3,561,596 members
12,429,752 petition signatures
$19,571,785,510 diverted from Big Pharma
Why Self-Sufficiency Should Replace Sustainability in the Environmental Movement
When effecting change, it becomes necessary to be that change first. Restrictive legislation on the masses has proven futile in the past and does not seem to benefit the people these actions promise to protect. One example is the phasing out of incandescent bulbs to usher in harmful CFL bulbs.
We place the oxygen mask on ourselves before we apply it to others during an airplane emergency. True sustainability and environmentalism happens at the individual level; one person, one group, one town at a time. The following are some reasons why the current sustainability moves are not helping the people we might think and some suggestions how people can promote real sustainability by first sustaining themselves.
~Health Freedoms
Why ‘Self-Sufficiency’ Should Replace ‘Sustainability’ in the Environmental Movement
The environmental movement is in love with the word ‘sustainable’. Admittedly, it’s a wonderful word in the purest sense, meaning; 1. capable of being sustained, 2. capable of being continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment. Who doesn’t want those capabilities? Yet, ‘sustainability’, like everything else good and pure, has seemingly been hijacked by the ruling oligarchs as a way to impose more top-down control of society. Passionate environmentalists are beginning to realize that the only way to affect real change is by becoming sustainable individuals through self-sufficiency. This focus on individual empowerment will naturally lead to increased liberty, as it minimizes the tactics used by mega-cartels and government to control our core needs of food, electricity, or medicine. Living in an environmentally and socially sustainable world should be an obvious goal, but it won’t work if imposed at the barrel of a gun.
Removing individual liberties through restrictive legislation can never amount to sustainability, since much of the proposed legislation doesn’t even ‘minimize the long-term effect on the environment.’ Banning incandescent light bulbs, for example, in favor of more energy-efficient but chemically-poisoning CFLs, demonstrates that our leaders have no genuine desire for the environment, but only wish to control consumer choice. It’s similar to favoring nuclear power because it seems cleaner today, yet when the reactors meltdown, or waste needs to be disposed of, it irrevocably ruins Mother Nature. Legislating something as petty as what type of light bulbs we are allowed to purchase only indicates the tyrannical level of micromanagement intended for their view of a sustainable society.Those who are trying to force lifestyle modifications on the public, while they jet-set and limo around the world, have forever stained the authenticity of the ‘sustainability movement’. However, if we, as environmentally-concerned individuals, focus on becoming self-reliant, we will not only break our dependency on many of the establishment’s control mechanisms, we’ll also limit our impact on the environment and gain the ability to ‘be sustained’ — the two core definitions of sustainable. That’s the real triple bottom line for environmental activists: sustainable self, sustainable environment, and genuine independence.
If the current oil spike continues, the industrial food and big box store machine will grind to a halt, or at least make non-local food impossibly expensive. Perhaps then the masses will discover how much power this system has over them. We’re already seeing the makings of a global food crisis. By producing some of your own food and buying the shortfall from your local organic cooperative, you can come close to food self-reliance. This type of food production/consumption is healthier for us, it reduces the impact on the environment in countless ways, and it breaks our dependence on factory food. Furthermore, when we apply some level of alternative energy, we not only stand in defiance of the corporate energy state and the endless resource wars, we commit to cleaner energy technology. When we can harvest our own fresh water, we can survive without chemically-altered “public” services. When we become a producer instead of a consumer, we inch closer to breaking free from the rat-race economy while limiting our rubbish. And when we learn to make and apply natural health remedies,we discover a level of freedom from the toxins of Big Pharma.
By the very nature of becoming more self-sufficient, we’ll limit our individual footprint on nature by maximizing the use of all resources. Instead of being ‘sustainable’ by taking things to the recycling center, anything useful is re-used. Mason jars are used for canning, shampoo bottles are refilled with homemade or castile soap, empty milk jugs are used to start seedlings in, and so on. In short, very little waste is produced when we are committed to becoming independent from the consumer culture.
