Reading: The Efficiency Dilemma (which you can read HERE!)

The better (more efficient) we are at doing something industrial (using coal power, increasing miles-per=gallon), the more we end up doing it. That is, rather than see an overall decrease of gasoline consumption due to more efficient motors, we see a net increase in fuel consumption – more people driving more hours. The more electricity we can squeeze out of coal, the more plants we build, the more power we use.

Here's a picture of Jimmy Carter, for some reason.

There’s just one small neuron that makes this link happen in the brain. Just one tiny bit of information – the better we are, the more we are – is the turning point for the rest of society and civilization. You’re heard me repeat the adage: “If you’re driving to Mexico and you actually want to go to Canada, just slowing down won’t actually help.” That is, if we need to become a sustainable society, simply minimizing non-sustainability won’t actually help – at the very best, you’ve just postponed utter destruction for a while. Where we need to go is in the exact opposite direction, and the only way we’re going to get there is by stopping entirely, turning around, and going the other way.

With the addition of the Jeavons Paradox, we see the worst of it: by simply slowing down, we actually speed our trip up. By conserving fuel, we can drive longer and get more cars on the road, increasing this mass migration to Mexico while Canada slips farther and farther away.

What do you think?

To me, it says one thing: An unsustainable system cannot be retrofitted to sustainability. The very system itself must become something completely different. Anyone who totes themselves as a “green” or “environmentalist” or anything like that, and is all in favor of increasing the efficiency of our current systems needs to stop, read this article, and think very seriously about the wisdom of making a bad machine better at what it does.

In the meantime, the only author I’ve read who actually understands the repercussions of what I’ve just said is Derrick Jensen, and even he stops short of instigating the full-scale revolution that’s needed.

Ah… will I, when that day comes?

 [We apparently have to have a talent show for our Permaculture class. Being rather talentless, I was somewhat inspired to write a poem (in a poor imitation of Blake). I don't write poems often (or at all), and again, this is obviously the first draft of a rough idea... but here ya go!]

Machinated man-made wretched wasteland wrestled my weary mind
and turned my awkward feet towards freedom’s golden lands
heavy, old, unfortunate man-made-man I came to find
no freedom’s land left to find, only dunes of golden sands

Distraught and downtrodden I sat my ass upon a rock
and asked the bright burning solar light above,
‘Where may man find relief for his flock
and enter in God’s sheltering love?’

Sun came down, hard and heated
and spoke not, nor cared
but by degrees my skin beaded
and I to more agreeable company dared

I climbed a sheer cliff face
where cold stones reached the sky
where wild wooly Winds raced
and, unchecked, should cause me to fly

‘Winds,’ I asked, while tears began to streaming,
‘to where should we now turn our heart?
What comfort’s home now opens to being?’
The winds raced on, on and nothing to impart.

Bruised and bleeding, no less in spirit
I came across a tiny cave in a shaded nook
the way dark, I decided not to fear it
and tumbled in, the world forsook.

Cool, not cold, the darkness embraced
the ground soft and supportive
the sheltering cave my spirit encased
and gave me relief from my motive

Enjoying some well-deserved shut-eye
I awoke in a start, surprised by the time
and found myself embraced by
something serpentine

The snake, not fat by fortune’s grace
thin and black and keen and dread
was no less long than a mile’s pace
and held me wrapped from foot to head

‘Sir,’ said I through strangled lips, ‘you’ve much imposed
the length of your body, it holds mine still.
If this is your cave in which I dozed
I throw myself on your goodwill.’

‘If it pleases you to let me go
though my trespass should warrant death
then I alone shall know
that a serpent’s love is best.’

The snake raised it’s skinny head
its eyes dark in the low light cave
its tongue flickering as it said
‘Stupid human, but brave.’

‘Tell me then, I must know,
by who’s love is your measure?
Tell me how you came here below
it would give me some pleasure.’

‘Certainly,’ said I, and began to recall
man’s cruel wasteland, beset by vulture’s stare
the Sun’s indifferent fireball
and the Wind’s callous air

My story seemed to sway the snake
a tear ran down a scaly cheek
and he said ‘Yes, my heart aches
for the world of man is bleak.’

He stood for a time, thinking
and presently loosened his hold
and composed himself, unblinking
among his many folds

‘Mankind cursed snakes,’ said he
‘For some original sin, I guess,
and forever after we are forced to flee
or face our eternal rest.’

‘If some serpent caused the fall,
to which your Jesus paid the price
why live you in wastelands all
and not regain Earthly paradise?’

‘We would’ said I, ‘if we knew the ways,
but at every step we seem to falter
we pray and pray for better days
but our knees bloody upon the alter.’

‘Then let this serpent make amends
for our previous transgressions!’
So saying, the snake took many bends
and made ready his mind’s possessions

Opening his mouth he began to hiss
and sway and swing and dance
and sang a song just like this
which held me in a trance.

