not suggesting an elitist project to create sanctuaries for the rich. I am suggesting essentially a purposeful, coordinated strategic resettlement centered on viable small- to medium-sized cities and towns that are compact in form and surrounded by fertile soils (much like James Kunstler suggests would be most adaptable). A very specific aspect of this type of project would include an egalitarian social diversity and absolutely would not be exclusionary.
Traditional village or town center layout would be one of the more efficient models to adopt and acquisition of the town proper plus a sufficient number of agricultural acres outside of the village center would be a good starting point. This model of slowly developing a parallel sustainable culture so that it can seamlessly replace the existing culture analogous to a "bloodless coup" that would be the most benign means of building a better society. Obviously how much could be accomplished would be dependent upon the time remaining before a rapid cultural descent occurs.
Finally, the best way to pursue this idea is to assemble best practices in sustainable community building. No single model will be feasible since there are numerous subcultures and ranges of desirable community values and mores. A range of best practices for ecological, social, and economic sustainability will be useful as a resource including local food, governance, local economy, alternative energy, and the arts. Several good models currently exist (e.g. Ecovillage Network of the Americas) and others offer specific ideas that can be borrowed and melded into a more comprehensive, holistic model. While other sites may exist for this purpose, I began a site called Building the Replacement Culture to collect ideas and examples of successful alternative communities at:
http://newresettlement.blogspot.com/
For this project I welcome links, best practices, and other ideas to accelerate and disburse this idea. In Part II, I will discuss a more regionally focused resettlement idea.
But relocalization encompasses a fascinating collection of engineers, commodity analysts, progressives, environmentalists, cultural skeptics, nationalists, survivalists, IT folks, and others who share a rational and detached focus on the trending of World events and see a perfect storm of indicators moving toward a tumultuous future. There is no question that U.S. conservatives are more foundationally plugged in to the dominant social paradigm and work to facilitate its greased workings. Yet Democrats and centrist Independents are also beholden to one degree or another to this system of greed, profit, consumption, planned obsolescence, fashion shifts, beauty aids, disposable culture that is the prime driving force behind global heating, ecosystem destruction, frankenfood, energy depletion, species loss, community fragmentation, etc., etc. Even the latter are clearly too afraid to say what needs to be said to put us on a track to make the substantive shift to a sustainable economy and culture. They feel that they must play up the religious, military, and economic growth mantras and frankly they probably do need to do that to merely get elected. But they always seem to disappoint in office as well in the few times they are lucky enough to get elected. There is a clearly definable spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1974) preventing the discussion of sensitive issues that need to be bluntly and persistently discussed.
Thus, anyone concerned with issues of peak oil, global warming, or other degradations of our living and working space, should not look to established institutions to take us by the hand and lead us to higher ground. More likely they will find new ways to repress our dissent, cloak present realities, and prevent independent actions that threaten the dominant social paradigm. Frankly we cannot wait another four years for "leadership" to either be struck with an epiphany or be informed by corporate handlers that action must be taken. There are too many vested interests preventing needed change that some very creative and persistent steps need to be taken. One possibility is the energetic development of a parallel culture, including intentional community building.
Parallel culture is not a new concept. It has been pursued as academic exercise, literary thinkpiece (see B.F. Skinner's Walden II), and practical exercise (ecovillages, communes, etc). Up to now, most of these initiatives have been pursued as independent efforts without linkage to each other and not always goal-directed for self-sufficiency. Yet linkage and coordination would accelerate their implementation since best practices would emerge faster and provide models to pursue without needing to reinvent the wheel. Instead of singularly building brand new ecovillages or transition towns (as per Transition Culture), we could also identify small villages and towns throughout North America and, if they were abandoned or destitute, acquire them as cooperative ventures. Less terminal communities that fit the model for sustainability could be targeted for purposeful resettlement.
While this would be quite an ambitious exercise, one model for acquisition and development could involve selling shares in a co-op, others could be developed by benefactors or wealthy patrons, others still, particularly the less terminal, could be settled organically one family at a time. Note that I am not suggesting an elitist project to create sanctuaries for the rich. I am suggesting essentially a purposeful, coordinated strategic resettlement centered on viable small- to medium-sized cities and towns that are compact in form and surrounded by fertile soils (much like James Kunstler suggests would be most adaptable). A very specific aspect of this type of project would include an egalitarian social diversity and absolutely would not be exclusionary.
Traditional village or town center layout would be one of the more efficient models to adopt and acquisition of the town proper plus a sufficient number of agricultural acres outside of the village center would be a good starting point. This model of slowly developing a parallel sustainable culture so that it can seamlessly replace the existing culture analogous to a "bloodless coup" that would be the most benign means of building a better society. Obviously how much could be accomplished would be dependent upon the time remaining before a rapid cultural descent occurs.
