I’ve actually made a lot of mistakes, and seemly continue to do so, and probably will until I’m very dead.

The specific mistake I’m referring to is teenager-esqe arrogance. Somehow it carried through until just very recently.

I don’t have the answers… I never did. I have a few ideas of what could be cool, and might work, but answers? The Truth?

Nope.

Education is a bitch. If you’re really learning, it’s a continual process of revelations of ignorance. Every bit of new information shames your long-held, uneducated beliefs. By the end, you get to that point where you can barely move, unable to speak, as the level of you unknowledge is fathomless. People come to you for answers, and all you can do is say, “I… I don’t know.”

If you want a career, you have to back up that with “But, here’s some cool ideas that might work.” You swallow the shame of your ignorant opinion, taking some solace in that fact that no one else seems to know, either.

I’ve recently discovered that civilization itself is unsustainable, and taking it down is the key to establishing real, true and lasting sustainability for humanity and the planet. But that’s all I know, and I’m not even sure that’s the entire picture. I don’t have alternatives, just “someday” ideals that could come to pass. I don’t know how to save people and stop the destruction of the planet. I don’t even know how to save myself and the people I love without going to jail or worse.

I’ve taken the entire weight of the world upon my shoulders, and I know that’s not enough. There’s so much more to this than I’ve discovered in this short period of education. I cannot shift, like so many others, to some idea of salvation, some simplistic fix-all solution that is entirely out of my hands. Everywhere I look people are giving up, because they can’t handle the decent, the revelation of the terrible truths and the fact that we all, every one of us, are all individually responsible for it, and are equally responsible for changing things.

I decided, long ago, that I wouldn’t take the well-traveled path. I knew then, as I know now, that it’s not going to be easy. So far it’s been hell. But god damn, I couldn’t live any other way. How could I just live a normal, shrugging as we kill the planet and each other, saying things like “it’ll all work out” and “everything will be fine” while perpetuating the problem?

I’ve recently been confronting mortality. We’re all going to die someday. It’s coming for me, and whether I have 100 more second, days or years, the final result will be the same. I can either look after myself, play it safe, not rock the boat, or I can get something done. I can do things most people are unwilling to do, because that’s who I am. I’m crazy. I’m a warrior. I have bones and muscles, breath and sight, and I can do something.

But what can I do?

I don’t know.

[This paper isn't due until Monday - I finished it Thursday night. Enjoy!]

Executive Summary: Impediments to Establishing Global Sustainability

Ron Khare

The purpose of this paper is to identify and clearly explain the single largest challenge to the establishment of global sustainability.

Our working definition of “global sustainability” is the perpetuity of natural resources. The definition of “civilization” is ever-increasingly complex urbanization. This is distinctly different from “community,” with which it is often confused.

Summary

The only real factor that prevents global sustainability is civilization, or more specifically, the cities upon which civilization is based. Civilization’s basic structure is exploitative, destructive and unsustainable. The continued rise of civilization is the only true source of the destruction in the natural world. No amount of topical solutions will fix its fundamental need, which is to take, by any means necessary, the resources it cannot provide for itself.

Primary Threat: Civilization Itself

Civilization is marked as the shift of mankind from nature to city. As far as human pursuits are concerned, this may be for the best – higher concentrations of people and access to the benefits from the resulting greater division of labor have led to some amazing advances of arts and sciences.

Cities, by design, have one deadly flaw – they cannot support their dense populations with the resources contained within them. In order to survive, then, resources (like food) must be brought in from their surroundings.

Historically, the resource base for a city was strictly limited to what could be walked in by carts or by beasts of burden. The needs of these cities were fewer and simpler – food, primarily, followed by raw resources to be used by craftsmen.

This may seem innocuous at first, but the system of violence, imperialism and oppression is already firmly established in this model. The city relies entirely upon the ability of farmers to farm significantly more than they themselves need, and then expend the energy necessary to transport those heavy, time-sensitive goods to a city center. What follows is a list of the inherit problems with this system.

Resource Redistribution and Loss

In a sustainable agricultural model, most (if not all) of the nutrients in the soil stay on-site, and are eventually re-incorporated into the soil. The nutrients that cannot be recaptured can be replaced by drawing on established wild areas – leaf litter from forests, for example.

Pushing the lands to their limit for exportation to the city destabilizes the soil. The nutrients leave the farm in the form of produce, only later to be discarded by the city-dwellers in the trash or down a sewer system – never to return to the farm. This one-way flow of nutrients means the farmer becomes increasingly reliant on external fertilization means – the farmer becomes a threat, in turn, to the wild areas as his need to replenish the soil increases.

Soil is just one example of the problem with city consumption – any and all natural resources are subject to this one-way flow. The cities take these natural resources and produce ever-increasingly sophisticated and specialized items for human needs – or may lead to better knowledge, science and art. In any case, the resources themselves are never returned to the land from which they came.