Because the only genuine path to sustainability in any broad sense is through one person and community at a time, the environmental movement must shift its focus to personal self-sufficiency. And because sustainability cannot be achieved through forced coercion, gently educate your peers when they express interest. On a broader scale, propose ideas to make your neighborhood or town less dependent on outside influences and seek like-minded volunteers to assist in projects.
Ultimately, in order for environmentalists to affect real change we must do as Gandhi said and “be the change you want to see in the world.” This doesn’t mean preaching, picketing, or protesting. It means living the change. And the most effective way to live a more sustainable existence is to dedicate ourselves to breaking free from the poisonous system itself.
Jeffrey Green
Sources:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/why-self-sufficiency-should-replace.html#more
http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/04/08/garden-as-if-your-life-depended-on-it-because-it-will/
Mr. Green–Thank you for taking the time to write such an intelligent, relevant article and sharing this idea.
I do like this well written article.Thank you for your opinions. Regression to a cave man society would not be acceptable and wholly much less survivability’s. In this attitude we strike at the wrong target. Our technology has brought us more leisure time. This time is mostly wasted as well as extra income over real requirements. What is true here is that it is up to the individual to help himself and others. What is not so true is the target. The target is of course as stated is the self. On this subject of self one must direct attention to a betterment of knowing, using existing technology in order to achieve ones own hidden greater natural ability. Only then, with this long lost advanced creativity do we escape the primitive bonds we find our self currently confined to. There is simply no other way. We are the authors of our observable demise as well as our own Resurrection. My Opinion. ARC, Affinity Reality, Communication, Carroll L. Francis 2011 April 23
Lois:Finally a point of view which puts the onus where it belongs,the individual. An approach which creates an opportunity for individuals to debate and argue uses up valuable time which could be used for some productive activity instead. Make Self Sufficiency Sustainable by being that way and in the process, training the next generation to be that way also, by example.
The idea that it is ‘either/or’ (sustainability or self-sufficiency) is a mistaken notion to begin with. Obviously we need both. If we opted for pure self-sufficiency (the argument of the political right) then anyone is free to pollute as much as their indifference or greed motivates them. This argument is framed as ‘removing individual liberties’ will be bad, but high gas prices will be good because that will motivate the ‘masses.’ The author’s arguments align with those in favor allowing corporate polluters to manipulate the price of energy, spend billions on lobbyists, spend billions on PR (to manipulate the ‘masses’), mothball promising technologies so we stay dependent on current technologies, and all the other shenanigans that exist today.
• In the early 1990′s GM came out with an electric car which they leased. After a couple of years GM shut down this innovative vehicle even though it was doing well for a start up technology (GM had the worldwide research lead too.) GM took back all the leased cars, even while satisfied consumers begged to keep or buy the electric cars they had been using.
• Amoco over 10 years ago bought a company that had patented a breakthrough technology to extend battery life. Amoco immediately cut research funding and has tied up the patent rights so others cannot use this technology. The technology had been hailed as a possible breakthrough that would make electric cars viable.
• In the six months leading up to national elections in the U.S., in both 2006 an 2008, gas prices were an important topic on voters minds. The price of gas declined steadily for those six months until the election, then within days afterwards gas prices began a steep and steady upward climb.
• BP had a massive oil spill in the gulf and had cameras showing the pollution going into the water. Yet BP initially claimed only 5,000 barrels a day were leaking out and refused to let any independent engineers see the videos. Once the video feed was released, within hours trained engineers (not paid by BP) had calculated that the amount of spillage was far, far greater. The government’s final calculation was 206 million gallons spilled in 86 days, almost 80,000 barrels a day.
How does a desire for individual self-sufficiency effectively address these types of corporate manipulation? I know many on the political right want to frame this discussion as ‘individual responsibility is all we need.’ I’ll agree that we do need more individual responsibility. But that alone will not get the job done without accountability and oversight of those who have demonstrated a lack of integrity.