Finally, the best way to pursue this idea is to assemble best practices in sustainable community building. No single model will be feasible since there are numerous subcultures and ranges of desirable community values and mores. A range of best practices for ecological, social, and economic sustainability will be useful as a resource including local food, governance, local economy, alternative energy, and the arts. Several good models currently exist (e.g. Ecovillage Network of the Americas) and others offer specific ideas that can be borrowed and melded into a more comprehensive, holistic model. While other sites may exist for this purpose, I began a site called Building the Replacement Culture to collect ideas and examples of successful alternative communities at:
http://newresettlement.blogspot.com/
For this project I welcome links, best practices, and other ideas to accelerate and disburse this idea. In Part II, I will discuss a more regionally focused resettlement idea.
Parallel Culture, Part II
Note: this two-part series is intended as a thinkpiece and is acknowledged as highly speculative and theoretical. But I encourage the debate to be continued should sufficient interest be generated.
In part I, I suggested at least the consideration of gravitating toward existing traditional towns in order to reestablish the settlement pattern that existed prior to World War II. At that time, suburban sprawl was just a seedling with early planned residential developments like Radburn, Shaker Heights, and Greenbelt still encompassing some pedestrian and transit elements and automobile-oriented shopping centers like Country Club Plaza few in number. I suggested several ways to approach this including new development, redevelopment, and resettlement.
Another nagging problem is political. And I do not necessarily mean strict democratic-republican dichotomy or even conservative-progressive (although these questions do tend to sort themselves out fairly close within the confines of those labels). Our political system has evolved into a broad but confined range of acceptable outcomes that is occasionally tested at the margins (e.g. evangelicals at one end and social service advocates on the other....more on that later). But at best, policy swings within a range and rarely ventures beyond these acceptable boundaries. If a solution to a critical problem is located outside of this margin, it will not be solved, not until it manifests its outcomes and must be addressed reactively anyway. So issues like global warming will always be addressed too late and too modestly to be effective. In addition, our public discourse is often muted by concerns over fears of being considered uncivil or impolite, losing our job, having old friends or acquaintances drift away, or even having slashed tires or maybe worse. So if we can't even discuss our concerns as emphatically and spiritedly as we wish, these concerns will never circulate in the public domain enough to impact policy. And I believe that this is intentional to some degree.
And thus we coexist uneasily with our neighbors and fellow citizens, our lives growing more difficult and less productive personally (while we churn out more productivity for our workplaces). Largely unsatisfied with our circumstances and fearful of the future, many of us slog along and wait for something to happen. At some point, instead of holding out some hope or confidence that a substantive enough shift will occur and in sufficient time, we must ponder more drastic alternatives.
Since I read about an effort by South Carolina evangelicals to purposefully recruit out-of-state evangelical Christians to the palmetto state (see Christian Exodus) for political strength and about Vermont's interesting succession movement (Second Vermont Republic), it struck me that perhaps these efforts, while dichotomous to the extreme ideologically, were essentially the same thing, an effort to disengage with a community set of values and leadership direction that are seen as unacceptable. Perhaps support of these efforts, while unquestionably leading to the dissolution to the Union as we know it, may result in a number of better states (as in state or condition).
First of all, it may result in two or three new nation-states that could pursue new directions and compare efforts to accomplish general goals (e.g. alternative energy use, poverty, income equality, incarceration rates, carbon footprint, balanced budget, etc.). It may also dilute the effective military power of the Union as a whole and render each no more powerful than a Britain or Spain (don't worry, I can anticipate the counterarguments...). Most of all, it would give each an opportunity to rest from the useless energy spent on fighting across the deep ideological divide. It frankly may also provide some momentum to the bioregionalist state model or may facilitate relocalization better since the state would be more aligned philosophically with the goals and objectives of citizens.
From a global perspective, creating two or more more ideologically homogeneous states could conceivably exacerbate global environmental and energy problems. But I am intrigued by the idea of a single nation-state committed to addressing climate change to a person and making alternative energy their Manhattan project. Beyond that, it may provide a rich sociological proving ground that would not be feasible anywhere today (Sweden may come close). Use a new constitutional model, hire Paul Hawken as Commerce Secretary, and let's see what can be done.
Again, I welcome the discussion at: http://newresettlement.blogspot.com/
In part I, I suggested at least the consideration of gravitating toward existing traditional towns in order to reestablish the settlement pattern that existed prior to World War II. At that time, suburban sprawl was just a seedling with early planned residential developments like Radburn, Shaker Heights, and Greenbelt still encompassing some pedestrian and transit elements and automobile-oriented shopping centers like Country Club Plaza few in number. I suggested several ways to approach this including new development, redevelopment, and resettlement.
