What Are Self-Sufficient Communities and Why Are They More Hype Than Substance?
I notice that many articles now are becoming more honest about our situation. I most certainly do appreciate articles like this one which point to ecological overshoot rather than symptom predicaments such as climate change; however, articles just like this continue to define the situation by labeling it incorrectly, quote:
Another criticism I have of most of these articles is that they also offer so-called "solutions" which are nothing more than bargaining attempts to maintain civilization. Because civilization itself is unsustainable, as long as we continue hoping to extend it (regardless of whether it can be done or not), we only prolong the inevitable and make the situation worse for any future generations who may survive. I'm not betting on future generations, but I cannot rule it out either.
Still, the title of the article (Collapse is Not a Dirty Word) deserves credit for attempting to highlight to society that collapse cannot be prevented and that we need to discuss it rather than shy away from doing so. I'm grateful for the ability to discuss this topic far and wide with the technology of computers, the world wide web, and the platform of electricity which supports it all. Part of my thankfulness is comprehending the miracle of having this "magic" technology and just how temporary it is.
Speaking of discussion of collapse, I continue to see much bargaining and goal-setting attached to particular outcomes. This is to be expected, as denial of reality and optimism bias will continue to promulgate the idea of human exceptionalism and many people will mistake our cleverness for wisdom. The wisdom here should be doing what we love to do; not necessarily because it will prolong our lives or provide the illusion of "fighting" climate change or extinction (I'm thinking of Extinction Rebellion here, as if rebelling against it will stop or even slow down the mass extinction we are in the beginning stages of), but just because we love doing it. When a person loves doing something, he or she will continue doing it because of that love while things that aren't loved will fall by the wayside.
In an article I wrote more than two years ago, I detailed why human societies lack agency to experience radical transformation. All the systems we've built over the last 12,000 years are unsustainable; the infrastructural systems, the governmental systems, the cultural systems; these all rely on the unsustainable system of civilization (this link is repeated below). These details explain why most all of the ideas brought forth today are either untenable or take us in the wrong direction to begin with, making them non-viable to bring about sustainability to society.
As I pointed out in my last article, exponential change is something we will be unable to adapt to. Think about it for a minute; we can adapt to large changes if they happen over long enough time periods. We can adapt to most linear changes as well. But exponential change is a different beast altogether, and because it isn't just one thing here or there that is changing but everything all around us at the same time, the idea that we will somehow escape to the other side of the bottleneck is a delusion that many people actually fancy. As a result of those assumptions, many are embarking on all sorts of journeys, some that are excellent choices and some that are destined for failure. Many people suffer from the delusion that we just have "a lack of will to take action" when in reality, all the social, infrastructural, and economic systems that surround us are unsustainable.
Attempting to attract people to a movement by means of positive marketing, for instance, will generally backfire when people discover that there is serious work involved, especially when it comes to cooperating with others. Other issues also affect the viability of actions undertaken to try to reduce the damage caused by overshoot and its symptom predicaments. One thing in particular I often see in some groups is the gravitation to what is known as toxic optimism/positivity. This often accompanies these groups due to the fact that many people have not dealt effectively with their grief and reached full acceptance. They are often attempting to deal with their cognitive dissonance with denial of reality and this then leads into optimism bias not only with some sort of "solution" but also the special pleading that goes along with the toxic positivity. Together, these features of the mental machinations amount to nothing more than bargaining, because they ignore the inconvenient truths I routinely bring to the table to attempt to highlight our lack of agency. Chris Hedges makes this poignant observation in this video, quote:
It isn't just lack of free will which prevents us from changing our collective behaviors. It is the system of civilization and the infrastructural systems we use to live our daily lives which are unsustainable to begin with (see here and here); making incremental adjustments wholly unsuitable to the task of reducing overshoot and its symptom predicaments. Those symptom predicaments have their own unique ways of causing issues which further prevent us from making collective behavioral changes. In one example, a couple who had run an intentional community in British Columbia ran into trouble when the couple experienced health issues which forced them to sell the property so they could live closer to medical care. More often than not, however, it is the system of civilization itself which lures many people away from communities like this because of the services technology provides for us. Whether or not it is sustainable never enters most peoples' minds; they are focused on the conveniences it can provide along with a reduced need to deal with increased numbers of people. Still, medical issues are now much more common than one might think and this (disease in general), just like all the other symptom predicaments of overshoot, is escalating exponentially.
Some types of self-sufficient communities (also known as transition towns, parallel societies, self-sustaining communities, etc.) are more hype than substance, as their model is based upon "green growth" fostered by more technology and their marketing efforts are aimed at those worried about climate change or other symptom predicaments of overshoot such as this one. Then there are some ideas that are not only unsustainable, but nothing more than a slightly different version of today's modern civilization. Most all these ideas fail miserably due to the fact that they really are no different to today's civilization, based upon the same technology of agriculture and requiring most of the same infrastructural systems that most small towns use. This is how civilization began in the first place, so these ideas really aren't anything new and simply repeat the same mistakes all the others have made over the past twelve thousand years. Besides, there is nowhere that is safe from climate change or any of the other symptom predicaments.
Similar to parallel societies such as intentional communities is the Transition Town Movement, which has its own issues, quote:
"One of the biggest challenges for the Transition movement stems ironically from its greatest strength. People involved are typically highly motivated by local action, less by big remote policy work. But change at the local level is often heavily constrained by the broader economic policy framework. The big question, then, for the future contribution from Transition groups is to identify and win the changes needed to that framework that will allow them to flourish more easily, and help deliver change at the speed and scale needed to turnaround the range of climate, social and ecological crises."