The Rise of Civilization is the Death of Nature

Cities, by their nature, are unsustainable – although it is possible that a small city working with the people who live on the nearby land can last for a very long time. However, a successful city (by the common understanding of success) will become increasingly sophisticated, efficient and, in all likelihood, grow.

The city lifestyle is removed from natural processes, even while understanding of those processes may increase from higher learning and observation. Cities are lit up at night, creating an unnatural daytime effects. Roads and sewers are built to efficiently funnel traffic and sewage to predetermined locations. Soil is covered with stones or concrete. Waterways are straightened, and rainwater is flushed away. Views are obstructed by large buildings and walls. Sounds and smells are all of human origin. Animals are either slaughtered for food, domesticated as pets, or killed as pests. Vegetation, if it is allowed, is contained and cultivated for aesthetic properties. City gardens are typically herb gardens or small supplemental plots. As a city expands and increases in infrastructure and sophistication, it further removes those living therein from the natural world. At the same time, it continues to put increasing demands on the surrounding “wild” resources – and those who gather from or farm them.

Eventually, the needs of the city exceeds the yield limit of the immediate land. While it is possible that the city could take efforts to reduce its population, this is almost never the case. Instead, the answer has always been to reach father out, gathering resources from most distant lands.

It may be that those nearby farmers may have some sort of allegiance to the city based on economic or defensive purposes that could justify the loss of their resources. The farther you travel from the city, however, the harder it is to offer benefits that offset that loss. When the city realizes it must have those resources in order to survive and prosper, all too often the answer has been to take them by force.

There is no logical reason that someone living off of a piece of land should voluntarily create a one-way stream of resources off that land. Either those living on the land must be indoctrinated with an established set of illogical principles that support resource exploitation, or those resources must be taken by force. Either way, those living on the land that has city-valued resources is on the losing end of the deal – true sustainability precludes the perpetual exportation of resources.

Symptoms are Not Causes

Every threat to civilization Lester R. Brown mentions in his book Plan B 4.0 is symptomatic of an underlying planetary disease. The problems with climate change, war, water usage, agriculture, energy generation, transportation, peak oil, over-population, failing states and the like are merely the result of a firmly established “civilized” mindset. Resource extraction has advanced to the stage where many people can no longer live on their land – half of the world’s population have followed the flow of their resources to the cities. (source)

Civilization has had a few thousand years to perfect its justification for existence, downplay or re-word resource extraction, and so far remove people from nature that many people today believe that our only hope for sustainability is in the further development and refinement of civilization itself. One-way resource extraction and the exploitation necessary to continue that flow will abate, people say, if we can advance civilization just a little bit more.

Yet, in all the thousands of years that mankind has been developing cities, there has never been a satisfactory way to resolve the fundamental issue: too many people on too little land to support them. There is no guarantee that, if techno-idealist visions of “eco-cities” are realized (making even the largest mega-cities fully self-sufficient) that humanity will abandon the long-entrenched goals and values of civilization itself.

More importantly, even if every symptom of civilization was solved through the application of miraculous new technology, the disease of civilization will only continue to grow. New resources will be found vital to further development, leading once again to extraction, exploitation and scarcity, resulting in more advanced problems in sustainability that we’ve yet to fathom.

The Democratic King

How the transfer of power to a new system of accountable monarchies may be the only viable method to create a sustainable civilization.

“Reformers have the idea that change can be achieved by brute sanity.”

- George Bernard Shaw

The Parameters of the Problem / The Need for Change

Complete Worldwide Topsoil Erosion and Infertility in 42 to 84 years.¹

Half of the world’s forests are gone.²

Sixth Major Extinction Event, caused by man-made means, may result in half of all of the world’s species being extinct in less than one hundred years. ³

90% of the major fish species in the world’s oceans have disappeared. ⁴

1.2 billion human beings live on less than $1 a day. Nearly 3 billion human beings live on less than $2 a day.⁵

Almost 1 billion people do not have regular access to clean drinking water.⁶

Oil production may end as soon as 2033. ⁷ It is entirely possible that peak oil production occurred in 2006.⁸

“Mirroring these findings… the United Nations Environmental Programme’s GEO-3 report of 2002 found that a vision of continued economic growth and global development akin to that which is now underway is consonant only with planetary extinction and specifically they conclude that: either great changes are made in our global lifestyle now or irrevocable social and ecological upheavals will grip the world by 2032.” – Richard Kahn, Towards Ecopedagogy (emphasis mine)

These are just a few facts and figures that shine some light on the current disaster afflicting every part of the globe. This problem stems from human beings and its ultimate end, if left unchecked, is wholesale destruction Earth’s biosphere and everything in it, including humanity itself.

