In the second place, what would constitute a robust left critique of the chickens and candlelit fiddle concerts crowd let alone the charms of children? Why does it have to be a left critique? I would like my food to be produced locally: free range chickens not fed antibiotics or animal slurry, slaughtered humanely by people paid living wages and not subjected to inhuman working conditions. That sounds to me like common sense and basic standards. If I could walk to shop and had to go every day because my household used little energy for refrigeration, I might have to go to the gym less or not fret so much about a cookie because of walking off surplus calories, but I would not be spending $6000 for a treadmill desk so I could simulate exercise at my couch potato job. In other words, I might have equal or better standard of living with much smaller expenditures of resources which formerly were kept artificially cheap. I suppose it is leftist because there is no profit in the picture for multinational petromonoliths or for the hedge fund crowd, but too dang bad: they can pluck some chickens too.
Well, okay, I have desire for good quality eggs and chicken but I have NO desire to raise the chickens, collect the eggs, slaughter and pluck the birds myself. No way, no thank you, Mom's stories of such in her youth are plenty close enough for me. Not guessing the hedge fund crowd would hold up any better around headless chickens in their death throes than I do
As for children, I really dig being Auntie because I get to GIVE THEM BACK, Unplugging the TV and forcing the kids to have actual experioences not just simulations through the tube means some adult has to engage. Oh horrors. Well not really, but sometimes the tykes just like mindrot as much as their adults. Children socialized for experiences do turn out to be charming individuals and of course there might be multiple layers of gender discussion about who provides these experiences and oversees the tykes' development, but how does that add up to behaviors that change the directions of economies? Perhaps best not go there at all if this is not part of Astyk's argument.
A couple anecdotes removed from the numerical punch of what impact changes like this could actually have:
Awhile ago I read this interesting article about this Indian civil servant whose wife worked with an architect to build themselves a quite lovely house based on passive solar principles and effective use of convection patterns. The cost both of the construction and the operation of the house turned out to be dramatically less than if the family had tried to plug into the grid, air condition everything, and use conventional construction practices.
Recently, I read about the discovery of the latest Mersenne prime number, 13 million digits calculated in the space cycles basically of a botnet. The same kinds of shared calculations are going on about the human genome and about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Who knows what other surpluses are lurking if pricing were different or we looked hard.
Would you find Astyk's views more robust if they came with wonky figures and projections or with ponderous verbiage about undervaluing himan relations or quality of life indicators and overvaluing currency speculations and credit-default swaps? I don't plan to take up plucking chickens but I also don't plan on letting go of my core sense of standard of living, thank you very much.
DC
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Dwayne Monroe <dwayne.monroe at gmail.com>wrote:
> Today, I read this post at John Thackara's 'Doors of Perception' blog:
>
>
>
>
> Unplugged - or unhinged?
>
>
> I'm reading a moving and important book by Sharon Astyk called
> "Depletion and Abundance: Life On The New Home Front".
>
> Uniquely among recent books on life after the Peaks - energy, protein,
> biodiversity etc - Astyk does not write to scare us all witless. She
> does not write about elaborate ways to fix The Economy. She does not
> even furnish a shopping list of green tools and equipment that we can
> all buy as evidence that we are Doing Something. (This latter
> prohibition is a particular disappointment to Kristi and me: we've
> been compiling a shopping list of high-end fruit dryers, choucroute
> kits, and grain grinders, that we were about to send to our friends
> before Christmas).
>
> On the contrary, Astyk writes about the benefits that can come (and
> will come, for most of us) from being poor in material terms. She
> proffers practical advice on how best to live comfortably with an
> uncertain energy supply; prepare children for a hotter, lower energy,
> less secure world; and generally how to survive and thrive in an
> economy in crisis.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Rather than fight The Economy, or try to fix it, Astyk seems to be
> suggesting that we simply ignore it - that we unplug. It's a very
> un-male, un-macho solution - which is why the book is subversive.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> full -
>
> <http://www.doorsofperception.com/archives/2008/10/unplugged_or_un.php>
>
>
> Aside from the gendering of virtue (which, as longtime Monroe readers
> probably know, makes me reach for my revolver -- though perhaps that's
> just the testosterone talking) I was struck by Thackara's promotion of
> the idea, reportedly at the heart of Astyk's book, that the correct
> response to climate change, peak oil and all the rest of it is for
> everyone to accept a future of quiet lives, mostly at home, tending
> our gardens and chickens and not making too many demands on, well,
> anything really.
>
>
> Here's a paradox: the very people who advocate super-simplicity are
> often the most sincere and enthusiastic world builders, detailing what
> we should do (or, they usually insist, *will* do, whether we like it
> or not) to adjust to peak everything.
>
> Note the flight from the world aspect at work here -- a call for us to
> cultivate a 'light footprint' as a principled lifestyle choice. And
> unlike say, pursuing kickboxing at your gym, which only serves to make
> your thighs tighter, the whole world will supposedly benefit from the
> fact you tend a garden and re-use Ziploc bags.
>
>
> Again, as attentive Monroe readers already know, I have many problems
> with this way of thinking which, among other failings, suffers from a
> massive blind spot when it comes to understanding, or even
> acknowledging, capitalism's role in crafting our dire situation.
>
> This time however, what I'm focused on is this from Thackara:
>
>
> "Rather than fight The Economy, or try to fix it, Astyk seems to be
> suggesting that we simply ignore it - that we unplug."
>
>
> Which suggests, astoundingly, that it's possible to solve the world's
> problems by not participating in the world at all. If we all
> 'unplug', perhaps our collective problems will softly exit the room,
> leaving us free to enjoy our children, chickens and candlelit fiddle
> concerts.
>
> The problem is that while we retreat into gentle domesticity the Dick
> Cheneys of the world (and to me, Cheney is as much an eternal
> personality type as a singular person) continue to push their agenda
> forward. And even in a world of gardeners, hierarchies and power
> elites will exist and command troops ready to carry out their orders.
>
> The fantasy of unplugging is that if you leave the world alone it'll
> return the favor. But capitalism tirelessly expands into every niche
> and systems of power abhor everything beyond their control.
>
>
> These facts are smoothed over or conveniently forgotten by the people
> who dream of unplugging. It seems to me that as this illusion gains
> strength (a product of the overwhelming problems we face) a hard
> headed left alternative is needed -- something which fully
> acknowledges the ecological crisis while correctly identifying its
> source.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .d.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>