‘Contrary to human belief
and may it be of some relief

that man’s greatest effort made
comes from a soil spade

misaligned he pulls apart
what was once nature’s art

but nature’s wisdom now allures
to bring together what occurs

and in sacred wildness find
the truth for all mankind

that a man must break his back
when he his functions forget to stack

and all of nature’s promenade
comes to him, ready-made

and all he has to do is bask
in the sunlight, simply ask

‘What, I wonder, is nature’s plan?’
and in finding answers, simple man

does not push, nor pull
nor take away from nature’s rule

but let’s God own design win
observe, step back, give a grin

for all your work is already done
be smart, design well and have your fun

Permaculture is the key
to mankind’s immortality.’

Thus sang the serpentine snake
slithering along the floor
his simple words put my mind to bake
as he gently showed me the door

Again outside, against the dew
the sun rose up out over yonder hills
my outlook changed, perceptions new
my body shook in wondrous thrills

unfettered, unshackled, fluid and sly
up those steep stone steps skipping
I sang my serpent song to the sky
and danced among the wild wind’s whipping

the hot golden sands I turned to run
between the boulders and dust so fine
I sang my serpent song to the Sun
and soaked in strong, sensuous shine

machinated man-made made ready my early arrival
mind at ease, awkward feet no longer stumbling
I carried with me now Nature’s Bible
and the force of tectonic rumbling

There’s a deeper power in all of this
much more than plants and maps
unending planetary justice
bringing greed to its collapse

Be joyful, friends, but please be wary
bear the serpent’s song in mind
the darkness is not ours to carry
so in wisdom’s light do shine.

I’ve been asking myself this since I started: What is the Sustainable Living Coalition? What does it do? Why does it exist? Who benefits? How do we fit into the larger picture? So let me ask you….

Is the SLC:

1) An Educational Organization, with the primary purpose of providing workshops and classes for the benefit of the community?

2) A Center where start-up, off-grid businesses can start?

3) An Educational Campus, where interns from around the state and country can live and learn about Sustainability?

4) An Umbrella network, which connects various Sustainable Organizations with the community?

5) An extension of Fairfield’s Go-Green Initiative?

6) An extension of MUM’s Sustainable Living Department?

7) An extension of Eco-Village?

8 ) A Showcase of various permaculture  design and natural building techniques?

9) All the above?

10) None of the above, or some sort of mish-mash?

I’ve been asking myself these questions for a while now. I need to know the definitive answer – the exact, concise purpose of the SLC – before I can move forward on any of the hundreds of projects that need to be done around here. There’s a nearly-unlimited amount of things to do, and because of that, I must know where my time, energy and skills will be put to best use. More to the point, I must know what the SLC truly is, and what I can do to help it achieve those specific goals.

Everything is up in the air with me right now, as I try to sort through the vast amount of information that has come my way. I spent over four hours talking to Steve Cooperman, Brian Robbins and Jim (uh… I forget how to spell his last name), just going over things – incorporating my research into the Board Group emails, what various Board members have told me, plus talking to Briggs, Ashley and several other people.

I was asked to take control of this place and run it like I would if it was mine… and that’s exactly what I’ll be doing, just as soon as I figure out what it is.

Reading: Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement, by Murray Bookchin.

(read it here: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/socecovdeepeco.html )

I was once contracted to transcribe audio files to text, and the file I received was a talk from the  man who’s mission had been the eradication of Guinea worm. Outright, wholesale destruction of this terrible parasite, which once afflicted most of Africa. Due to dedicated efforts from the Carter Foundation and the World Health Organization, however, transmission rates steadily decreased, and now the final goal (zero cases globally) is within reach: http://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/mini_site/index.html

This is almost universally considered to be a good thing, by nearly every individual and group, with the exception of Deep Ecology (as our reading has pointed out) and other nutjobs: http://www.deadlysins.com/guineaworm/index.htm <— These people are fighting to save the worm, even asking for volunteers to host (or “nurture”) the worm inside their own bodies. By what right do we, as humans, choose who lives and dies?

Should we just let nature “take its course?” The elimination of Guinea worm comes primarily from filtering drinking water – by that alone the worm would be extinct. As it turns out, there was a lot of social bias in rural Africa regarding purifying drinking water – I wish I had the source to refer to, but story told in this speech went something like: A man traveled from his remote village to the city for business, and while there learned about the worm and how it can be prevented by filtering drinking water. He returned and started to do so, but faced extreme prejudice, to the point of threatened violence, from the other villagers. They believed that by filtering drinking water he was “offending the Gods,” and would invite Their wrath upon the village. This, to me, sounds like Deep Ecology at work – a mystical supernatural force that was incompatible with rational common sense. It took the testimony of converted shamans, priests and high-profile political leaders, working together, to dispel these idea and get people to filter the water they drink.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that the supernatural (or any spiritual or religious) can be disregarded in a theoretically “pure” scientific, or even social, ideology. I only see a clash of ideals when the above happens – suffering needlessly out of fear or ignorance. The point here is not one of denying the spirit, but rather one of regulating it to its proper place – as a framework for personal experience and spiritual growth, and NOT as a method of approach to our current ecological crises. Whether or not humanity, in all its complex social glory, is a product of the natural world or not is irrelevant; we have the power to influence “first” nature with our “second,” and that alone is enough.

