Well there is a kernel of truth to it.
If we *all* drop out, or "unplug" as it were, then yes, it would surely work. Dick Cheney wouldn't be much of a problem on his own. The invasion of Iraq would have been a very quick and unsuccessful affair if Dick Cheney had invaded single-handedly.
[...]
...........
Recently, I've been re-reading selected passages from Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall'. I note that the Romans, whose civilization was, by our standards, quite thoroughly unplugged, managed to make quite an organized nuisance of themselves for many generations.
The point being of course, that as social animals we tend to gather together, form societies and find reasons for inserting ourselves into the affairs of our neighbors, whether they like it or not. This characteristic is independent of whatever technologies we do or don't have at our disposal.
So, it's unlikely that a mass 'unplugging' movement (if such a thing were even possible) would prevent the Dick Cheneys of the world from doing what they've done from time beyond memory.
Dorene wrote:
So um, is Astyk who genderizes virtue or just Thackara in his review because he does not know quite what else to do with Astyk's argument? Perhaps either hold off on the pistol until you're a layer closer to the actual text or point the pistol at the guy writing the review.
.....
The pistol was aimed at the guy writing the review: Thackara. I thought that was clear when I wrote:
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.
[...]
I'd hoped (in vain, it seems) that the use of the words, 'Thackara' and 'reportedly' explained my intent: to analyze his interpretation of Astyk, not the book she authored, which I haven't read and didn't comment on.
Apparently, this didn't come across for some reason.
Dorene wrote:
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.
[...]
Why does it have to be a left critique?
You partially answered your own question when you wrote:
"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."
Beyond that, it's also 'leftist' (or would be) if, instead of abstractly talking about the large and powerful structures which currently rule production and distribution melting away in the face of our voluntary localization, like ice cream exposed to the July sun (a process that would never be total, since, as a species, we'll all never agree on what constitutes 'the good life') we directly confronted the issue of capitalist power: where it is, how it's exercised, how it responds to threats and challenges.
In this world of local food production and healthy walking to shops, what would prevent say, Archer Daniels Midland from using its wealth to co-opt decentralization by offering farmers attractive terms. The assumption seems to be that capitalism will just go away (or become manageably small) because we'll all be nicer to each other and unmoved by the appeal of wealth, power and influence.
Let's return to Thackara who wrote:
"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."
[...]
To repeat myself, the suggestion (and again, I'm talking about Thackara here) that we can solve the world's problems by collectively not participating in the world is not a suggestion at all; it's a fantasy and a pernicious one since it diverts attention away from the hard work we actually have to do.
Dorene wrote:
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.
[...]
Finally, to emphasize this one last time, I'm not discussing "Astyk's views" but Thackara's use of them. But to play the 'what if' game: would I prefer "wonky figures"? Yes. Many people are writing books about experiments in family low energy use, dreams of alternative worlds, and breathless how-tos with titles like, 'How to Survive the Coming Collapse'.
Far fewer are doing say, what David J.C. MacKay, Professor of Natural Philosophy Department of Physics University of Cambridge has attempted with his book "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" -- http://www.withouthotair.com/
That is, actually sit down and think hard about how to re-make the world's systems while preserving the gains and advantages of the industrial age.
.d.