Brink, I am afraid that your economic independence movement sounds too much like the back to nature crowd and the craftsman movement of the 50's and 60's. While I agree that we need more economic independence I really don't believe that trying to create independent economic communities will accomplish anything that will move the country forward.
What I had hoped was that the recognition of the “essential workers” of the pandemic would provide both an economic and spiritual boost to the many under appreciated and under paid workers in our economy. We need to find a way to bring back the dignity of the common working man and provide them with an honest working wage that allows them to have the security of a decent home, health insurance, and food and transportation in a safe environment. Most jobs today do not pay sufficient wages to provide ½ of what is needed for that, so that even with two people working you cannot make ends meet. If you add in child care so that two people can work full time you still cannot make ends meet. People need three things to be satisfied, a living wage, a job that provides dignity and allow them to have pride in their profession whatever that is, and protection of a lawful society.
Our current society has beaten down the wages of virtually every job to bare subsistence or below, has removed most job protections and made unions almost illegal, thereby removing or taking away any chance at dignity, and is unable or unwilling to enforce the basic laws that prevent the scammers and thief s from preying on the common citizen. Fixing these problems rather than trying to build an economic independence movement that is subject to the same problems that the rest of society has is more likely to be successful.
I'm all for trying improve conditions in the labor market, as I've written about at length. But I'm interested in exploring alternatives because I'm skeptical that the labor market can be improved sufficiently to become an arena for truly mass flourishing.
Most of us are making these concerns our top priorities in whatever activities we can manage in "saving the world."
People who manage to have decent jobs, (or are inspired to organize and agitate to get them) can also be inspired by the "maker" subcultures and creative folk in their midst. I recently got a Taskrabbit guy to fix a lamp for me. Turns out he's not really a gig worker - he's an artist with a basement full of vintage lighting. If you have an old lamp, he'll get it working, but he also creates all sorts of new lighting fixtures with all the skills and tools that might be needed. Then of course there's a local and an wider community involved.
Even when you're a wage slave, you still find joy in decorating your home with unique objects that appeal to your unique aesthetic sense. Brink's vision can only add to the spiritual boost and bring moments of joy "in the meantime" for those just getting through their days. Ultimately I think he wants to increase trade among members of local communities (which might have the byproduct of shrinking the workforce for regular jobs resulting in higher wages, who knows.)
Nicely Done - I am currently reading Indigenous Continent by Pekka Hamalinen which presents the story of settlers relationships with the indigenous people of North America in a different light - the story of the complex relationships among the various nations is fascinating. The current story about continuous exploitation of the indigenous peoples is shown to be a fraud.
Current residents are incentivized to heap plenty of suffering on the past. Suggestion here is that our political climate is pushing things to be overstated.
How does one overstate the near total extermination of the entire population of a continent?
The point of attending to such matters is an attempt to edit the mindset that allowed that to happen. As example, the author frames the event as being "in the past", when the fact is, we're still sitting on the property that was stolen. If I stole your car last year, and I still have the car, the crime continues, right?
So where do such things start and end? Some would say your car was made with steel stolen from Native lands, thus ownership must be reversed. What is categorical about Native claims, considering there were others before them, including Neanderthals; Denisovans; Erectus; etc.?
This clip, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVqQosyOpg4, covers a chunk of it. Miles asks, "how far away should I take my men", suggesting that anywhere we go, we are treading on distressed bones of those before us.
It starts with the understanding that we live in a culture that was dominated by Christianity for 1,000 years, to a degree that is unimaginable today. And still upon arriving at the New World our ancestors proceeded to engage in a historic land grab genocide that was generally supported by most of the population.
The lesson here is that most of those folks at that time sincerely believed themselves to be the good guys. That's a warning to us to more closely examine our own moral situation.
It could start in engaging a plan proposed by one native man, that we give America's national parks over to the Indian tribes to manage. You know, we could give back at least SOME of the stolen property. Nobody is stopping us from doing so.
The author of this blog proposes that we move forward in to new adventures. Maybe before we do that we should more closely examine why we made such a horrific mess of America's original big adventure.
That mindset from that time is not entirely behind us. As example, every time I post that link above the discussion is then nearly always then filled with posts explaining why giving back some of the stolen property is a bad idea, it would never work, problems, problems, problems, excuses, excuses, excuses etc. Our mindset to this day seems to be that we stole the land fair and square, so it's an obvious given that it all now belongs to we white people.
There's nobody stopping us from taxing ourselves sufficiently so that the government could dramatically increase assistance to native peoples. Ideas like this are generally considered absurd interruptions of the complacent status quo etc.
Neanderthals, Denisovans, Erectus are all long dead and gone. The native people's of America are still with us.