Of course, Bookchin’s understanding of the distinction between Self and self is woefully lacking – I’m not surprised, as I don’t believe anyone from the Deep Ecology camp gets it either. What I believe, as I pointed out in class, is that any discussion of the spiritual unfolding of self into Self is a useless one; enlightened behavior is, in no way, externally different from unenlightened behavior. To base a movement of thought and action around a state of being that is both poorly-understood and behaviorally like any other state is a very bad idea.

This same mistake plagues Taoism, which Murray was quick to scorn, in that Taoist texts provide a description of the state itself, and offers no real methods for achieving it. We can, by proximity and osmosis, gain insight and feeling, and by those means possibly move closer to the goal, but it is like being given a road map of Manhattan while one lives in Iowa – you’re not there, but you get an idea of what it could be. To base a movement, or a social structure, on these descriptions is a terrible idea – and yet, one of the central points of Deep Ecology is expanding this sense of self into the larger Self! This is either mood making, delusion, or enlightenment. If we could really expand ourselves by just thinking about it and wishing it were so, I would have been enlightened a million freaking times by now.

Personally, then, I base my actions on an overwhelming sense of proper, normal, common-sense conduct. Within this common-sense framework are my ideologies, my religion, my spiritual experiences, and the like. These factors, however, are limited to their proper spheres – I don’t kill people, even though I believe in reincarnation and the like, because that would be horrible. On the other hand, I naturally feel a sense of superiority over the rest of nature in those things I am good at, namely cognitive thinking. Individual facets of nature are “better” than me in every physical manner – running, swimming, endurance, sex, seeing, hearing, and so on. But my ability to think and act on those thoughts far exceed anything else in nature – why not celebrate this fact? Why not embrace the power that this provides? If we are the products of nature, we have been set as Kings and Queens on the top – as a democratically elected King of Nature, it would be an insult and disservice to not act with the authority that position provides.

And, as may be the case, our abuse of that position may result in our overthrowing, a defenestration of King Man – Man, in this case, being our social structure, the collective activity all of us contribute to. Here Murray is exactly right – it is our social structure that must be fixed, not how we see ourselves. Humanity already has enough compassion and empathy with nature IF we allow for it to grow in society. By structuring ourselves in a manner which denies this basic goodness to each other, how much more difficult to find basic goodness towards anything non-human? That is the vital flaw of Deep Ecology, if it is true – we must “be excellent to one another” on all scales, in all counties, and among all people if we are to truly address the Why of our ecological destruction. To appeal to the spiritual gods of nature, and merge with them, while advocating death and destruction to our families, is both counter-productive and truly terrible.

I’ve been wrestling with this idea for years, but I think I’ve finally come to terms with the fact that might makes right.

“Right,” in this case, means actualized, manifest correctness. It does not mean, nor imply, any unrealized concept of correctness – that is to say, as understanding and experience increase, so to the potential for better rightness. Until that improved rightness is successfully implemented in the world, however, it is not right.

The method by which an improved right is brought to the world is Might. Ability. Power.

This means that any dominate thing is right, at this moment and in whatever place it holds power. To replace it with something new requires energy, attention – that is, a conscious effort to replace old with new. Without power this could never occur. We can say, then, that any concept that has failed to replace an old concept (or paradigm) is not mighty – that is, it is not right.

Rightness and might are contained within each other, and as each new and better form of right evolves, so to does the power it contains.

So consider this: You might be right, on your terms – but if that rightness cannot manifest in the world because it lacks mightiness, then of what use is it?

I was just going to publish the above sentence and be done with it, but I’m still kinda pissed off about it. Who thinks that the timeless Greek epics are not interesting stories, that they “need improving?”

Seriously – reading the Wikipedia article on Perseus is more interesting and engaging than either movie – from there I can read more about the Gorgons, Quoits, and the Aegis.

OK, one does look cooler than the other, but still.

I guess it’s a point – if I had no interest in Greek Mythology, I’d probably be all “dude, that movie was dope!” or “I loved how that mechanical owl saved the day when Perseus was mincing around.”

The real, actual hero of the 1981 film.

I have to say that the 2010 was at least somewhat visually interesting. There were too many times when the cinematography bowed to the 3-D fad, with spinning spears in our faces, ridiculous shot compositions to place emphasis on distance, etc. The 1981 version, by contrast, just looks like a stupid butt.

Stupid Butt-Face Fights Real Hero with More Personality than the Actual People in the Film.

It’s my fault I feel this way, I know… after seeing the new one in theaters, all my friends could ask was “did you see the original?” Thanks to the magic of illegal movie downloading, I saw the original that evening – that’s both Clash of the Titans in one day. Of course I would be tired and bitter the next day.

My real mistake, however, was  watching The Third Man immediately after to try and rid my mind of the bad aftertaste. Its such a good movie it made the others even worse in retrospect, and made me wonder why I ever bother with such crap.

the real Clash of the Titans

… there’s a chance I’ll watch the new one again at some point.