Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

mornings,

It's true, if we see further it's because we stand on the shoulders of giants. Woody cites Schumacher often in his enquiry. But I sent Woody an email nonetheless as I feel that he is trying to solve the problem of growth with the same level of thinking that created it. I asked what he would like to see happen when / after growth meets carrying capacity. The usual is overshoot followed by 'correction'. Correction is such a benign word that really means mass starvation, death and resource wars in humanities case. No response yet, but he lives off grid in a small desert community and is busy.

Anyway seems like we are on similar paths. I too have worked for decades in sustainable agriculture (haven't quit but have come very close at times) and discovered community after years of 'seeing the world', and it is visceral. The teacher really does appear when the student is ready. Living in a small community gave me something unexpected and this is perspective. When I moved from the big smoke to the farm I gained so much more than I lost in the move, but it was being at arms length from 'civilisation' that enabled me to see the forest for the trees. For the first few years I was shocked at how much I hadn't 'seen' whilst I had been in the thick of it.

Anyway I was told it would take 20 years before I would become 'part of the community' and although welcoming and friendly I guessed 20 years was about right. That was until 2003 and we had the fires. The community rallied like I have never seen, and because I took part in fighting the fires, this took 10 years off the time it normally takes for community inclusion. The fires lasted 10 days, we (the community) only lost one home during that time and saved a great many - an exciting, exhausting and bonding period - no lives lost. To put the fires in perspective, in 'town' they lost 6 lives and nearly 500 homes.

Not sure of the lessons I took from the fires and community, except that community acceptance and formation is accelerated in times of genuine need. In hindsight I was probably a little traumatised by the experience.

I've just ordered a book after hearing the author F. David Peat on the radio. Haven't got it yet so can't really comment, but it sounded 'right' and with merit. The book is Gentle Action: Bringing creative change to a turbulent world ISBN 978-88-95604-03-9, and the website http://www.gentleaction.org/ expands on the concepts a bit. It supports your idea that governments corrupt and people acting simply at the local level are the most effective agents of change.

Enough of my rambling and all the best,
mcfarm

Indeed... the way it probably once was... and should be... democracy is nothing but an idea that will be defined and corrupted by governements and others... unless upheld and enacted by people at a local level...

But that was once also the purest definition of the idealism of "socialism"... another concept deliberately manipulated and distorted by vested interests to the point of meaninglessness... and control of the population...

And when threatened, even those who expouse "capitalism" and "democracy" will resort to direct, and if need be, physical and/or legal action against those enacting local action...

The success of democracy ultimately lies within the hands of those who are prepared to defend the "principle" without waiver... and more particularly... without personal benefit...

Such concepts don't sit favourably within a paradigm of self interest and rampant consumerism...

Wow been away from the thread for a while.


Yes this is what could maybe make a difference!!!!!

I've been spending a lot of time researching permaculture, food forests, and forest gardening lately. It seems the logical next step after getting people to grow a bit of their own food in a veggie garden, covert the lot around the house to a food forest. This might not solve all the problems of the big cities but it could be the salvation of suburbia.

Rup,

Where do you get this stuff? What principle? Democracy (democratic rule) is probably the most oppressive of all governance systems. Oppressive, because it creates the illusion that the individual has some control. Ultimately, the only control it provides is for one group (majority) to legitimately gang up on another (minority), and that is usually carefully orchestrated by the same folks who promote the "paradigm of self interest and rampant consumerism...".

If there is any principle that people might live by, it is that one has the unalienable right to do what one likes, so long as it does not violate another's right to do the same. Kinda of the golden rule stated backwards.

m

Perhaps you missed the point of my post... or I didn't state it clearly enough...

I agree with you Mornings... and thought I had said so...



That our current "governance" is not only un-democratic.... but has been deliberately constructed to give the illusion of democracy... mainly because we have advocated control of our rights and shunned the direct action required to ensure them...

And that includes... IMO... the right to "form a militia and bear arms".... against any government that might seek to do so...

We have allowed a "two party" system of representation... ruled by lobbyists, egotists and at times straight out corruption... to usurp our "rights"... under a banner of "democracy" and often "patriotism"...

Very few governments are elected or rule by "majority"... usually there's fewer than 5% difference in any formal vote... primarily because we have enshrined the ridiculous idea of voting the way our fathers/mothers did based on old hat ideologies...


Banish the two party system... vote out any elected representitive at the end of term... unless they have performd extraordinarily... or just shoot them...

Thanks Rup, that does clarify a bit. But I suspect you missed my point. Democracy never works, never lives up to its promise. That is unless, you mean by democracy a system where people live together cooperatively, recognized each others rights, etc. But why would one call it "democracy"? Why call it anything?