Certainly the world has undergone worse changes of climate and extinction events. The Snowball Earth event, in which “Global temperature fell so low that the equator was as cold as modern-day Antarctica,” may have occurred 650 million years ago.⁹ The Permian-Triassic Extinction Event killed 90% of all sea life and 70% of all terrestrial life some 250 million years ago. ¹⁰ The Earth, by itself, can continue life, in whatever form it can, by any means it can.

Our argument here is not one of protecting life on this planet. Nor am I concerned about the survivability of the human species – our ability to think about scales, times and distances will allow some small groups to survive anything short of a Snowball Earth. What I am concerned about is the survival of civilization itself, containing the total of our shared knowledge, experiences and resources. Civilization obviously cannot survive without people, but the survival of people without civilization is, to me, an unacceptable outcome, and one we must avoid at all costs.

Now, by all accounts we still have enough resources to skate by for another generation – however, at the end of that coasting, we’ll have pushed the world over the brink. No rectifying efforts will be able to recapture the ecological habitats and weather cycles already being fundamentally altered or destroyed. Moreover, without the fundamental changes to the structures of our current power structures, we will be unable to mobilize the massive effort to stop or reverse these changes – we need our cars (and therefore oil), we need our coal for heat and electricity, we need our leaders – leaders who will not undertake the necessary measures to prevent any more damage from occurring.

Without strong leadership, coupled by a massive social movement, civilization may be doomed.

What Can We Do About It?

Education, while vital to the long-term survival of civilization, cannot be a solution to our current crisis, as it places the responsibility of action on the next generation, or even worse, on rationality overriding previously entrenched emotional beliefs in a vast majority of people.

By the same token, grassroots efforts and the sustainability movement’s bias towards personal responsibility will take too long, with vastly too much effort, to achieve the vital ends of societal transformation – if it can at all. ¹¹

All this leads me to the inescapable conclusion that humanity, all seven billion people have two clear choices at this immediate moment:

Option A: Full Scale Revolution of All Current Power Structures that are not Sustainable. (Saving the world at the expense of the community.)

Option B: Small-Scale Revolutions that Reinvent Civilization on a Local Level. (Saving the community at the expense of the world.)

I define my terms as such:

Sustainability: the ability of human beings to be able to live in a safe, healthy and perpetual manner regardless of any predictable internal (human-based) or external (environmental) changes.

Power Structures: Any mental construct that people agree to, regarding the division of labor and leadership.

Civilization: The means by which humans can lift themselves from a feral state of living to living in a manner in which they can increase the quality of their lives and the lives of those around them.

Revolution: The abandonment of a current power structure in favor of either a specific replacement, or a general “anything else but this.”

In actuality, there is only one choice: Adaption. Death is inescapable if we do not adapt, so I do not count it as an option – it is the result of inaction. The purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative power structure that we, as Americans, are loathe to consider – and yet may hold the greatest promise of salvation.

The Case for Revolution, Again.

“… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” – The Declaration of Independence

The fundamental premise of America is “power to the people,” holding high the government Abraham Lincoln once described as “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Our history began when citizens finally understood the extent by which the old system of monarchies could abuse their power. We fought, bloodied and to the ragged bones, for freedom from a tyrant. The result? Nearly every nation in the world since then have shrugged off their traditional rulers and adopted some form of democratic rule. The people, in theory, now hold the power to direct their own collective destinies.

The various shortcomings of democratic rule are beyond the scope of this paper. For my purposes, however I have to summarize one idea: the people may not be able to determine their best collective destiny. In fact, by adopting non-sustainable policies and societal developments, our collective rule has failed us. By continuing to persist with their directions long after their damage and irresponsibly have been proven, our collective self-rule has become an abuse of power – by continuing with our current power structures, we are abusing our own power against ourselves.

The common approach to the ecological devastation listed earlier, promoted by the more prominent voices and appearing as a collective bias in the sustainability movement, is to change individual habits and actions. Whatever tiny changes one person can enact, if applied broadly across a population, will yield world-saving results.

Derrick Jensen, in his article “Forget Shorter Showers,” has a more pragmatic view of this individual-first bias:

“… Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. “An Inconvenient Truth” [the famous Al Gore movie on Climate Change] helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.”¹²

Clearly, we need better solutions than a grassroots educational campaign to get people to change the type of light bulbs they use, or promoting “bicycle instead of drive” as a healthy way to save the environment.

Joel Kovel, in his book “The Enemy of Nature,”¹³ puts it in an even more direct manner:

“Though the Second Contradiction [the degradation of the conditions of production] may be offset in individual circumstances by recycling, pollution control, the trading of credits and the like, the imperative to expand continually erodes the edges of ecologies along an ever-lengthening perimeter, overwhelming or displacing recuperative efforts, and accelerating a cascade of destabilization.”

