I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1475

Rumbold asked for a progressive solution – and in comment 34 I gave one. Katy gave a response – however I think it is all to do with education in self reliance, in terms of being content and happy by being social and active and not by the possesions we own. Now that will require a whole new generation to be educated that way and that will cost money – money for a much highter teacher/pupil ratio – say 1 to 5, and then a money to pay for all the training and activities that will have to be tried before each child finds their place and activity that will sustain them through life. The effort and change of mindset will be like a the Nasa Moonshot Programme but 10 fold.

We were only just discussing our ‘Gifted and Talented’ policy at our school the otherday- and what to do with the megre budget. Now there are all sorts of Government targets etc, but we came to an enlightened consensus – our job at the school will be to spend the dosh giving all children access to as wide a range of activities we can afford, hopeing that they will find their talent – perhaps we are niave romantics. However I certainly trust the teachers involved to really try and give each child a chance to find the thing they are talented at, as all children have a talent for something. It would be easy to identify the talented children in conventional subjects (but then have all the arguements with parents of children not on the list, who feel we have not assessed their child correctly) so we are not going down this route athough it would appear to be the Government line.

Anyway that is my small contribution.

Justforfun

You fetishise the older generations, but we had more income inequality then, we had no law that applied equally, and those in power structures flouted it without any problems.

So actually, things are better, not worse. Of course environmental degradation is a HUGE problem. Battery farming is a huge problem. But incremental changes can change that. We now have more respect for animal life, and laws to ensure that, then any other point in history.

Dave, in addition to agreeing with everything Don said above, to answer this point: what we can have are incremental changes towards a better society.

You abhor materialism and consumerism for example. But without that you wouldn’t be using a cheap conputer and conversing with people all over the web. You wouldn’t have access to good music from radio stations etc.

I prefer evolution rather thnan revolution, simply because most revolutionaries in the end turn out to be power-hungry nuts who don’t mind killing a few million people to achieve their aims.

When they run out, me and my kin will get by on critters and strangers.

Hardly a solution to the problems, I’m well aware. But the problems are advanced enough that there’s no way you’re going to get humanity working together in the time that’s left. So what’s the point in mooching about looking worried?

But my question still remains: What are we going to do about things? That’s really all I’m interested in.

Do you have any ideas? Let’s hear them!

You seem like a nice, principled guy, but then that is the defining characteristic of utopian idealists. Which makes their inevitable grisly ends all the more regretable.

And because you are such a nice guy I’m going to forego the umbrage I generally take at being repeatedly characterised as a brain-washed materialistic gadget-happy sheep with its head in the sand and my last drops of humanity dribbling into the barren ground of capitalistic conformity. That ain’t the case.

But I do have a few issues, some of them general, which I’d like to raise.

First, you have a very feeble grasp of medieval history. I followed your link to This Land is Ours and, you’re right. It’s not ‘mainstream’ history. It’s piffle. And if you think ‘mainstream’ history is obsessed with battles and kings then I seriously doubt you have studied it at any significant level.

Second, you have an even feebler grasp of the realities of living off the land.

‘Why would “the anarchists” harvest? We’d take just what we needed for today or tomorrow, and then act on our needs again in a couple of days time’

You would not make it through the first winter. Really.
Bert has explained in simple terms how that would pan out at the first shortage. Or before.

Third, you have a tendency to glide over objections and arguments with uplifting platitudes that sound like Pollyanna on Prozac.

‘But we really can! All we need to do is believe it is possible, and want it enough that we refuse to take “no” for an answer.’

‘Seizing our dreams with an unstoppable desire to make them real is the first step to getting there.’

‘The only thing stopping us creating this “idealistic” society is people who think it’s too idealistic…’

Etc.

Fourth, you make assertions without a fragment of evidence, apparently based on what you would like to be true.

‘I believe that the world can sustain a very high number of humans (higher than now), if only we ensure resources are fairly distributed.’

Fairly distributed by whom? This anarchist society is going to ensure enough cooking-oil in Cologne, enough grain in Ghana, enough legumes in Luton? How? Just general good will is going to make it happen?

‘Think about the purpose of (say) 90% of jobs out there, and ask ‘does this job really need to happen?’