The real premise offered in this article is ‘individual self-interest will create the best possible outcome for everyone.’ I think a useful discussion would be to evaluate if the world actually works like that even some of the time, and if so in which cases.
I am quite concerned about the “energy-saving” light bulbs that contain too much mercury. With these breaking and people not knowing they must protect themselves against mercury and the mercury getting into land fills, we have a sorry situation. I hope more people recognize this situation and act to prevent the harm that is being caused. We must be self sufficient, yes, but we are part of the whole and the whole must be healed and I feel that is through education and dissemination of the truth about such things as the light bulbs, so at least people can protect themselves. It can be as little as commenting to someone who is buying the high mercury bulbs when you see them in the store.
You are so right – I can’t thank you enough for this pearl of wisdom.
Great reply Larry. I agree. We need both individual self sufficiency and new sustainable social systems. These new systems for managing intelligently the earth’s resources must be based on science and technology with human and environmental concern. Not profit, politics or outdated belief systems
I’m curious, have you heard of a Resource Based Economy? The movement is now in 60 countries. Check out this documentary:
http://www.WhatIsRelevant.com
When we think of sustainability, often we think of durability, longevity and environmental respect. In general, a sustainable practice is a practice that takes the health of the future into consideration. However, this idea isn’t just reserved for the physical, material world- it also applies to thought, belief, human conduct and society as a whole.
An unsustainable practice is one that has an unbalanced negative effect, which, through time, will adversely effect a person, society and/or the environment. A classic case is our current use of Oil as a medium of energy. This could be considered unsustainable due to the fact that oil is largely unrenewable and, when burned, is damaging to the environment. Any practice that causes an irreversible resource depletion or long term environmental pollution is an unsustainable practice.
Likewise, if a particular company outputs large amounts of waste byproducts during production, polluting the environment, this would be considered an unsustainable practice as well, regardless of what they are producing.
Similarly, if materials or knowledge used in the production of a particular kind of product are not of the highest known quality, very often the integrity of that product is compromised inherently, leading to the eventual creation of more waste when that product fails or becomes obsolete. Given our current system of profit, most everything that is produced is done so with a built in weakness, due to the need to compete for market share. In other words, if two companies are each competing to create a certain item, both will need to be strategic in the materials and designs they use, very often compromising quality for the sake of affordability. The result is a product which breaks down much faster than a product which was given the greatest care and highest quality component materials.
This doesn’t happen in our system for two reasons: 1) If a company was to use the best known design and the best known materials, they would likely have a much higher production cost and would likely lose a competitive edge. 2) If products were made to last for extended periods of time, people would not need to repeatedly replace, update and fix their items as much, and a vast amount of revenue and jobs would be lost by industry at large, slowing the economy.
This is, of course, unsustainable by definition, for the inherent inefficiency of the economic system eventually creates unnecessary multiplicities, waste and pollution.
And this leads us to unsustainable ideologies.
An unsustainable ideology is one that inherently leads a person or group to unsustainable practices. For instance, the reason a production plant might use poor materials to create unsustainable products, while also outputting a disproportionate amount of waste, is really the result of a larger force, known as the Monetary or Profit System. In a Profit System, there is no reward for sustainability, for the system is built upon competition and regeneration. In such a circumstance, sustainability is always second to profit, for the survival of a company is based on profit, and profit is partly based on reducing costs and expanding income. Therefore, the unsustainable practices that exist in all industries are the result of an underlying flaw in the ideological economic structure itself.
In theory, most would agree that having an abundance of resources, along with products that are made of the most endurable materials for maximum sustainability and efficiency, is a good thing. However, these notions are not rewarded in our current world monetary system. What is rewarded is Scarcity. Scarcity and planned obsolescence are rewarded in the short term, for it creates a ‘turnover’ of profit, while also making more jobs. Sadly, this ‘short term reward’ is at the cost of ‘long term destruction’.
The Free Enterprise System, along with all other subgroups, such as communism, socialism and fascism, is an unsustainable ideology, for it has built into it a propensity for environmental and social abuse. To put it more clearly, a world that is in competition with itself for labor, resources, and survival is an unsustainable system inherently, for it lacks an external conscience.