(I should note that I am grouping both our government (with all its affiliated nodes) and our economy – their source of power, and their right to continuing operation, comes directly from the will of the people.)

It should be obvious by now that an individual, doing everything they can within the sphere of their normal, daily influence, will have an negligible impact on changing the current direction of these “monsters” – and even if every individual adopts the most extreme measures of conversation, recycling and such, so long as these fundamental premises exist – those forces that brought us to this point – and are allowed to continue, we still face wholesale ecological destruction.

Therefore, nothing short of a complete revolution will bring this machine to a stop.

But why bother? As I said before, I believe the crisis is fully realized, and that it will not stop no matter what we do. I advocate revolution not for it’s preventive properties (I only bring those up in an effort to sway those who still believe there is time for prevention), rather, I advocate revolution because the current power structures will not allow for new civilizations to take root without it.

As the world constantly changes, our government has a moral obligation and ethical duty to promote and nurture new forms of government. That is to say, if a government acts for the benefit of its citizens, it acts to provide the alternatives that will eventually make itself obsolete.

Treason, in this sense, is not committed by people betraying the government in pursuit of new power structures. Treason is committed and perpetuated by the government against the sovereignty of individuals by outlawing new ideas from attaining the power necessary to test and implement themselves, and by either directly contributing, or indirectly allowing, the continued destruction of the biosphere, upon which all life depends.

We cannot act, either to save the planet from continued destruction or by adapting our society to meet the coming destruction, so long as we, individually and collectively, continue to invest our power in our current government.

Fortunately, thanks to our ever-increasing body of knowledge and experience, we know the true mechanics of power – that is, it is mental in nature, and being so, revolution only takes place in the minds of people.¹⁴ Since this is the case, no revolution need to bloody itself or fall victim to the ignorant idea of killing people to achieve its ends. It is civilization we’re trying to save, after all, and nothing is more uncivilized than killing people.

If we are going to revolt, it might be a good idea to have a new system to take place of the old – as much fun as forging a new society out of chaos and anarchy might be, it runs counter to my stated purpose of saving civilization. What we need is a new society, a new way of doing things, and in a manner that promotes civilization and allows it to flourish.

The Restoration of the American Monarchies (R.A.M.)

I am suggesting that, given our extreme need to affect massive social changes in a very short amount of time, our best bet is to centralize power in a network of elective, constitutional monarchies serving small kingdoms throughout America.

In order to be effective, this idea rules out continued allegiance to the current governmental structure, at least on the state and federal levels.

America is a hard place to talk about monarchy; there is no place more resistant to the idea of – and no place more in need of – a radical shift of power to a single individual (or, as I’ll explain later, an ecosystem of individual kingdoms).

Thomas Paine’s fundamental arguments in his famous paper Common Sense (1776) revolve around the idea of an ideally constructed government. His assertion that government is produced “by our wickedness” and acts as a restraining hand on the vices of mankind. Being the voice of reason in the American Revolution, he obviously had some things to say about Monarchy:

“Absolute governments, (tho’ the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs; know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures.”

His following deconstruction of the English Constitution and Monarchy can be easily read in the light of the tyrannical oligarchy we Americans find ourselves in today.¹⁵

Common Sense, while perfectly framing the reasons behind the eventual failings and dissolution of nearly every monarchy on the planet, can only now be used in a cautionary manner. By learning the lessons of the past, we damn ourselves to progress. The creation and refinement of a new system of monarchy may, in time, create a system not unlike that which we, as America, first freed ourselves of. However, given that today’s America behaves in a manner more like the old English Monarchy than the accountable representative democracy first envisioned, we are obligated to repeat the cycles of the past – revolution, in the sense of overthrowing an abusive government, and in the sense of turning around again, we face a viable solution in the form of our old enemy – monarchy.

Reading Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence as texts against our current government had led me to the inescapable conclusion that America’s revolution against a monarchy was incidental. What America was truly revolting against was the abuse of power and the subjection of its citizens.

Modern Americas react violently against the concept of a monarch from this historical context, immediately throwing the idea in the bin of absolute dictatorships that run amok today. A clearer view of our revolutionary legacy, however, shows this to be mistaken – any form of government can abuse its invested power and subjugate its citizens. Our current form of government has done so, with the list of offenses arguably equal or greater to those weighted against the English King.

In that revolution, our Founding Fathers took the risks to form a new government, one unlike anything the world had seen in thousands of years. Therefore, in the pursuit of finding a new system of government, it is not backwards or improper that we should look to various models of the past as a basis for a radical new structure of power. The purpose of this paper is to consider the idea of monarchies as a potential, sustainable replacement for our current forms of government.

A Vision of a Kingdom

As a lot of the changes we need to undertake are fundamental to our way of life, it may be easier to describe what this changed society would look like, in terms of actually being there. So let’s take an imaginary journey to the Kingdom of Spearhead, just south of Fairfield, Iowa.

