Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

On Jun 17, 2007, at 6:02 AM, Clansgian AT wmconnect.com wrote:

> The "negativism" is actually just a form of the $239 tomato, says  
> I. . . .

> No, it isn't negativism, it's realism.  It's the insight and  
> courage to look
> the matter clear through to the end and see that many (most) of the  
> proffered
> low tech solutions use more energy, cause more pollution, and  
> require more
> cash (the obtaining of which itself uses energy and causes  
> pollution) than just
> limiting oneself to that lower amount of energy and obtaining it from
> conventional sources.  The real low tech solutions are shunned as  
> some sort of hellish
> curse.

The seductiveness of high technology is increased with each year of  
new offerings by entrepreneurs hell bent on becoming the latest mega- 
billionaire. The masses have become conditioned to media advertising  
in its myriad forms. It is easier to throw money at a challenge than  
to research the possibilities and make something out of found material.

How to regain our sense of keep-it-simple? My bet is it will happen  
as it most often has before, the frog-in-the-heating-pot scenario.  
Like political "leaders," the media mostly follows the noise of the  
people. High gas price angst predictably increases column inches  
devoted to myriad explanations and excite DC Whorehouse residents to  
call for investigation of "price gouging." Live close to work? Work  
close to home? Why, there are finger-clicking reasons why that just  
can't happen.

The early philosophy of The Mother Earth News is still sound and is  
appropriate for today's energy challenges. TMEN archives are full of  
good ideas by people who walk the talk. Use technology, sure, but use  
inexpensive, simple technology. Although I have dreamed for years of  
having a ram pump put stream water up on the hill behind the house, I  
am now considering simply building a roof up there to collect  
rainfall, a plan that is about as low-tech as I can imagine. Anyone  
with a hill near their house can do the same. Although rain is no  
longer pure, it is cleaner than stream water, so needs less treatment  
to be safe for household use. The amount of pipe needed is the same.  
Greater storage is the only offset I can think of.

Can anyone think of a simpler, lower-cost water delivery system?