Quote:

---

Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?

Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.

Or let’s talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. See the disconnect? Because I take showers, I’m responsible for drawing down aquifers? Well, no. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings. People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.

Or let’s talk energy. Kirkpatrick Sale summarized it well: “For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption—residential, by private car, and so on—is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government [he forgot military]. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution.”

Or let’s talk waste. In 2005, per-capita municipal waste production (basically everything that’s put out at the curb) in the U.S. was about 1,660 pounds. Let’s say you’re a die-hard simple-living activist, and you reduce this to zero. You recycle everything. You bring cloth bags shopping. You fix your toaster. Your toes poke out of old tennis shoes. You’re not done yet, though. Since municipal waste includes not just residential waste, but also waste from government offices and businesses, you march to those offices, waste reduction pamphlets in hand, and convince them to cut down on their waste enough to eliminate your share of it. Uh, I’ve got some bad news. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States.

I want to be clear. I’m not saying we shouldn’t live simply. I live reasonably simply myself, but I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.

So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses? I think part of it is that we’re in a double bind. A double bind is where you’re given multiple options, but no matter what option you choose, you lose, and withdrawal is not an option. At this point, it should be pretty easy to recognize that every action involving the industrial economy is destructive (and we shouldn’t pretend that solar photovoltaics, for example, exempt us from this: they still require mining and transportation infrastructures at every point in the production processes; the same can be said for every other so-called green technology). So if we choose option one—if we avidly participate in the industrial economy—we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of “success” in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which we’ve grown accustomed, and the fact that those in power might try to kill us if we seriously impede their ability to exploit the world—none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.

Besides being ineffective at causing the sorts of changes necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet, there are at least four other problems with perceiving simple living as a political act (as opposed to living simply because that’s what you want to do). The first is that it’s predicated on the flawed notion that humans inevitably harm their landbase. Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. We can rehabilitate streams, we can get rid of noxious invasives, we can remove dams, we can disrupt a political system tilted toward the rich as well as an extractive economic system, we can destroy the industrial economy that is destroying the real, physical world.

The second problem—and this is another big one—is that it incorrectly assigns blame to the individual (and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless) instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself. Kirkpatrick Sale again: “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”

The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.

The fourth problem is that the endpoint of the logic behind simple living as a political act is suicide. If every act within an industrial economy is destructive, and if we want to stop this destruction, and if we are unwilling (or unable) to question (much less destroy) the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical infrastructures that cause every act within an industrial economy to be destructive, then we can easily come to believe that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead.

The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Derrick Jensen, Orion Magazine. Posted July 13, 2009. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Food for thought.

---

Quote:

---

And if we stop giving agriculture that water and energy it's "stealing" from the world, food for thought is about the only food we'll have

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Agriculture wastes a lot of water. Simply irrigating by drip at night rather than spraying water into the air (sometimes during a windy 100 deg heatwave!) allows 50% more water to get to the plants.

---

Quote:

---

In addition, the infrastructure that transports the water leaks anywhere from 15-40%.

---

Quote:

---

No-till agriculture also saves water, an addition to building soil structure.

---

Quote:

---

So, there are many ways to save water. The problem is that the agriculture industry has done a good job of convincing various water boards that they "need" preferential rates. When rates are raised, its amazing how alternate technologies suddenly become desirable.

---

Quote:

---

So, who are these people, where might these mythical roadblocks be found ? Oh, yeah, that's right... GOVERNMENT

---

Quote:

---

Cornell University study.... As a start, governments should end irrigation subsidies that encourage inefficient use of water and instead reward conservation, according the report, "Water Resources: Agriculture, the Environment and Society," published in the February 1997 issue of the journal, BioScience.

"Undercharging for irrigation water in the U.S. and other nations hides the true cost of food and encourages the planting of low-value crops," said David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, leader of the 10-researcher team that performed the water-resource analysis. "If farmers paid the full cost of water, they would manage irrigation water more efficiently. We should reward water conservation, not water use."

The study examined factors responsible for a worsening shortage of fresh water, including usage that is increasing out of proportion to population increases. While the world population increased from 3.8 billion to 5.4 billion during the recent two decades, water use worldwide increased three-fold, the analysts found.

... Overall, global warming could increase the world's irrigation needs by 26 percent while worsening deforestation, desertification and soil erosion -- all of which affect water resources.