It’s early on a warm summer morning as you and your guide crest the gentle hill. In the growing brightness, down in the valley below, you see the low brick walls that surround the… town? City? It’s hard to tell how many people live there. You can see faint smoke rising from a few chimneys, the small wind turbines reflecting the light of the rising sun. You’re impressed by how quiet this morning is.

As you walk down the hill you notice that the high patches of vegetation surrounding the town are actually gardens, densely packed with foliage. Interspersed with these thick gardens are plots of land that look wild, like prairie, although some have trees. As you walk, your guide points out that the trees now lining the road and reaching back into the wilderness you’ve been traveling are, in fact, fruit trees – she says that the forest of fruit extends several miles back in both directions. You can see the mulberries lying on the road, and the growing buds of apples, pears and plums. The sweet, sticky smell of fruit is everywhere as you walk under the cool, dark leaves – the sun is rising higher, and you know it’s going to be a hot day.

The path turns from the road, and you see a large iron gate, fully open, nestled in the warm brick walls. As you approach you ask your guide, and she explains – the entire settlement was designed to last a thousand years. Even though we live in an age of peace, no one can say for certain that will always be the case; it was constructed to not only promote a unity among citizens, but provide a strong defense, should the need arise. You pass through the gate. In the meantime, she says, the walls prevent wildlife from wreaking havoc on the town’s gardens and chickens.

As soon as “chickens” escapes her lips, a nearby rooster belts out its call from somewhere on your right, startling you. A few more roosters let their loud calls, and suddenly you’re aware of the sounds – the most interesting of which is the growing sound of people talking and moving about. Looking around, you can see the earthen houses, small and packed together, some rising high, three or four stories tall. They have the look of adobe or polished stone, smooth angles and corners everywhere, painted a stunning variety of colors. A light clay, locally sourced, seems to be the primary building material – even the winding road you’re on is made of it, small plants like dandelions and camomile poking out between the blocks.

It was the first thing you saw as you walked through the gate, but you really pay attention to it as you walk further in – a giant statue, like a Buddha, sits on a pedestal in the center of the main road, shining in the dull brown of bronze. Someone has placed a garland of flowers around his neck, and the eyes are mostly closed, face ever-so-slightly bemused. Around the pedestal, a fountain gurgles softly. You pause and look at it – there are drinking fixtures attached to every side. Seeing your look, your guide nods and says it’s good water. You didn’t realize how thirsty you were, and as you drink the cold water you can feel the growing warmth from the sun on your back.

The sounds of people have grown considerably louder, and you hurry to the center of the town – the market is in full swing. It’s still morning, and you’re impressed by the sheer number of people – you didn’t realize just how many lived here. Your guide estimates about four thousand or so, but the town is only a little more than half a mile across.
Although it’s hard to see the exact layout of the town’s center through the throng, a few things stick out. The first, and most obvious, is the relatively large building on the opposite side, shining bright in the sunlight. That, she says, is the Royal Hall, where the King holds court and administers the nation. It also serves as the central bank, as well as a number of other municipal functions. Between you and it is the central park.

At first the park seems disorganized, but a sudden symmetry hits you – the paths twist and wind their way around, lined on both sides by small kiosks, tents and market stalls. The majority of the goods sold are foods of all kinds, but you can also see clothing, cookware, and all manner of other goods being sold. In the exact center of the park is what your guide calls the “Brahmasthan” – the holy, sacred center of the entire Kingdom. It appears as a small, one-room temple surrounded by pillars, with ornate doors, one on each side. The one facing you is open, and you can almost see inside as the sunlight keeps rising – soon the door will be closed, to keep it quiet and calm inside.

You press your way through the market, impressed by the variety of foods available. Some of the stalls have refrigerators and freezers – some sell ice cream, and you can hear the buzz of juicers and blenders from nearby vendors. Looking up, you can see the lights strung from vendor stall to stall.

You stop at one of these stalls for a light breakfast – an omelet with veggies, and a berry milkshake. You sit at a small table next to the stall with your guide, and as you get your food (served on a wooden plate and dainty ceramic cup) you grill the owner about his business. He says his daughter collects the fruits from the nearby forest daily – the eggs come from his neighbor, in exchange for free omelets. The veggies come from a few places: his small personal garden, the community garden, and sometimes he just buys them from the other stalls. The milk comes from the local dairy, which he has to buy.

You get into even more detail. Yes, he keeps his stock in a chest refrigerator – you can see it in the back of his stall. Electricity is free, so there are no bills. He maintains his juicer and blender, taking it to the tinkerer if there are problems. If something breaks (and they do), the town over has a rail, and thereby access to either the part needed for repair, or if it’s really gone, a new one. A new juicer is crazy-expensive, though, and the currency-barter systems isn’t as clear as he’d like it to be – sometimes the Kings draw up lists of things the communities need from each other and work out a system of exchange, sometimes the people themselves handle it. He shrugs and gets back to the stall – people are waiting.

