Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

> Whatever I may say, I have prodiginous faith in Gene.
> I don't believe for a moment that he believes his own hype [much as I 
> don't believe my own].
>
> No, it's a real confusion, and thank the gods for that.  If Gene didn't put
> his Gene-isms on this list, I'm sure I'd unsub.

And here I am without my hip boots on.

Okay, I was not going to respond to the confusion thing even though I hold 
writers responsible for being understandable, but I suppose you have now 
earned a response. I will have to dig through the Trash folder to get my 
confusing statement, so hold a moment.

Here we go:

I wrote: > My message here is that we can focus on the doom and gloomers or 
we can find, become informed by and follow the examples and teachings of 
people who are out front on energy and environmental issues.

James responded:
I'm a bit confused by this. If the doom and gloomers are wrong, then we
don't need people out front on energy. However if the doom and gloomers 
have a valid point, we indeed better focus on them.

My message is one of pragmatism. Most of us on the homestead list know 
about and are concerned about the diminishing supply of cheap energy and 
how human activities are diminishing the supportive qualities of our 
planetary environment, not to mention local conditions. We are already 
serious about these issues and therefore derive little benefit from 
continuing to read the gloom and doomers who have been telling us for 
decades about the problems. I am perhaps more impatient with hearing the 
bad news rehashed because I have been hearing it for at least since about 
1957, when I read The Population Explosion by Paul Ehrlich, did more 
research, and delivered a speech that earned me an A+ grade. So forgive me 
if I come across as jaded.

If anyone here is not yet convinced of the problems, by all means keep 
reading what I call the doom and gloomers. As for me, I want positive 
answers. I want not a rehashing of the problem; I want solutions. And I 
want those solutions to be realistic. The article that started this 
included the author's negative response to Amory Lovins'--what's it called, 
HyperCar?--is that it? Well, I think Lovins is being realistic. Moderns are 
simply not going to give up their cars any time soon, so he has developed 
something useful until that far day when society has evolved to a different 
lifestyle.

The sky is not falling, it is subsiding. The oil is not going to run out in 
2006 or for decades beyond, it is simply going to rise increasingly in 
price. So it makes sense to drive less and, when necessary, to drive a 
vehicle that gets highest possible mileage. Lovins, the pragmatic 
physicist, has devised a solution that helps make the transition period 
more steady. He has contributed far more than simply writing about the problem.

Pragmatically, if one is already informed of a problem and the need for 
viable solutions, then one needs to become informed of ways to deal with 
the problem. We do that here with our sharing of homestead skills. The 
issue of heating/cooking/transportation energy for homesteaders is 
substantially different from that of the masses. A small woodlot can with a 
bit of labor keep us supplied with cooking and heating fuel. Becoming 
ever-more self-sufficient can reduce our need for transportation energy.

So now back to James' confusion. He wrote:
"If the doom and gloomers are wrong, then we
don't need people out front on energy. However if the doom and gloomers 
have a valid point, we indeed better focus on them."

James, the doom and gloomers are not wrong, they are right. So, accepting 
that they are right, why on earth should we continue to focus on them? I 
say we should focus on those with solutions.

I do hope that clears the confusion.