What Should We Want to Hold Onto?

 

The ongoing debates in many different groups (and on social media in general) are really beginning to show that some people have a good comprehension and grasp of the predicaments we face. On the other hand, I still see so many folks who want to try to hold onto things which simply cannot continue (with anything positive happening as a result). So many things which are sold as "solutions" don't take reality into account and those who buy into these ideas are going to find out the hard way what constitutes sustainability and what doesn't. Sadly, even things which are sustainable today may not be tomorrow. As the ecological systems we depend upon break down, options keep on narrowing.

As I wrote in It's a Trap, Don't Do It, focusing so intently on certain goals can sometimes be seen as foolish once one zooms out and looks at the bigger picture. Many of these goals often come as a result of fears, so looking into those fears more deeply should be undertaken BEFORE embarking on these certain goals. A perfect example is demonstrated in this site. This is yet another trap, although it might take one a while to come to this realization. From the owner regarding the water supply for the silo, quote: 

"Water is a 2 inch main from the county water system. There isn't consistent ground water in this area due to bedrock formations and we are high on a hill. This fact also keeps the facility from having a water problem leaking in like most other remaining silos have."

Many people might purchase this property with the idea that they would be protected from almost any threat. The claim that this is "the safest bunker on the planet" is pretty hilarious when one contemplates the fact that if there WERE a nuclear explosion nearby, the likelihood that the water supply would remain intact is fairly remote, and how safe that water would be if it did remain intact would also be in question. Much about the safety of almost ANY property depends upon the underlying conditions of the particular timeframe it exists within, not necessarily the conditions of today. (Think of an older house built before the 1970s. How safe is it? Most likely, it contains lead-based paint which is something to consider; especially if you have young children.) Other matters of practicality also would need to be taken into consideration. How much would heating one of these behemoths in the winter cost? It certainly doesn't look like it is insulated very well. I doubt that this would be anywhere one would want to live for an extended period of time; so it wouldn't be used for housing or apartments, like one of the suggestions mentioned. It seems like there really aren't too many uses for a structure like this; while it might protect someone from a near miss nuclear explosion, that is probably one of the few practical uses it might have.

Many people have taken the prepping message seriously and developed all sorts of different communities and homesteads, first with Transition Towns and then with off-grid homesteads out in rural or isolated places. Many of the first attempts included permaculture or regenerative agriculture along with other community-oriented activities and projects. Over time, many of the folks who initially got involved left these projects due to a variety of reasons, many times due to personality differences and conflicts. Another reason was that mainstream society hadn't yet collapsed, and even today despite ample evidence that collapse is all around us, conditions are still good enough that most people would rather not trade the "easy life" for a life of hard(er) work. 

Still, as Shelly Fagan points out here, developing a homestead can be one of those goals which can be seen as somewhat foolish if one is focused on a particular outcome or attached (as many are) to survival. Developing an off-grid property or a homestead can be a very fulfilling activity, however; and as an activity that one loves, this actually meets the description of Living Now very well. As long as one doesn't go into it with the wrong intentions or hopes or desires, doing so is still preferable to what I called the "easy life" above (one where a person has a rather high carbon footprint due to dependence mainly on technology and transportation).

Just as so many people are attached to a "positive" outcome with regard to their favorite predicament, many refuse to see the counterintuitive results of their efforts to "fight" whatever predicament is dear to them. I highlight these scenarios here (in this blog) frequently, including my own efforts to "get the message of truth out" to people; wherein I am actually caught in an echo chamber. Even when someone outside of the echo chamber DOES happen to read one of my articles, cognitive dissonance often prevents them from doing anything but discounting the message; DESPITE all the facts pointing to the reality. Nevertheless, just because the facts are ignored or discounted doesn't change those facts, as Aldous Huxley famously pointed out.

As I updated all the files here, my mind thought about the fact that most people aren't necessarily ignoring or discounting the facts that they are aware of, but how many people actually look at ALL the multiple predicaments we face and have the ability to combine them all into and underneath the banner of ecological overshoot? I think that it is this lack of understanding that causes so many people to buy into so many of the marketing tactics selling one or another "solution" for one's favorite predicament. It takes a person the comprehensive knowledge of all the predicaments and also how society functions as a system along with the infrastructural layers of civilization before he or she sees holistically WHY these are predicaments with outcomes and not problems with solutions. Before that point in the process of climbing the ladder of awareness, it is rather easy to come to the reductionist silo mentality of proposing all kinds of ideas that can be sold as "solutions" which don't actually solve anything in reality.