If democracy is majority rule, even if such a thing were possible, you think it would be good? (you seem to imply that).

"Democracy" seems to be one of those words that appears on the surface to give one a sense of empowerment. The problem, I think, is that there is no cogent, logically consistent meaning for "democracy". But enlighten me if you think so.

Please forgive me if I seem to be baiting you into an argument on semantics. It is not my intention. If we agree on what people should do and not of the use of words, then just ignore this. If you think people should do something different, if you think force is somehow justified except as an expedient, I do want to know what you mean.

m

How is this mornings? "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others."

See, we can't exactly just do without government since nature abhors a vacuum, anarchy only lasts till the strong or violent claim a share of the leadership. Then you have something new.

And though all our governments are definitely not good, I don't know that I like the alternative.

But the truth is, the problem is only exasperated by the government the causes are many. A big part of it is the people in the industrialized parts of the world being drawn into the consumerism Rat Race to get theirs. Everyone needing all sorts of gadgets just to get by now when 20 years ago people got along fine without them. And now huge amount of industrial agriculture is now producing energy in very in-efficient ways instead of food. People being easily led around by the media and fear mongering to support all sorts of corrupt things in government.

So, since I don't know quite how to fix the big picture all at once (and even if I did, no one would be listening to me) I would like to concentrate on the things I can do. I will keep learning how best to grow as much food as possible on my little lot and do it as sustainably as possible. I will encourage others to do the same and will lead by example. I will share what I learn freely (this is the biggest issue I have with the whole "permaculture" movement, the fact that most people seem to want money to share the info and worse yet, even after you pay to get what info they have, you still have to do most of your own tedious research to figure out what might work in any specific location.) Anyway, I'll concentrate on the parts of the solution that I can do something about.

Here in the USA I think it is probably about half of the population that lives in sub-burbs and country or at least some where they have a bit of garden space. If that half of the population were to grow just half of their own food, think what a change that would make. Think how much less fuel would be spent transporting food. Then I expect that more of the fresh food will make it into the inner cities "fresh food deserts" and that will make better food available to the "poor" which could improve health and in time could assist them in not being so "poor." This isn't giving any hand outs, it is simply making better use of certain resources (around the suburban homes) and the produce won't sell as much in the burbs anymore so the sellers will try to sell more into places where they can't grow their own. Now I know it really isn't as simple as all that because most of the inhabitants of the suburbs are not going to suddenly start growing gardens unless some situation makes them do it. But some are starting to do it (most of us on this forum included.)

Yeah, I use the term more in the sense of "by the people, for the people".... rather than that used by the tub thumping advocates of "democracy and the free world"...



The problem with "majority rule"... as you say... is that, at least these days... there is seldom a clear cut majority... and perhaps even less of a willingness by people to accept and abide by any "majority" descision... even if reached by consensus through long discussion...


Perhaps, in some circumstances... but it becomes a moral delimna... and ultimately a judgement of time and history as to it'ss legitimacy...


I think TCL makes some valid points... and I'm somewaht at a loss to formulate an alternative... given what seems an almost overwealming "force" of evolved mindset that seems to drive peoples to covet unto themselves...

Perhaps it all comes down to... or back... to a sense of community... and "community" values... asking no more of your fellow "man" than you are prepared to give... and an assumed and given.. mutual respect...

This is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. There is quite a movement in the US now (call me a teabagger if you want - I think it is a compliment), where large bodies of people really feel we need to get back to the constitution and put the federal government back in it's place. I however do not have high hopes...I think the system is just to far gone to be corrected under peaceful means...Too many people have pledged allegence to their party of choice and there are not enough independance to help just vote ALL incumbants out. There also needs to be less legislation on the people and more on the house and senate. Anyway - getting far off topic here. Back to community, I too agree this is the key to not only sustainable living, but a sustainable earth. There are however local communities in every town, city and even metros. Churches of all types are the very such communities you all speek of. People in these communities live, worship and eat together. Lifetime friendships are formed and unlike mornings 20 year exceptance theory, in most churches it will be immediate. Having said all that, could the church be a solution? Absolutly! Problem is you need everyone to participate. The only conclusion I can come to, is that people that are not willing to participate in the solution are therin the problem.

Mark

Maybe it is not to late for me to retract that... As soon as I hit submit, I was like dough!

Mark

TC,

Actually, if you look at all the founding documents for America (which would include the Magna Charta) and the united States, you will not find the word democracy mentioned once. In fact, you will not find in all American juris prudence. Is the US a democracy? Yes, decidedly, but it was not so until the Civil War when there was essentially a silent coop.