Steve Bull points out a few of the logical fallacies of the idea of most "self-sustaining communities" blossoming up out of the woodwork here in this article, quote:
"Second, while great in theory, does this consider (and it doesn’t appear to) all the inputs into what might replace/supplant FFs, particularly as an energy source? If one is considering solar/wind/nuclear, for example, then there are significant FF inputs to say little about their continued dependence upon finite resources that likely need to be imported and the accompanying ecological destruction via mining, processing, reclamation, etc. that are necessary for supposed non-fossil fuel-based products. And then there’s the unsustainability of these in a post-carbon world.
Third, probably 99%+ of human communities are ill-prepared to a life without FF inputs, from a lack of local food production and potable water supplies to shelter needs and all the products that use FFs as feedstock for their production — such as pharmaceuticals and countless industrial products that sustain humanity in its current iteration — and the movement of these around the globe."
Steve provides a picture of common items most of us all take for granted which come from or are made better from petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas. The list is quite extensive, to put it mildly. Then he gives us the real kicker, quote:
"Until and unless, it would seem, communities — including nation states — can be entirely self-sufficient in a true sense of that concept, then it is impossible to abandon FFs. And this is why the depletion of FFs, a symptom predicament of ecological overshoot, has only outcomes that might at best be mitigated marginally in pockets around the world. It is not a problem with a solution, and the notion that we can simply abandon them is extremely facile in nature and perhaps the epitome of denial/bargaining to reduce cognitive dissonance."
There's nothing wrong with the goals of most of these folks involved in the Transition Town Movement, the Degrowth Movement, the Intentional Communities Movement, etc. - living more sustainable lives is a noble goal. But the manner in which most of these folks go about attempting such goals more often than not makes no real difference in terms of reducing overshoot because more people every year are added to civilization through population growth or transition from these types of living arrangements (people who move from rural subsistence-type lifestyles into cities) into ones with a higher ecological footprint than those who attempt the transition into ecologically-minded communities. Are the people who live within these communities wearing clothing, eating food, and using products and services all created from within the borders of their community? To think they are or are even close to such an existence is laughable at best. Only Indigenous communities who cannot read this because they live entirely outside of civilization such as the Yanomami are truly ecologically-minded communities. Communities merely labeled "ecologically-minded" or "sustainable" or other such labels generally are not as sustainable or ecologically-minded as one might think. Certainly these communities are better than today's cities based on consumption and might be a great learning model, but in reality, most of them have a long way to go.
The level of magical thinking required in some of these ideas is much higher than many people think. I think most of it has to do with an inability to think in terms of systems (reductionist and siloed thinking). It is true that IF global unity could be achieved and everyone lived this way, then a reduction of overshoot could be achieved; but therein lay the fault of logic. We don't have free will, so we lack agency (once again). There is also an off-shoot that I rarely mention - the ongoing marketing and manipulation by the elite class using different agendas to push their own agendas which never even minimally address the root causes of the predicaments I highlight. Trigger alert: please read that article completely before jumping to conclusions.
Now, it's important to note the fact that ecological collapse is happening NOW. The time to have embarked on transition towns and self-sustaining villages (and so many of these other ideas) was 5 decades ago. Now is the time, unfortunately, for consequences, quote:
"Collectively, our findings reinforce the warning that biodiversity is on the brink of an extinction crisis,” the authors point out in their study, noting that this extinction event will be far more serious than prior research has suggested, particularly as entire ecosystems unravel and collapse.
This crisis will have extensive ecological and ecosystemic consequences, given that ecological functioning is severely impacted by population declines and the resulting changes in community compositions.
Further, the study authors found that relying solely on the IUCN’s Red List “runs a risk of downplaying the severity of biodiversity loss”, especially after they found that some 33% of the species classified as not threatened actually have declining populations, too. For example, just 13% of bird species are considered “threatened” by the IUCN but the study authors found that 53% have declining populations."
I need to note that the last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from taking action to try to reduce overshoot. I work to reduce and keep my ecological footprint as low as I can, but I don't do it because I think that doing so will help. I do it because it's the right thing to do and because I love doing it (and learning how to live without the advantage of today's conveniences is important). I'm not going to reduce, stop, or reverse climate change or any other symptom predicament and neither is anyone else. So if you love doing what I do, then go for it! Just don't attach any particular outcome (survival seems a rather popular one) to it. I don't expect any of my articles to accomplish any particular goal although I sure do like it when one of them helps someone understand something better than before they read one of them. I was actually accused of "mansplaining" in one group where I did reply that this was not my intent in any way, shape, or form. My intent is to help others comprehend the situation we find ourselves enmeshed within, understand the unsustainable systems that support our daily lives, and come to the realization that collapse is here and changing the world as we know it today. Many people simply don't know that we are an innovating and rationalizing species, so we innovate and we rationalize. This means that what we do is not necessarily rational and quite frequently not, as is demonstrated in this recent phenomenon. Flying to Death Valley to take selfies in front of the thermometer there works as a positive feedback loop. Maybe I just think that visiting Death Valley would be a far more comfortable venture to do at a time other than the middle of summer, when one might be able to spend more than 10 or 15 minutes outside of the car or air conditioned building.
Now that I have attempted to give a more realistic rendering of different sustainable living models so as to help others see that these aren't always what they are cracked up to be, and have provided a few different stories as to how things may not go as planned for many of these ideas; if someone still wants to do these things anyway, then have at it! I still think that radical acceptance of these predicaments is what is actually required. As I always say, "Live Now!"
"None of us have the promise of tomorrow. God forbid this is my last day on this beautiful earth, it won't be spent listening to some news person telling me how rotten we are, how rotten life is, heck no, I'm going out and seeing how beautiful life is.
As humans, our time on this planet is very limited...
Turn off, tune out, and turn on your life. Peace."
~Frank Zappa
All very well said! Food for thought.
ReplyDelete