After eating, your guide asks if you’d like to meet the King. You say yes, and you’re back into the crowd. By now the sun has gotten outright hot, and you pause occasionally in the shade of a tree or one of the roofs that extend over seats filled with eating, drinking and talking people. The people seem lively – there’s talk of not getting much done during the day, and what they can do until it cools off in the evening.

You finally reach the Court, with it’s large doors opened wide as small groups enter and leave. As you enter you’re struck by how nice it is – pillars that look like large trees rise up, supporting the roof – as they extend back into the hall, it gives the impression of being in a forest. To your right, through another pair of doors, you can see the bank, with a few people exchanging paper money, making deposits or withdraws, and so on.

At the end of the hall is the Throne, which you are honestly not impressed with. You move closer, and you can see it only rises about three feet from the ground, tastefully carved but not the opulence you were expecting. It has a few desks and chairs in front of it – this is where the King listens to the problems people have and, if necessary, weighs in.

You hear a voice, and turn around to see the King waving at your guide. They shake hands, and she introduces you. The King shakes your hand enthusiastically, and apologizes, saying he has not yet eaten today, but that you are more than welcome to join him as he hits the market before it gets too hot.

As you walk together, you can’t help but notice his crown, like his Throne, is simple, carved and wooden. It does not rise high on his head – it’s more like a band than crown. You might miss it if you didn’t know what you were looking for, but a closer look reveals an extreme degree of carving and design. You decide you like it.

I have to stop the story here. I would love to take you further on this trip – the conversations you have with the King, the way he and the citizens interact, the way his Kingdom and the others nearby interact, a cool evening’s tour of the rest of the town and surrounding land, the night life when the community and arts really come alive, and so on. I have to cover a lot more ground than that, however, so I must leave it for another time.

If you liked this story, there is one point I would like to make: We have, right now, the vision, technology, science, economic models, social-political structures, historical examples (both successes and failures) – in short, we have everything we need to lay the foundations and begin construction of this world.

What is stopping us, then? For all the outward appearances a traveler may see, there are deeper forces at work. These forces are the foundation of our current power structures – our currency and economy, our political structures, what values our society holds dear – in short, to establish a world like this requires a complete departure from the norm, which, at this point, is illegal, and may enrage a significant number of people. That is to say, to establish a world like this, we really need a revolution.

The Microcosmic Human Body / The Ecology of Civilization

In the Immunity chapter of his book “Blessed Unrest,” Paul Hawken likens the current sustainability movement’s incredibly diverse network of organizations in terms of the immune system – that is, a network of the body’s immune cells, acting independently and without a person’s awareness (or even permission), work in a disorganized yet highly effect manner to prevent infections and diseases.

The Gaia Theory¹⁶ holds a similar idea – the Earth itself adapts to changing conditions, much like a living organism. All the various forms of life contained within the Earth, then, can be seen as cells regulating the planetary body.

Gregory Bateson, in Steps to an Ecology of Mind puts it this way:

“…. a healthy ecology of human civilization would be defined somewhat as follows:

A single system of environment combined with high human civilization in which the flexibility of the civilization shall match that of the environment to create an ongoing complex system, open-ended for slow change of even basic (hard-programmed) characteristics.”

These comparisons are telling: the body’s strength comes from billions of individual cells working in harmony, and the health and well-being depends not on the strength of just one type of cell, but on all of them working both for their own success AND the success of the body as a whole.

Our current nation-system of the world (according to the United Nations) contains 195 countries serving seven billion people. Imagine if the body only had 195 cells! If only a few became sick, it would quickly spell death for such a simple and inflexible system. Increasing the number of cells in the body would quickly produce a stronger and healthier system.

But, just as with the body, the success of those individual cells depends completely on a higher structure, one by which those cells transfer resources and facilitate communication, working without bias and for the benefit of all. These higher structures are known as the heart, the brain, and so on.

My solution, then, is to mimic the natural biological systems by creating “cells” of mostly self-sufficient kingdoms, enclaves, towns, and so on. Each settlement would retain political and cultural sovereignty while working together to achieve solidarity – the rulers of these independent places, as a matter of course, seek cooperation with their neighbors to increase the health of their “cell,” and thereby increase the health of humanity as a whole.

If this is an argument for monarchy, then, it is also an argument for every other type of political, economic and social available. The difference between this and the current state of the world is that all these ideas have simply been scaled down to a level that is manageable and accountable to a community or group of communities.

Why not just promote this idea, and mention monarchy equally among all the other alternatives? Simply that I believe monarchy, structurally speaking, is the best option to create the vital changes necessary to create a sustainable civilization in the fastest and most efficient manner.