Truly meaning no offense, but your questions are playing the usual game of cooking up supposedly sophisticated arguments for why we shouldn't save some of America's soul by doing the right thing.
Attempting to do so could be the next big great adventure we undertake.
Still, the sheer numbers of humans on the planet is on a scale to tamp down the pioneer spirit. Whether you are stuck in traffic; facing congestion in stores and hospitals; or contemplating the mass immigration across our southern border; a mass immigration that basically announces the world is overcrowded in their home country; it all contributes to spiritual ennui.
Thanks for your comments. Nobody is migrating because their home countries are overcrowded; they're doing so primarily because their home countries are badly misgoverned. I agree urban life doesn't feed the pioneer spirit, though it has its own energy and dynamism that are essential to our ongoing progress. For those looking for a different kind of dynamism, though, it's not too late: the world is still largely empty.
Okay. But I'll suggest population pressure is a component of bad governance; migration pressures; other issues, such as flooding; droughts, fires, which we notice more because there are more people filling the ecosystem.
The challenge is of course that in the virtual world we can have nearly anything we want, whereas the real world is dominated by negotiation and compromise.
Exactly. And a life that consists of regularly choosing the easier option over the more challenging one is a life that will have sacrificed most of its promise.
I hear you. Overall, I think we're giving ourselves more power than we can handle, and have written about this regularly.
On the other hand, this new virtual realm can also be seen as presenting a new, and perhaps more difficult challenge. If we find ourselves in an environment where we can have most anything we want....
What do we want?
This is a profound question about what we value etc, that is typically given low priority in the real world where the question is more, what can I get? Our life in the real world is typically a matter of navigating the need to negotiate and compromise, so the question of what we REALLY want usually doesn't get the focus.
In any case, for the better and/or the worse, we are going full speed ahead in to the virtual world, like it or not. I think it's probably mostly a mistake, but if true, it's a mistake we're going to make, so let's see what we can learn from it.
As usual, I'm am greatly enjoying and appreciating the language in these essays.
A new pioneer movement is an inspiring paradigm (after the current popular demonization of pioneers for being members of the homo sapiens species fades away.) I have the privilege of being old enough to have subscribed to and avidly read Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Catalog. I don't remember the tone ever being preachy or guilt-inducing: it simply took for granted that we were interested in finding new ways to live. The motivation was practical ingenuity within whatever living conditions readers found or pursued. I've always been a city dweller, but still explore such universally pertinent questions from WEC as "do you know where your weather comes from?"
We absolutely need a major cultural shift, partly because I'm afraid that only epic changes in culture can carry enough impact to shift our complex institutional structures in the directions we as individuals can already see clearly. Just one example: Nothing changes as long as we let global manufacturing conglomerates hoodwink us about recycling without setting up circular manufacturing systems; or guilt us for using plastics without changing how everything is actually packaged. In the meantime, the most popular pioneer boundaries pushed will probably be unions and worker justice since that hits people right where they live. Solidarity and community have to begin with self-interest. Labor activities (with some help from Big Government) have to be local and community-building, the very definition of turning cogs back into people.
Brink, I am afraid that your economic independence movement sounds too much like the back to nature crowd and the craftsman movement of the 50's and 60's. While I agree that we need more economic independence I really don't believe that trying to create independent economic communities will accomplish anything that will move the country forward.
What I had hoped was that the recognition of the “essential workers” of the pandemic would provide both an economic and spiritual boost to the many under appreciated and under paid workers in our economy. We need to find a way to bring back the dignity of the common working man and provide them with an honest working wage that allows them to have the security of a decent home, health insurance, and food and transportation in a safe environment. Most jobs today do not pay sufficient wages to provide ½ of what is needed for that, so that even with two people working you cannot make ends meet. If you add in child care so that two people can work full time you still cannot make ends meet. People need three things to be satisfied, a living wage, a job that provides dignity and allow them to have pride in their profession whatever that is, and protection of a lawful society.
Our current society has beaten down the wages of virtually every job to bare subsistence or below, has removed most job protections and made unions almost illegal, thereby removing or taking away any chance at dignity, and is unable or unwilling to enforce the basic laws that prevent the scammers and thief s from preying on the common citizen. Fixing these problems rather than trying to build an economic independence movement that is subject to the same problems that the rest of society has is more likely to be successful.
I'm all for trying improve conditions in the labor market, as I've written about at length. But I'm interested in exploring alternatives because I'm skeptical that the labor market can be improved sufficiently to become an arena for truly mass flourishing.
Most of us are making these concerns our top priorities in whatever activities we can manage in "saving the world."