Our taste for meat is costly in terms of water, Pimentel noted. Producing a pound of animal protein requires, on average, about 100 times more water than producing a pound of vegetable protein. But some animals are thriftier, he noted: Whereas growing the grain to feed cattle requires 12,000 gallons of water for every pound of beef, chicken can be produced for only 420 gallons of water per pound of meat. {So, there's one strategy}

Not only is irrigation becoming more costly, in terms of energy expenditures, as underground aquifers run dry and water has to be pumped from greater depths, but energy production is taking more water, according to the study. Oil shale, coal gasification or coal liquefaction -- the last of the fossil fuel sources as the world's supplies of oil and natural gas are depleted -- require 20 to 50 times more water to produce an equivalent amount of energy, compared to oil and gas. {Maybe solar and wind energy isn't such a bad deal after all?}

... To make matters worse, much of the water for irrigation never reaches the crops, the study reported, because of losses through pumping and transporting. Worldwide, irrigation efficiency is less than 40 percent, and U.S. growers don't do much better, losing more than 50 percent of irrigation water.{Not the gubmint, the growers} Among the technologies and practices suggested to improve efficiency are surge flow irrigation (to replace the traditional method of slow, continuous flooding) as well as night irrigation, low-pressure sprinklers, low-energy precision application and drip irrigation, all help reduce losses by evaporation.

An old agricultural practice -- planting trees as "shelter belts" along with food crops -- can reduce evaporation from soil and transpiration from crops while reducing wind erosion of soils by as much as 50 percent, the researchers suggested. In particular, they recommend intercropping crops with "hydraulic lifter" trees, such as eucalyptus, which draw moisture from deep in the soil at night and make it available to surrounding plants. Intercropping also reduces soil erosion, the study observed, noting that the loss of topsoil cuts rainwater infiltration by 93 percent and dramatically increases water runoff and loss. When water runs off farmed land, it carries with it not only sediments but nutrients and pesticides, making soil erosion the leading cause of non-point source pollution in the United States.

Some changes in practice will be involuntary, the water-resource study predicted: "In the future, in arid regions where ground water resources are the primary source of water, irrigation probably will have to be curtailed and types of crops and livestock maintained altered to meet the changing water situation." But policy changes can help, the researchers said: "To encourage conservation, subsidies for irrigation water should be phased out to increase overall efficiency. Irrigation technologies that make efficient use of water for crop production must be encouraged. In general, more effective use of water in agricultural production could be achieved by providing farmers incentives to conserve water and soil resources."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
According to you, strong, energy efficient-cars can't be made. Water can't be conserved. Solar power's no good.

---

Quote:

---

I also say that these issues won't be resolved - at least not efficiently - by government decree.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I also say that these issues won't be resolved - at least not efficiently - by government decree.

---

So how about we just stop subsidizing water?

More later.

---

Quote:

---

You seem to think that if we just had a "whatever" government, everyone would fall in line, all problems would disappear, everything would be cheap an available to everyone, and wonderfulness would rule forever.

---

Quote:

---

Wrongo. I don't say it can't be done. I just say that it isn't as simple as you think it is. Energy efficient cars are being made, but not everyone in the U.S. - or even a majority - want them.

---

Quote:

---

Water can be conserved, but there's a price in higher food costs.

---

Quote:

---

Solar power is OK, but it'll be more expensive that other sources for quite a while.

---

Quote:

---

I also say that these issues won't be resolved - at least not efficiently - by industry action, given their history so far. You seem to think that if we just had a "whatever" market everyone would fall in line, all problems would disappear, everything would be cheap an available to everyone, and wonderfulness would rule forever. Of course, to get to this wonderful place, anyone who disagrees with your program has to be censored, since they aren't telling "the truth". They have to believe the commercials on TV to be re-educated to fit with your world-view, since you've got the simple solution to all the world's complex problems: capitalism

I'm sure you'd have no compunction about kicking stubborn holdouts against your wonderful plan for everyone's happiness to the curb, since it'd be a cheap price for making a better world for those who buy your line of bullshit. You really scare me, because you would happily allow folk to lose whichever of their individual freedoms conflict with corporations if it meant things would turn out like you want. What's really funny is that if you got want you want, you'd be next in line for the curb

---

Quote:

---

And how much he has in corporations

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Strange how little faith Geezer has in democracy - that thing which allows people to guide and run their own society for their own benefit. And how much he has in corporations.

***************************************************************

Banana republic, anyone ? ( - not the sunscreen - that thing with armed camps for the workers who must be made to enjoy the benefits of benevolent capitalism - for their own good, of course.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So how about we just stop subsidizing water?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
They're (energy-efficient cars)not being sold at the current price. And who's gonna bring the price down through mass production? GM? Chrysler?