Though about it. Mostly yes. Health, transport, food production, sewage, water, manufacture (we can do without video-game machines, but can we do without steel?) education, fire-fighters. Think it through, Dave, and back up these throw-away lines with actual considered proposals.

Fifth, you tend to be a shade patronising. Most of us are familiar with the basics of human impact on the environment and are as concerned as we feel we need to be. This is not amazing news you are bringing us, some of us just don’t find your proposed solutions to be practical. Phrases like ‘Owning more possessions will never make you truly happy.’ tend to raise my hackles, but that’s probably more me than you.

Sixth, you are too sanguine, for my liking, about the human cost of this glorious transition. Although you say that ‘I don’t want a collapsed society, but it’s coming anyway’, I do detect a certain anticipation, even eagerness, for the day when the great leap backwards can begin.

Having said that, I’m all in favour of the transition towns, the sustainable energy and the desired reduction of material desires.

But as an agends to follow, so far I’m giving it D+, and the + is because I think your heart’s in the right place (except for the bit where you skip over the inevitable famine, plague and chaos which The Plan inescapably requires.)

If that’s the extent of your soldiering knowledge you’re going to get your arse handed to you. Hard to imagine how your sailing knowledge could be worse?

What move are you planning?

Who gets to design it though?

Nobody in particular – and thus everybody does.

Personally, I’ve had enough of waiting to make my move, so am preparing to make it within the next 3 or so years.

Honestly, I do think we’re probably quite likely fucked. I intend to survive – not at the expense of other people, but in co-operation with them.

Still, I also know how to sail, and how to fight (both empty handed and with weapons). I am a much better fighter than I am a sailor though – it’s been a while! I would prefer never to have to make use of what I know in combat – I would hate to seriously injure anybody, even a complete stranger.

I really hate fighting, but I spent a lot of time (and pain) learning how to do it anyway.

Of course, any idiot can point a gun and pull the trigger – though I do have the advantage of invisible weapons.

For your information, I have coped just fine in (admittedly temporary) anarchist spaces, and see no reason why much of what I learned there won’t apply in a wider context.

Each to their own. Good luck!

“So we learn from the mistakes made before, as we design the type of world we would like to live in (bearing in mind that the longer we procrastinate about it, the less resources we will have at our disposal with which to create it).”

Who gets to design it though?

“But we can learn a lot from the things that have gone before, and cherry pick the bits that did work.”

Cherry-picking from history is always dangerous, as it fails to take into account that these things worked because of all the other factors around them at the time. Thus, what worked in 1st century Gaul might not work in 21st century Sunderland.

There’s also nuclear proliferation, and at the current rate it’s hard to hope that we’re not going to see some form of nuclear war in the next 20 years. Bummer. Your return to subsistence farming might sort that one – but you’ve a decade to convince 7 billion people. Good luck with that. Even then, do you trust them? Wouldn’t you need a global police force to ensure that people everywhere were dutifully concentrating on organic vegetables rather than uranium enrichment?

I took the fucking sheep living manifestation of corruption route myself, as a result of which I think I can consider myself an accomplished soldier and sailor. So whatever happens me and mine while not comfortable will likely survive. Best of British to you and yours, you don’t sound to me like someone much cut out for anarchy.

If only it was as simple as pretending nothing is happening, and just carrying on as ever… perhaps even with the strange albeit warm and fuzzy idea at the back of our minds that eventually, everybody will be able to live just as we do.

But THAT is the fictional reality!

Our world is about to change beyond anything we have ever seen.

I am not interested in whatever you think you have now, or whatever you think you’d like to be able to keep doing. That is not going to happen for much longer. Lap it up while it lasts, I guess – but the more you lap it up, the shorter it will last.

I am interested in what we are going to do to survive this – particularly how we are going to do it without turning ourselves into a nightmarish police state, or causing millions of people to die in the process.

Rumbold: So we learn from the mistakes made before, as we design the type of world we would like to live in (bearing in mind that the longer we procrastinate about it, the less resources we will have at our disposal with which to create it).

Here some of those mistakes:

1. Not sticking together, but being tricked into fearing our neighbours by those who would seek to divide and rule us. There are infinitely more of us serfs than our rulers, and we can get rid of the rulers at any time we want to, if enough of us stick together and demand it.