Another nagging problem is political. And I do not necessarily mean strict democratic-republican dichotomy or even conservative-progressive (although these questions do tend to sort themselves out fairly close within the confines of those labels). Our political system has evolved into a broad but confined range of acceptable outcomes that is occasionally tested at the margins (e.g. evangelicals at one end and social service advocates on the other....more on that later). But at best, policy swings within a range and rarely ventures beyond these acceptable boundaries. If a solution to a critical problem is located outside of this margin, it will not be solved, not until it manifests its outcomes and must be addressed reactively anyway. So issues like global warming will always be addressed too late and too modestly to be effective. In addition, our public discourse is often muted by concerns over fears of being considered uncivil or impolite, losing our job, having old friends or acquaintances drift away, or even having slashed tires or maybe worse. So if we can't even discuss our concerns as emphatically and spiritedly as we wish, these concerns will never circulate in the public domain enough to impact policy. And I believe that this is intentional to some degree.
And thus we coexist uneasily with our neighbors and fellow citizens, our lives growing more difficult and less productive personally (while we churn out more productivity for our workplaces). Largely unsatisfied with our circumstances and fearful of the future, many of us slog along and wait for something to happen. At some point, instead of holding out some hope or confidence that a substantive enough shift will occur and in sufficient time, we must ponder more drastic alternatives.
Since I read about an effort by South Carolina evangelicals to purposefully recruit out-of-state evangelical Christians to the palmetto state (see Christian Exodus) for political strength and about Vermont's interesting succession movement (Second Vermont Republic), it struck me that perhaps these efforts, while dichotomous to the extreme ideologically, were essentially the same thing, an effort to disengage with a community set of values and leadership direction that are seen as unacceptable. Perhaps support of these efforts, while unquestionably leading to the dissolution to the Union as we know it, may result in a number of better states (as in state or condition).
First of all, it may result in two or three new nation-states that could pursue new directions and compare efforts to accomplish general goals (e.g. alternative energy use, poverty, income equality, incarceration rates, carbon footprint, balanced budget, etc.). It may also dilute the effective military power of the Union as a whole and render each no more powerful than a Britain or Spain (don't worry, I can anticipate the counterarguments...). Most of all, it would give each an opportunity to rest from the useless energy spent on fighting across the deep ideological divide. It frankly may also provide some momentum to the bioregionalist state model or may facilitate relocalization better since the state would be more aligned philosophically with the goals and objectives of citizens.
From a global perspective, creating two or more more ideologically homogeneous states could conceivably exacerbate global environmental and energy problems. But I am intrigued by the idea of a single nation-state committed to addressing climate change to a person and making alternative energy their Manhattan project. Beyond that, it may provide a rich sociological proving ground that would not be feasible anywhere today (Sweden may come close). Use a new constitutional model, hire Paul Hawken as Commerce Secretary, and let's see what can be done.
Again, I welcome the discussion at: http://newresettlement.blogspot.com/
Thursday, August 21, 2008
High Plains Scenario
Imagine the oil stopped flowing last Tuesday. Your car's tank of gas is on 1/4 and you decide that it would be best to save it for an emergency. Standing in the middle of your brand new subdivision (example left), you scan the horizon for movement and see none. Your kitchen cabinets are nearly empty and you decide it may be time to hit the store. You begin a long walk to the little convenience store three miles away.
Unfortunately, when you get there, you see a Sheriff's deputy guarding the entrance to the obviously looted store. You ask someone in line what happened and she explains that after the delivery trucks failed to make it for three consecutive days, the store owner felt compelled to close. An enraged crowd gathered, broke a window, and carried away the remaining food, bottled water, and paper products. You hear the same thing happened at the two grocery stores in Emeryville two more miles down the road. Deliveries are not being made anywhere. The word is that the National Guard will be bringing in supplies including food and water by the weekend. Unfortunately, they are stretched thin due to riots and unrest elsewhere. Given that the annual rainfall in the valley is 12 inches, planting a victory garden is off the agenda.
Is this science fiction? Not possible in the U.S.? Many analysts consider this this a plausible situation due to the impacts of post-peak oil. As you can imagine, the fictional town depicted in this freethink would not be the best place to experience such an emergency.
Finding your way home...
This blog assumes a dark theme, societal systemic collapse, but I believe it has an important role to play in the process of preparation and adaptation. Discussion of the best way to situate yourself and your family or household during difficult times of post-peak oil and other disruptions leads to best practice recommendations, vetting of ideas, and the development of a system of trust and collaboration.
As it evolves, new categories and subcategories will be added. Of course, your comments and ideas are welcome and frankly the core purpose behind this site. Alternatively, if you wish to become a contributor, please e-mail a short bio and we'll take it up with the "resettlement committee". Thanks for your participation!
As it evolves, new categories and subcategories will be added. Of course, your comments and ideas are welcome and frankly the core purpose behind this site. Alternatively, if you wish to become a contributor, please e-mail a short bio and we'll take it up with the "resettlement committee". Thanks for your participation!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
