Back to the Caves! er...Farms!
Jul. 31st, 2005 09:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bluegargantuaHey,
So my most recent reading material has been: Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology by Eric Brende. This being part of my "how might life look without ready access to oil?" research.
The short answer is: We're all better off with the most minimal of technology. Work is good for body and soul. Cars and other mechanical devices tend to enslave rather than empower. Freaky Amish/Mennonites may have wonky spiritual beliefs, but they're probably better people than us becuase they've avoided modern technology.
It was short of practicals, and more of a cheerleading section for 18th Century lifestyles. The one thing that rather bothered me about the entire affair is that the author and his wife have two children...mainly because they don't bother with contraception in any real format (preferring to let pregnancy/breastfeeding space out the children). This seems really stupid to me.
I suppose in a post-oil situation, having lots of labor on hand to help with the farm is a goood thing, but that just means more mouths to feed and can that really be supported. How can you balance the need for a steady, healthy workforce and local carrying capacity? Also, this might have some chilling implications for women's rights. Amish/Mennonite life has strongly defined gender roles, but it's not quite the same thing as gender inequality -- the sexes aren't equal, but they do have their own important spheres of influence. Societies in transition/crisis might not even rise to that level.
I think how well American ideals of equality and social justice survive in a harsher environment might be a daring but important aspect of the game for people to explore.
later
Tom
So my most recent reading material has been: Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology by Eric Brende. This being part of my "how might life look without ready access to oil?" research.
The short answer is: We're all better off with the most minimal of technology. Work is good for body and soul. Cars and other mechanical devices tend to enslave rather than empower. Freaky Amish/Mennonites may have wonky spiritual beliefs, but they're probably better people than us becuase they've avoided modern technology.
It was short of practicals, and more of a cheerleading section for 18th Century lifestyles. The one thing that rather bothered me about the entire affair is that the author and his wife have two children...mainly because they don't bother with contraception in any real format (preferring to let pregnancy/breastfeeding space out the children). This seems really stupid to me.
I suppose in a post-oil situation, having lots of labor on hand to help with the farm is a goood thing, but that just means more mouths to feed and can that really be supported. How can you balance the need for a steady, healthy workforce and local carrying capacity? Also, this might have some chilling implications for women's rights. Amish/Mennonite life has strongly defined gender roles, but it's not quite the same thing as gender inequality -- the sexes aren't equal, but they do have their own important spheres of influence. Societies in transition/crisis might not even rise to that level.
I think how well American ideals of equality and social justice survive in a harsher environment might be a daring but important aspect of the game for people to explore.
later
Tom
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 01:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 12:31 pm (UTC)A Double-Quotation Mark! A Double-Quotation Mark! My Post for a Double-Quotation Mark!
Tom
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 12:30 pm (UTC)I wish it was that good.
Tom
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 12:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 12:53 pm (UTC)Also:
Tom- Take a look at the article in Brain Child about having kids and stuff. There's a whole lot of interesting stuff about why it's better (more important, lalala) to have lots and lots of children. I don't think so, the article is assuming that we *don't* want zero population growth, or negative population growth.
But two kids is zero population growth, and therefore not that weird.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 01:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 01:33 pm (UTC)They are taking no steps to prevent having more than 2 children, yet continue to have sex...
They will eventually produce more than two.
I think that was Tom's point.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 01:38 pm (UTC)That or they don't have sex.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 01:41 pm (UTC)Jared Diamond talks about it in Collapse.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 01:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 01:18 pm (UTC)Second, it is my personal experience that people who claim to be more "morally" sound because of their lifestyle choices are usually not. Having grown up with a lot of homesteaders and back-to-the-land types, some of whom were living in lifestyles several centuries old, I find it neither liberating nor desirable. There is also the issue that these people normally are enabled to make their decision ebcause of the elvel or wealth of the surrounding society (and of their own wealth).
Third, Kunstler gets his science wrong in several places as far as I can tell and its much to early to give up on alternate energy and technology as part of a solution.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 03:11 pm (UTC)Right, even if major techonologies were to fail tomorrow, our basic understanding of how the world works means that we could probably do better in a wide range of activites. Germ theory alone means that disease will be radically more managable than it might otherwise be.
I think the problem with "Better Off" is that the author started with an experiment in mind ("How much technology do we really need?") and then sort of "went native" and lost the thread of his experiment. Currently, he lives out in St. Louis and does a variety of things. He also has more technology than he did when living with the Mennonites (a cell phone and word processor among other things). I think he starts with a fair question, he just failed to answer it (or rather, answered it to his personal satisfaction and let it go at that). It happens that I rather like some of his conclusions, but I can also clearly see that it's only slightly more grounded than "Walden" for example. I expected that it would have a slant, I was disappointed in how unorganized the entire thing was.
Finally, any specifics on where Kunstler is off? I can think of a few, but I'm just shopping around for other opinions.
later
Tom
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 01:34 pm (UTC)Children Total
Date: 2005-08-01 02:38 pm (UTC)As of the writing, there are 3 children, all spaced about 2.5 years apart. So in...8-10 years they've had 3 kids. And the book suggests that there is sex on a regular basis and that no particular contraception is used.
later
Tom
Re: Children Total
Date: 2005-08-01 02:41 pm (UTC)