America started as a Republic, which essentially says, consistant with the Declaration Of Independence, that you (and all human beings) have unalienable rights which no state in any form can take from you -- not even a democracy. The US Constitution was, more or less, designed to protect those rights. But, democracy is not in any way a part that. Democracy, like voting, e.g., is a privilege of state (euphemistically called a "civil right"), something the state can give or take at its leisure. Democracy, implies no unalienable rights whatsoever.

I'm reluctant to use the word "anarchy" because it has so many negative connotations that have nothing to with "no rule" (no violence). Most anarchists are insurrections and can't seem to see that doing away with the gov't always brings about a worse form of tyranny. But consider these examples:

The early Quakers totally ignored the gov't for about a half century. This was a time when the other colonies were immersed in a blood bath with American Indians. The Quakers, settled there own disputes, paid naught in taxes, traded with the Indians, left their door latches to open from the outisde and never lost a single soul or scalp.

The ancient Irish lived peacefully, without a sovereign gov't for over a thousand years (maybe longer, we don't know because the Irish didn't learn to write until St. Patrick showed up). They had an excellent system of law and courts (Read about the ancient Irish law tracts). It was the only place in the world, at the time, where women could own property and not be considered chattel. This happened while Ireland was producing it greatest culture, art and literature. And, the rest of the (governed) world was immersed in a blood bath. There was no army, even though the Vikings and English tried for centuries to conquer them. There was no such thing as incarceration, no police. And the only reason it failed was because the English managed to convince a few religious leaders to form a quasi-sovereign gov't. Then, it was easy to conquer them.

But I digress. Back to your statement: there is an alternative, it is not new and it is always with us. Instead of anarchy, I would call it community or human cooperation or just living. It requires no statutes and it has a built in logic to settle all disputes (which are inevitable)

If you look at the mass of human transactions that go on (maybe anyplace but North Korea), they go on, not because of gov't, not because of legal force (an that is the only differentiating characteristic of gov't among other human organizations), but in spite of it.

We have the ability, and even the knowledge, to live with each other in a peaceable and productive way. The knowledge I speak of is of the golden rule. Every child above about the age of 3 understands the tenets of this rule, because (with the small exception of a few mentally ill) every person on this planet knows exactly how they wish to be treated; hence, they already know exactly the way they should treat others. No murderer wants to be murdered, no robber wants to be robbed, no con man wants to be defrauded.

Do we need to do away with these other systems? Not wise, in my opinion. The doing away with always violates the rule and always yields the opposite of what is desired. And, if we did indeed begin to do community, gov'ts would likely become the servants they should be; maybe they would simply go away, I don't know.

Obviously, force is not a part of the golden rule. Nor is democracy. It isn't that all these forceful systems of behavior are wrong, they are simply not necessary. They are artificial appendages, like putting legs on a snake. We don't need them.

And, anyone who lives a peaceable daily is already doing it. The system is already there. It is not so much an alternative as it is the only law, (if you will) under which human can survive and do survive. And, for the most part, that is what we do most of the time.

One doesn't need to be smart, rich, sophisticated, or well educated to understand this universal principle of human relationships. Every one here knows exactly how, say, if we were all thrown together on a desert island, to get along peaceably and even prosperously with each other. Well, here we are on planet Earth, a desert island among the stars.

m

Well said Mornings

There seems to be a problem with this as numbers increase and as the "do unto others" concept becomes distanced, there are times when a person believes they should be able to do something or use something because the harm that comes from this does not and in some cases cannot occur to them, so they feel aggrieved if someone that suffers wants them to stop. Self interest often blinds us to harm even self harm, look at any smoker or drug addict, even the modern western diet. What do we when we have people that "do unto themselves" what you would not do unto them?

I would say let them eat cake for they probably already have if they are morbidly over weight. I am 10kg more than I should so I am just as guilty. Working on it however.

Somewhat to your and mornings observations. Those whose cultural upbringing originates from the Anglosphere carry that baggage with us. We have internalized the primal concept that so long as we observe a pittance to the State and don't intrude on our neighbors we pretty much do as we please. Not all societies operate under those rules. That pretty much means we can live in a state of sanctioned denial about ourselves if we wish. I don't know about Oz, but over here in the States its down right socially unacceptable to use the word Fat to describe someone. Makes it pretty hard from a public health stand point.

Yeah, I always thought that using the word "fat" was just a waste of time... usually met with self-denial...

Morbidly obese... or stranded whale.... is much more appropriate...