permaculture

[David Travis <djtravis@hotmail.com>]

Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:

>>I'm always amazed -- and I'm speaking generally about many of my fellow 
>>permaculturists here -- 
>>at how the so many of the same people who think we can radically and 
>>creatively alter the way we eat, drink, 
>>live, work, and relate to the Earth are often paradoxically willing to 
>>throw up their hands at politics and economics, 
>>making oddly definitive claims about how capitalism, corporatism, or any 
>>other aspect of business-as-usual is "just the way it is" 
>>or  "all that we've got" or "here to stay". It's really interesting (and at 
>>times frustrating) to see such extremely conservative 
>>notions finding widespread acceptance among an otherwise farsighted and 
>>"big picture"-oriented movement.
>>- David
> 
> 
> So what would suggest they do? What do you see as the "next step" they 
> should take. They clearly see the issues at hand 
> but don't want to deal with them or think they can't and just say they they 
> don't want to rock the boat or disturb the 
> status quo for fear of losing what they've got (the "that's all we've got" 
> argument).
> I see this as a collective and collaborative effort, to each his own, 
> distribution of effort according to akill and 
> talent and resources they have access to and as time permits. A watched pot 
> never boils. There seems to ba a common 
> interest (at least here in the US) in seeing change happen. I hear about 
> the very rich/very poor/vanishing middle class 
> problem. With the election coming up this is a top priority issue.
> 
> > at how the so many of the same people who think we can radically and 
> > creatively alter the way we eat, drink,
> > live, work, and relate to the Earth are often paradoxically willing to 
> > throw up their hands at politics and economics,
> 
> So, again, what would you suggest they do?
> 

Lawrence,

Well, there are two ways I could articulate my first suggestion. The more 
civil and productive way would be to say that people, especially if they've 
made it as far as permaculture, already have most of the mental resources 
they need to make a big step -- which is to simply recognize that the legal, 
economic, and perhaps even political structures associated with an 
unsustainable society are just as subject to change as the concrete 
components that permaculturists by and large are able to recognize as not 
having much of a future. Somehow, the economic side of things has become 
compartmentalized in people's minds, and people seem to have a very hard time 
admitting that something can change if they can't picture how, even when 
there is a superabundance of evidence that tells us that the economic and 
legal "guts" of society always change over time, often quite rapidly. So 
anyway, I think recognizing that unknown, and opening one's mind up to those 
possibilities, is a very easy thing people can do that would be positive, 
because when those possibilities for change do present themselves, people 
need to be able to pick up on them and support them, and we tend not to see 
things if we've given up looking for them.

The somewhat less diplomatic way of putting this is to simply say that it is 
generally a bad idea to get in the business of ruling out possibilities or 
making definitive statements about subjects one knows very little about. Most 
people are poorly educated in economics. Usually this is not a fault of their 
own. Even for those of us who have taken economics in college (and that 
certainly isn't everyone), the most popular and widely read introductory 
works on economics used in universities (e.g., Samuelson & Nordhaus) are 
poorly researched, present very little historical context, and contain 
numerous contradictions, errors, and equivocations. While many of these works 
have been thoroughly criticized and dissected (see Linder & Sensat’s 
“Anti-Samuelson”), and while others (see Keen’s “Debunking Economics”) have 
presented compelling scientific reasons to think that economics as it is 
taught today is fundamentally flawed, the process continues. Economics as an 
academic discipline has remained relatively insulated from criticism, a state 
of affairs which is in many ways propagated and encouraged by the affluent 
business news media and the brokerage houses and trading companies it depends 
on for advertising revenue. And unfortunately, all of this ignorance from the 
universities, media pundits, and "experts" trickles down to the average 
person who is perhaps more interested in growing things and playing in the 
dirt than holding defensible ideas about law and finance. 

Now, most people have better things to do than to learn about things that 
they either can't or don't want to control. But it doesn't take any energy to 
have an open mind, and the truth is that there is a lot of work being down 
out there on this. There is a greater diversity of "legal organisms" and 
financing structures and ownership/power-sharing models today (many of them 
becoming increasingly and intentionally community-based) than perhaps at any 
point in previous human history, and it's very close-minded to simply assume 
that those that have been around in the last generation or two will 
necessarily be the ones to endure. If we can just get around those bad 
assumptions, half of the work of changing things would be already done.

- David





_________________________________________________________________
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join