---

Quote:

---

Big users should be charged at the same rate as little user, no subsidies.

---

Quote:

---

And who's investing in making it (solar power)cheaper? Exxon??? Shell???

---

Quote:

---

I forgot to ask you to provide your simple solution for the agricultural water problem... What's that obvious thing that everyone's been missing that'll save us?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Not too many dairy farmers - too much agribusiness dairy factories competing with the mom and pop dairy farms.

---

Quote:

---

Did you know that Toyota loses money on every Prius they sell? They subsidize Prius for its Green cred using the profit on sales of their trucks and SUVs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
But Signy, I forgot to ask you to provide your simple solution for the agricultural water problem. Stopping subsidies is fine, even if consumer prices go up. Drip irrigation and no-till farming have some utility, and are being used now, but they also raise prices to the consumer and have limitations relating to terrain and type of crop. What's that obvious thing that everyone's been missing that'll save us? The world needs to know.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why are you pressing for one (only one!) obvious solution?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Whatsamatta, Geezer? Have you no feeling for individualism and individual freedom? Or do you LIKE smaller producers being swallowed by big corporations? (Something which you have vociferously denied ever happens in many previous posts!)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, Geezer, what's YOUR one solution?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
...I hope you're ready to pay more for your produce!

---

Quote:

---

Simple. Quit trying to come up with simple solutions. People who say 'if we only do this', 'if we only do that', 'it's all (fill in the blank)'s fault' are talking out their ass and have no idea how complex things really are. Above all, quit trying to make everything about your political agenda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
...I hope you're ready to pay more for your produce!

---

Actually, I am. When possible, I buy from mom & pop farmers at local farmers markets, and don't mind paying more for better produce. I also grow and dry my own herbs and chiles, and raise my own hierloom tomatoes. Oh, and we bake most all our own bread, too.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Well, earlier, you suggested that the farmers all go to drip irrigation and no-till farming, seeming to think that those were panaceas. You obviously believe you have some sort of answer but when asked what it is you don't seem to be able to provide a clear description

---

Quote:

---

Sort like when you were asked who'd decide which "truth" the media should be allowed to broadcast, you went silent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
But aren't YOU also trying to make everything about YOUR political agenda? Isn't saying "Do nothing; stay the course; maintain the status quo!" promoting your political agenda?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I posted an article from Cornell University which had about six or seven "answers".

---

Quote:

---

If you recall, I gave you two pathways: either allow everyone free access to the media and let the audience sort it all out,

---

Quote:

---

...or require that the media be held to some form of truthfulness.

---

Quote:

---

Yep. They have six or seven "answers". Other folks got answers that contradict the Cornell ones. Should we just pick a few at random, apply them nationwide, and hope that not too many folks starve if we're wrong?

---

Quote:

---

As the internet does. Internet Neutrality. Yay!

---

Quote:

---

And for the umpteenth time, WHO THE FUCK decides what the standard of truthfulness is? You consistantly refuse to answer this question. I'm expecting you'll refuse to answer it again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
For the purposes of the argument spelled out above, I consider corporations a "government", which in essence they are, simply in another form.

One can certainly entertain the notion that a co-op run by folk who lived in that neighborhood would have a certain reluctance to engage in that behavior.

There's also the age-old argument that corporations would not have their way so easily were it not for the precedent of having the entire military might of that government at their beck and call to protect them from an outraged and exploited citizenry.

Far as I am concerned, ain't a dimes worth of difference between a Corp and any other type of coercive Govt.

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I answered it: Allow lawsuits to be brought against the media for lack of factuality. That way "everyone" decides.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
No, I answered it here. TWICE.

You're stooping pretty low, Geezer. Must mean you have nothing to say.

---

Quote:

---

This from the person who goes back and edits prior posts to create an answer. An example of your version of "truthfulness" no doubt.

---

Quote:

---

Yep. We could do away with all the big efficient farms...Individual freedom includes the freedom to fail if you don't change with the times

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
HK- You are, as always, insightful.

But.

I don't think that personal change necessarily leads to social change. After all, MOST of the people in this world are pretty decent. They work hard, take care of their kids, generally don't go around punching people out for no reason (except male chauvinists), but that hasn't remade the world into a better place.

---

Quote:

---

Interactions among a million people don't follow monkeysphere-size politics.

---

Quote:

---

What if real transformation and evolution only happens in the monkey-sphere?

---