2. Living beyond our means, in terms of amount of resources each of us is using. Whatever we think we have now, it is not going to last. This change is inevitable, so we need to plan how we are going to deal with it and take radical steps now to get there without crashing – not just pretend it’s not happening.

3. Trusting any politicians. Nuff said.

There are undoubtedly more.

I don’t believe an idyllic existence has happened, and that’s not really what I’m arguing for. But we can learn a lot from the things that have gone before, and cherry pick the bits that did work.

Bert will understand when it becomes personally applicable to him and his. The question is: will there be enough time left to do anything meaningful about it?

Sorry, but it’s nearly 2008 and the writing is on the wall, so ignore it at your peril! Our current way of life is coming to an abrupt end, within our lifetimes. Let’s make something positive come of that.

“Why would you steal food in a society where everybody shared and supported each other, and where it would be unthinkable to allow a stranger to go hungry?

I don’t even need to go that far back into history to find examples of societies (not even anarchist ones) where this was the case – it was the way of things in medieval Europe.

I’m not saying the peasants had an idyllic existence, but despite working for Lords, they still had a much greater level of freedom (even economic freedom) than we do now.”

Not really. Medieval life for the average peasant was extremly harsh. Most peasants were little more than serfs, who were not allowed to leave without their lord’s permission. They had to give a percentage of their tilling to their lord, plus a percentage to the church. Often their land would be ravaged by raiders or armies, and they would have soldiers billeted on them.

If the weather was good, and there was an average amount of war, they could expect to harvest just enough to feed their family and pay their taxes, occasionally making a bit more money. If the harvest failed, as it sometimes did, they would starve. If soldiers stole their harvest, they would starve. If they were too sick to work, they would starve.

The life of a medieval peasant only really improved as a result of the Black Death. This killed off large numbers of the workforce, ensuring that the surviving peasants could demand more money and rights from their superiors, who had to agree. This drop in population, combined with the Dutch ships which carried grain from the kingdom of Poland-Lithuania, made life better for peasants in Western Europe.

With regards enclosure, this was of course a terrible blow against Saxon liberty by our Norman overlords and oppressors. However, Saxon England was hardly some idyllic paradise for peasants. There were still raids, wars, famines, taxes and oppresive lords pre- William the Usurper.

And as someone you consider to be a living manifestation of corruption and a fucking sheep, forgive me if I lack the confidence that your plans are going to improve my lot.

My faith in other people regularly gets tested, but I believe we are as much a product of our environment as we are a product of our natural instincts.

Although we are basically just animals, we differ in that we have the ability and the means to defy our instincts, and use abstract thought to make the kinds of decisions that non self-aware animals cannot.

To me, that means we don’t have to lie down and be victims of our own “human nature”, because there is an opportunity to change ourselves and thus change our society. We start by changing ourselves and our approach to everyday life – since really, that is the only thing we can actually be sure of changing. But change is infectious!

I don’t believe in “perfection” – there is no such thing. I believe in working with what we have available, and not placing arbitrary limits on that simply because something appears to be impossible.

It is not impossible – just difficult. Seizing our dreams with an unstoppable desire to make them real is the first step to getting there.

Don: I’m not saying the peasants had an idyllic existence, but despite working for Lords, they still had a much greater level of freedom (even economic freedom) than we do now. The clever trick of the current time is that we are at once both peasants and lords, and thus too worried about losing our “position” to challenge the prevailing system. It has beaten our community spirit out of us, and replaced it from birth with dog-eat-dogma.

The question of sustainable population is both inevitable and irrelevant.

Inevitable in that it is one we are going to have to face pretty soon anyway, regardless of what anybody wants.

Irrelevant, because when you look at how many rich folk there are compared to how many poor folk in the world, you will see that orders of magnitude more poor people live on far less resources than the rich. Therefore, sheer population numbers alone are not as much of a factor as the amount of resources used by each individual.

I believe that the world can sustain a very high number of humans (higher than now), if only we ensure resources are fairly distributed. On average, we would all (even us comparatively well off folks) be a lot happier, and have a greater degree of freedom in such a situation.