Perhaps this thought was fostered by the fact that I had my own evolution in discovering all of these predicaments. As soon as I thought I had mastered one predicament, I would come upon new information that led me to realize that it was connected to another predicament and then I had to master that predicament before I could fully understand the first predicament. This went on and on and continues to this day - constantly discovering new predicaments that are a part and parcel of all the other ones - and how they interact with one another. There are the physical predicaments which are affected by the biological ones and those are both affected by social interactions requiring one to comprehend multiple sciences all at once to fully appreciate this complete network of how life itself works on this planet. 

I liken this whole set of circumstances to my comprehension of this song by The Eagles. It took me many years before I understood precisely the meaning behind it. Basically, it points out the hedonistic behaviors of society here in America and the part of it which is unique is the part where the lyrics go, "...and she said, "We are all just prisoners here of our own device..." The song goes on to explain: "Relax said the night man; we are programmed to receive. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave," demonstrating our lack of agency from within the system we are all a part of.

I pointed this out in my last article here, quote: 

"Mobbs makes clear the message I have delivered in my articles What Would it Take for Humanity to Experience Radical Transformation? and Agency - Do We Have Free Will? by pointing out both how civilization is unsustainable and how we lack agency to reform the system from within its own confines. In other words, civilization cannot be made sustainable regardless of how much technology is used. Attempting to solve any of our predicaments from within the system is flawed logic, plain and simple. This is why every attempt to utilize the fruits of civilization to solve predicaments is destined for failure. I hate to say it for the umpteenth time, but collapse is the only realistic scenario." 

Life itself in the paradigm we live within today is designed to be entirely unsustainable, all precisely because of technology and its inherent use. I came upon this new documentary which unfortunately confirms everything I have written here over the last 9 months. I have described fossil fuel and technology use as addictions, no differently than engaging in civilization. Living this way is much easier for individuals because we utilize technology use to do work that humans previously did for themselves. But while this way of living may be easier for individuals, it is completely unsustainable. This is to say that the ecological destruction taking place in our names in order to power the technology we use daily for our food, water, sewer, trash, recycle, natural gas, electrical, cellphone, and millions of other services all provided courtesy of technology is causing ecological collapse. Ecological collapse causes extinctions of species and loss of biodiversity. These, in turn, will cause our own species to fade into the horizon.

I have read material that disagrees with these concepts, but the established science disagrees with said material. I have seen many different articles in support of technology; but none of those articles actually take into consideration the infrastructure necessary to actually support the use of the devices being hyped. They all require civilization - the infrastructural layers that we use daily for our existence. Think about it once - without civilization, would you be able to use your cellphone? Your car? Would you be able to take a shower? Where would the water from that shower go? What would you eat for breakfast? (The answers would be: No. No. No. Not applicable. Whatever you hunt or gather.) All these things are only available to us because we are participating in civilization. But this way of living certainly isn't civilized, in the way most of us tend to think. A book by Christopher Ryan, Civilized to Death: The Price of Progress, explains that and even more. His way of questioning today's way of living based upon many different facets paints a rather dark picture of today's manner of existence for most of society. Once again, in this interview, Ryan explains how technology never actually brings us what we're looking for and takes what was once "free and healthful and replacing it with something that is expensive and only partially healthful."

So, in summary, when technology is being discussed TRUTHFULLY, it gives both sides of the story. When technology is being HYPED, it is presented as "all good" with none of the truthful disclosures of the downsides about the energetical costs, materials required, and infrastructure required for operation of said technology, therefore not explaining how unsustainable it really is. At the end of the day, technology should be one of the things we are willing to let go of, seeing how this is where things will end up anyway. Not being willing to give it up is only bargaining. Michael Dowd came out with an excellent video highlighting this fact here. This is not a comforting thought, I realize; but then again, most of this blog is about facts that aren't comforting. 

Speaking of comforting thoughts, dealing with our grief is part of what Living Now is all about. Living Now means not just doing what we love daily, but also about keeping ourselves sane by accepting reality and not getting caught up in bargaining or any of the other stages of denial. Last week as I was editing the files and adding new links, I added several new links to the Spirituality Resources file, which has a host of different links to help deal with grief. To Live Now is to go forward with realistic expectations and not base our mindsets on hope of or for things or conditions that aren't sustainable.