In this paper I’ve presented a view of the world as it is today, and I’ve provided, both by theory and story, an alternative to our modern-day world. The ecological destruction taking place has not abated, despite the outcry of scientists, politicians and citizens of every nation in the world. Nor can it stop, unless people agree to radically change the very base assumption of their lives – their “stories,” as Christopher Uhl puts it.¹⁷

But its hard for people to treat a slow, generational problem as an acute crisis. Too much emphasis is given to educational solutions, grassroots efforts, or the hope that a sudden technological breakthrough will relieve us of the unthinkable reality of severe social, political and economic changes. Changes, the cited experts agree, are inevitable – either we do them today, or they will occur on their own in about forty years.

It serves us well, then, to envision a new way of living like the story I provided. But even if this story were to light up the soul and inspire people to gather the resources, knowledge and power to create such a life, paradoxically, it is illegal to do so. Breaking the law, particularly when you adopt a new currency and no longer pay taxes or recognize governmental authority, will be dismantled as quickly as it is put together, and any resistance to this will be met by a quick and violent force – breaking the law is not tolerated. Nor should it!

This is the sticking point, and the place where our hearts feel the greatest pinch – we are denied the means necessary to save ourselves. The effort to regain the power of our own destinies is called revolution, and while peaceful revolutions have occurred, and in some places are occurring right now, the general American population, so far, has no pressing need to do so. By the time things get bad enough to inspire the average American to risk his or her life in defiance of the status quo and reach for this new vision, it may well be too late.

I am compelled to do everything I can, in my sphere of power, to further this new vision and make it a reality.

My action steps are clear – continued education into the mechanics of power and the various structures that can be adapted to sustainable ends. Using this knowledge, I will be able to construct a clear and irresistible vision for the future and the present, one which can be immediately adopted. If the vision is true, and the people’s passion real, then the revolution will occur by the sheer force of evolution. This may be met with resistance, or it may be openly adopted, I do not know. However, I cannot let potential problems stop me from pursuing this end, as the entire “human world” is at stake.

What can the reader can do? Understanding the ecological and social problems that we currently face is only a small portion of the larger picture: That these problems, left unchecked, will destroy civilization as we know it. Our real problem, then, is finding a new story: a new, sustainable world. We can adopt it just as soon as it is imagined – immediately! Let us spend our time constructing this new world in our consciousness, and from there… well, I guess we’ll see!

Works Cited

Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000. Print.

Blake, William. The Works of William Blake: with an Introduction and Bibliography. Ware: Wordsworth, 1994. Print.

Edwards, Andres R. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. Philadelphia, Pa: New Society, 2006. Print.

“Forget Shorter Showers | Derrick Jensen | Orion Magazine.” Orion Magazine – Nature / Culture / Place. Web. 04 May 2011. <http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801/>.

Global Country of World Peace. Web. 04 May 2011. <http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org/citizen/index.html>.

Hawken, Paul. Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being, and Why No One Saw It Coming. New York: Viking, 2007. Print.

Jeavons, John. How to Grow More Vegetables: and Fruits, Nuts, Berries, Grains, and Other Crops than You Ever Thought Possible on Less Land than You Can Imagine : a Primer on the Life-giving Grow Biointensive Method of Sustainable Horticulture. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed, 2006. Print.

Kahn, Richard. Towards Ecopedagogy. Print.

Khare, Ronald S. The Sharp Knife of Forced Simplicity, Volume 1: The Numinous Rebellion. Fairfield: 1st World, 2009. Print.

Kovel, Joel. The Enemy of Nature: the End of Capitalism or the End of the World? London: Zed, 2007. Print.

Leopold, Aldo, and Charles Walsh. Schwartz. A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford UP, 1987. Print.

Maharishi Vedic City. Web. 04 May 2011. <http://www.maharishivediccity-iowa.gov/capital/>.

Mahesh, Yogi. Maharishi’s Absolute Theory of Defence: Sovereignty in Invincibility. India,: Age of Enlightenment Publications, 1996. Print.

Mahesh, Yogi. Maharishi’s Absolute Theory of Government: Automation in Administration. India: Maharishi Prakshan, 1995. Print.

Mander, Jerry. Technologies of Globalization. Print.

More, Thomas, and Clarence H. Miller. Utopia. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2001. Print.

Plato, and Francis Macdonald. Cornford. The Republic of Plato. London: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

Uhl, Christopher. Developing Ecological Consciousness: Path to a Sustainable World. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Print.

Part One: The Beginning of Time to the First Settlers

Part Two: The First Settlers to Today

It took me significantly longer than I anticipated to write these things. First, I put considerably more effort into writing them – I don’t think I put that level of research into any academic paper I’ve had. Second, I kept getting sidetracked by interesting stories and information that didn’t make it into (or had almost nothing to do with) the article.

