Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Can We Be Happy Using Less Energy? Uhhh…. YES!
Nate Hagens, The Oil Drum
Peak Oil is one of many symptoms of an ecologically full planet. Our genetically embedded drive for `more’ coupled with an expanding world population of 6.5 billion mathematically suggests a finite limit for growth will eventually be reached, if it hasn’t been already.
In discussions about the impacts of Peak Oil, it is sometimes implicitly assumed that we NEED to replace the energy lost from the coming liquid fuels decline with other energy sources in order to maintain our way of life and our happiness. Indeed, it seems that much of the current effort is focused on comparing/discovering the best energy alternatives with respect to EROI, environmental impact and scalability/timing. In addition, demand experts also look at efficiency, carpooling, 4 day workweek, living locally type solutions, etc. In this post, I look at Peak Oil from a broader context: the necessity and purpose of continued increases in demand for energy. What is it all for, if not to make us happy?
Some ecologists are of the opinion that the world can sustainably house 1-2 billion humans-others believe we can hold upwards of 10 billion. Any figure used here presupposes a certain energy consumption and planetary impact per human. But the world currently has a broad variety of cultures, habits, and energy footprints. Based on the sometimes fearful rhetoric of the Peak Oil community, it is presumed that less energy per capita is necessarily a bad thing.
(21 June 2007)
Constitutionally Unsuited to the 21st Century
Sharon Astyk, Casaubon’s Book
The last two weeks have been madness here – multiple end of school events, a big synagogue charitable event, deadlines for articles, for submission of homeschooling materials, for preparation for a class I’m teaching, various social and community obligations, lots of short notice changes, appointments and schedulced events, and, of course, lots and lots of work in the gardens and on various books.
I’ve found myself living a life rather like the one that a lot of my friends do, in which days are scheduled to the hilt, much time is spent running around or getting ready to run around or doing things. This is rather unlike my own life, and that’s by intent. Generally speaking, we try hard to keep a comparatively slow pace, but things snuck up on us. And I don’t it like it very much. I hate when I’m saying “ok, we’re home from 2:30 to 3:15, and then we’ve got to…”
Perhaps there’s something wrong with me, because I know plenty of people who arrange their lives this way and seem contented. Two of my dearest friends maintain two fairly high powered jobs, their kids have a full schedule of activities, they are active volunteers at the synagogue, the school she teaches at and the university he does. Their kids play sports, have music lessons, all sorts of social activities and they seem not only happy, but comfortable. They are actually remarkably good at this life – most of the trouble comes from the fact that neither parents sleeps more than 5 hours a night.
I on the other hand seem to be ill designed for this. I find myself rushing, and worrying about being late, and that’s when I start snapping at the kids “Simon, come *ON* – get your shoes, we have to leave *RIGHT NOW!*” I don’t feel I write well or think all that clearly when my mind is on something else as well. And it leads me to wonder whether there’s something wrong with me personally, whether, in fact, I am simply constitutionally unsuited to the pace of 21st century life, or whether there’s something wrong with the expectation that we’ll all run around like this.
(22 June 2007)
Unlucky to have a job
Jan Lundberg, Culture Change Letter #162
We are conditioned to believe we are lucky to have a job. The belief is understandable as a mistaken and tragic notion, if we consider we are generally raised in ignorance regarding, for example, infinite and universal human potential that is wasted. Society’s rulers have their own purposes that aren’t necessarily in your or the average person’s interest.
…Work has been sold as a virtue, to the point of terminal illnesses and loss of personal purpose. Let us question the arrangement further, in light of today’s changing world: The worker who takes home the paycheck and typically buys appliances and commutes is contributing to global ecocide and corporate domination. It’s almost counter-intuitive that a non-worker or welfare recipient is living as the better planetary citizen, even if unconsciously.
Let’s take a moment to promote the lifestyle of being lucky not to have a job. Instead of simply being rich enough not to have to work, there exists a more conscious and adventurous way of living that maximizes community and relationships, thereby sharing and enjoying mutual support. Such a person may be the activist, artist, healer, and the determined non-taxpayer — all of whom may succeed in being closer to nature than the herd of downtrodden consumers in their urban and suburban treadmills.
Workers are actually trying to obtain basics that were always naturally free — safe food, clean water, and materials for shelter and clothing right from the Earth. Additionally, workers are trading dollars and losing wealth when many could be bartering to get most items and services they need.
(20 June 2007)
The Company We Keep, and the Company (Chelsea Green Publishing) I’ll Be Keeping
Dave Pollard, How to Save the World
John Abrams’ The Company We Keep is the story of a Natural Enterprise, with all of the qualities necessary to be a sustainable, responsible, joyful business (in stark contrast to most traditional corporations):
- It’s egalitarian, not hierarchical.
- It adapts to circumstances and lets solutions to problems emerge, rather than ‘imposing’ prescribed solutions.
- It’s collaborative, not competitive.
- It buys respectfully. and finances purchases organically, rather than by beating suppliers down to the lowest price and then depending on low interest rates and government subsidies and ‘incentives’ to stay afloat.
- It communicates its products virally, not through propagandist advertising and marketing.
- It strives for responsibility, effectiveness and zero waste, rather than externalizing its costs and wastes for short-term profit.
- It evolves through innovation rather than through growth.
- It identifies and satisfies needs, rather than trying to create them.
- Its strategies are improvisational, not preemptive.
Abrams’ story is detailed and refreshingly candid — he admits to the bad decisions, false starts, missteps and the continuing work in progress that his enterprise is. This makes his insights utterly credible, and his story immensely educational. Most of the corporate profiles in business management books and MBA ‘case studies’ are whitewashed and self-serving. Abrams, by contrast, gives us the unvarnished truth — what really works, and what doesn’t.
(20 June 2007)
The ideas about organization also apply to non-profits… including peak oil websites. -BA