So then, what is an sustainable ideology?
While this question will always bring new answers as human evolution continues, in the present day we have a concept called The Scientific Method. Very simply, the Scientific Method is a process of investigation which, though the most modern methods of learning, measurement, testing and experimentation, works to demonstrate the validity of a particular understanding or possible resolution to a particular problem.
An example would be a problem with a car. If your car doesn’t start, you would begin a train of thought, based on logic, to find the source of the problem. Logic would guide your focus, likely beginning with how much gas is in the car, moving towards the ignition mechanism, etc. This is the scientific method applied to problem solving. A non scientific method for such a problem would fall under the category of ‘irrational’. For instance if you car doesn’t start, it would be irrational to start looking at the tires, for the tires would likely have nothing to do with the mechanisms associated with the problem.
Sadly, our approach to social operation is largely without logic or methodology, but rather it is submerged in tradition, superstition and outmoded methods of conduct. A scientific approach to society, using logic and reason to assess and react to social issues would have a natural gravitation towards sustainability, for nothing can be isolated or detached in such an approach. In other words, we need to stop looking at the world through the blinders of the systems and ideologies that have been created in the past, and start looking at the world in the most broad, unbiased way we can. The only medium which supports this approach, is Science, and the gifts of science have proved its validity without question. Therefore, it is time we utilize the methods of science in our approach to society itself.
A quick glance at the modes of operation used in the world today reflect a gross negligence of reason, logic and scientific application. Our economic structures are based on mediums of exchange and values which have little relationship to true resources and reality. Religion continues to preach worldviews which have long been overridden by progressive scientific thought. Our labor system is setup so that people must be “employed” in order to gain money to survive, while the actual contribution that these occupations have to society are highly suspect, showing that “jobs” often exist simply to keep people doing “something” in order to live and support the economic structure. This is a waste of human life…
There are many, many facets to the understanding that our current social institutions are unsustainable. To summarize the issue, our life on earth must have a foundational premise by which our operations relate. This premise must be as empirical as possible, and not based on opinion or projection. From a scientific perspective, we see that resources and human ingenuity are the most valuable issues at hand. Human intelligence and awareness, coupled with the thoughtful management and utilization of earth resources are really the only two core issues. Everything else is built upon this. Therefore, we need to begin an approach which maximizes education, technology and resource management.
Until this is done, sustainability will be in jeopardy. This is the goal of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement.
“Our technology has brought us more leisure time.” Really??
Maybe you have lots of leisure time, but most people and myself have far less time than did the last generation. I don’t believe this sentiment speaks for most people – especially those conscious of the real problems regarding sustainable and healthy living.
The article does capture a potent idea, though – one that I have wrestled with for years. As much as I would like to see society and our government move towards an intelligent and true organic and sustainable existence, I can’t say that I am very confident that we are going to get much more than energy efficient light bulbs and other politically convenient programs mired in controversy. I believe that the truly most evolved technologies will not be employed or rolled out to the public because, well, they are too liberating – and quite, frankly, such a concept is not welcome by the oligarchic powers that be.
I hate to be cynical, but while I keep trying to support intelligent, sustainable reform for the system and society, I will be preparing for the worst and trying to become self-sustainable locally. The fact is that the vast majority of the people in our nation are addicted to fastfood and short-term unthinking. This is what most corporations and politics caters to. If I have to rely on these masses for my future and the greedy corporations and politicians that manipulate them, I’d rather move to the farm with a handful of other like minded souls and cultivate my own sustainable future.
What an incredibly intelligent and well articulated piece. And may I express my deepest gratitude for NOT using the useless phrase “carbon footprint”. I would only add that we need to stop seeing ourselves as separate from nature. I believe this view has led most people to think that the artificial life-support commerce-based consumption-driven lifestyles they now lead are somehow natural, while failing to see that they are completely unnatural contrivances of those who would be our over-lords.