For instance, upon reading how Central Park (the Square) was considered to be the center of the county (although it was off by a mile or so), I stopped reading, found a map, and traced from the original survey to the actual center spot. THEN I read that the county borders expanded at some point, throwing my original spot off… some hours later, by finally going off the current county borders, I found the place. …but so what? I guess I did use it for a picture, but I could have easily used a photo of the Square – learning where the center of the count was for my benefit, because I wanted to know.

It was a good project, on the whole, and I think people have been enjoying the fruits of that effort. I certainly feel enriched, being able to bust out facts and “did-you-knows” about relevant historical events during conversations with friends. Check ‘em out, maybe you’ll enjoy them too!

Before the internet, a single, unremarkable person with something to say would struggle their entire life to find a way to express themselves – to find an outlet for the voice, the ideas and feelings swelling up inside of them.

Now, with the internet, practically anyone can express and communicate to the entire world at whim. Truly a miracle, right?

Except no one is listening.

It’s true, the potential now is that the world, for whatever reason, could turn your obscure and rambling blog into the highlight,  read and considered by hundreds of  millions of people around the globe… but it won’t. What we have given the everyman is a Void into which he can shout to his heart’s content. Is this really an improvement from the silence he had to endure while searching for an outlet?

Right now, if I feel inspired and want to write something, I have the following avenues to publish it: Mass email from two accounts and my newsletter, Facebook, MySpace, Google Buzz, Twitter, this Blog, the other Blog I write for, the website I write/wrote articles for, my hand-written second book, my personal journal, An Idea from the Edge forum, two YouTube Channels, the forums of all the webcomics and manga I follow, and the comment sections for all the blogs I follow.

If I was any good at internet promotion, I’d belong to a dozen or more social media networking sites and forums for authors, writers, etc.

I may like to write, and I may have a lot of good… well, a lot of ideas, but there’s no possible way for me to consistently generate original content for the sheer number of outlets available to me – nor would it matter if I did, given the tiny amount of people potentially exposed to it. It is with a fair amount of shame that I acknowledge a response or new post on a popular webcomic’s forum will see many, many more views and responses than this blog post will – that, by casting my voice in with the crowd I’m actually more likely to be heard  that making my voice stand here by itself.

I’m not complaining – if I desired, I could spend my days promoting my word, getting in with more groups, driving up the number of visitors… I could work hard to make myself heard, to really stand apart and have my personal voice heard… but I do enjoy the irony of it. The work to be noticed now is the same amount of work to get noticed before the internet existed. The actions have changed – I sit here and do webstuff instead of legwork – but the work itself is the same.

I don’t really have any stories to tell. Some people, I’ve seen them, they have stories. Characters, plots, rich new worlds of imagination…. I don’t. My aborted novel is testimony to that – it’s awful not so much due to lack of writing as a lack of clarity. I don’t own the world or the people in it. A half-baked idea without the passion to bring forth real creatures.

To be fair, I don’t care that much. That lack of passion for storytelling goes all the way down – I don’t care so much for it OR for the fact that I don’t care. I imagine some day I’ll have some stories that people might actually want to hear… writing them down would be more of a shortcut for me, a way to get out of repeating myself over and over.

Actually, that’s all writing has ever been for me: A way of getting it down and out so people can read it without bugging me or interrupting me with one of those “but that idea is stupid and would never work” comments. Trust me, I KNOW. I DON’T CARE ABOUT THE PRACITCALITY OF IT. What I do care about is the awesomeness of it.

Ahh… maybe that’s it. The work of fiction, the far-away place and colorful characters do exist for me, but I see them as the future, I see me as the future, living in a place of my own design and construct. I know this person and this place with a intimacy unrivaled even by this day-to-day modern existence. Maybe I could write a sort of “speculative fiction” set in the place I’ve devoted myself to creating.

It’s a concern, as my leanings towards the more epic side of life push me to put someone or something in danger… the protagonist or my place are the two things I would never wish for any harm, or potential harm, to come against. If you know about the “Law of the Attraction” you know my problem with that.

So this leaves either a “romantic comedy” set in this place, which…. eh…. hmm. I’ll have to think about this some more.

Get Volume 1 Now!

]]> http://forcedsimplicity.com/fiction-as-real-as-my-breath/feed/ 0 http://forcedsimplicity.com/rebellious-thought-for-the-day/ http://forcedsimplicity.com/rebellious-thought-for-the-day/#comments Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:47:26 +0000 Ron Khare http://forcedsimplicity.com/?p=137 “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” ~ John Locke

We live on a beach with a million lines drawn in, and people are stepping over them left and right. Without a clear vision of what we want or where we want to go, these lines are meaningless, and the act of stepping over is void of merit.

Get Volume 1 Now!

]]> http://forcedsimplicity.com/rebellious-thought-for-the-day/feed/ 1