People who manage to have decent jobs, (or are inspired to organize and agitate to get them) can also be inspired by the "maker" subcultures and creative folk in their midst. I recently got a Taskrabbit guy to fix a lamp for me. Turns out he's not really a gig worker - he's an artist with a basement full of vintage lighting. If you have an old lamp, he'll get it working, but he also creates all sorts of new lighting fixtures with all the skills and tools that might be needed. Then of course there's a local and an wider community involved.
Even when you're a wage slave, you still find joy in decorating your home with unique objects that appeal to your unique aesthetic sense. Brink's vision can only add to the spiritual boost and bring moments of joy "in the meantime" for those just getting through their days. Ultimately I think he wants to increase trade among members of local communities (which might have the byproduct of shrinking the workforce for regular jobs resulting in higher wages, who knows.)
Nicely Done - I am currently reading Indigenous Continent by Pekka Hamalinen which presents the story of settlers relationships with the indigenous people of North America in a different light - the story of the complex relationships among the various nations is fascinating. The current story about continuous exploitation of the indigenous peoples is shown to be a fraud.
I hadn't heard of this book, which looks very interesting -- thanks for the reference.
Let's ask native Americans, and see what they have to say about "the fraud".
...𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 "𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘶𝘥"
Current residents are incentivized to heap plenty of suffering on the past. Suggestion here is that our political climate is pushing things to be overstated.
How does one overstate the near total extermination of the entire population of a continent?
The point of attending to such matters is an attempt to edit the mindset that allowed that to happen. As example, the author frames the event as being "in the past", when the fact is, we're still sitting on the property that was stolen. If I stole your car last year, and I still have the car, the crime continues, right?
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/return-americas-national-parks-to
So where do such things start and end? Some would say your car was made with steel stolen from Native lands, thus ownership must be reversed. What is categorical about Native claims, considering there were others before them, including Neanderthals; Denisovans; Erectus; etc.?
This clip, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVqQosyOpg4, covers a chunk of it. Miles asks, "how far away should I take my men", suggesting that anywhere we go, we are treading on distressed bones of those before us.
It starts with the understanding that we live in a culture that was dominated by Christianity for 1,000 years, to a degree that is unimaginable today. And still upon arriving at the New World our ancestors proceeded to engage in a historic land grab genocide that was generally supported by most of the population.
The lesson here is that most of those folks at that time sincerely believed themselves to be the good guys. That's a warning to us to more closely examine our own moral situation.
It could start in engaging a plan proposed by one native man, that we give America's national parks over to the Indian tribes to manage. You know, we could give back at least SOME of the stolen property. Nobody is stopping us from doing so.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/return-americas-national-parks-to
The author of this blog proposes that we move forward in to new adventures. Maybe before we do that we should more closely examine why we made such a horrific mess of America's original big adventure.
That mindset from that time is not entirely behind us. As example, every time I post that link above the discussion is then nearly always then filled with posts explaining why giving back some of the stolen property is a bad idea, it would never work, problems, problems, problems, excuses, excuses, excuses etc. Our mindset to this day seems to be that we stole the land fair and square, so it's an obvious given that it all now belongs to we white people.
There's nobody stopping us from taxing ourselves sufficiently so that the government could dramatically increase assistance to native peoples. Ideas like this are generally considered absurd interruptions of the complacent status quo etc.
Neanderthals, Denisovans, Erectus are all long dead and gone. The native people's of America are still with us.
Truly meaning no offense, but your questions are playing the usual game of cooking up supposedly sophisticated arguments for why we shouldn't save some of America's soul by doing the right thing.
Attempting to do so could be the next big great adventure we undertake.
Are you suggesting that Native Americans speak with a single voice? That seems a bit odd.
Nice essay with good points.
Still, the sheer numbers of humans on the planet is on a scale to tamp down the pioneer spirit. Whether you are stuck in traffic; facing congestion in stores and hospitals; or contemplating the mass immigration across our southern border; a mass immigration that basically announces the world is overcrowded in their home country; it all contributes to spiritual ennui.
Thanks for your comments. Nobody is migrating because their home countries are overcrowded; they're doing so primarily because their home countries are badly misgoverned. I agree urban life doesn't feed the pioneer spirit, though it has its own energy and dynamism that are essential to our ongoing progress. For those looking for a different kind of dynamism, though, it's not too late: the world is still largely empty.
Okay. But I'll suggest population pressure is a component of bad governance; migration pressures; other issues, such as flooding; droughts, fires, which we notice more because there are more people filling the ecosystem.
The challenge is of course that in the virtual world we can have nearly anything we want, whereas the real world is dominated by negotiation and compromise.
Exactly. And a life that consists of regularly choosing the easier option over the more challenging one is a life that will have sacrificed most of its promise.
I hear you. Overall, I think we're giving ourselves more power than we can handle, and have written about this regularly.
On the other hand, this new virtual realm can also be seen as presenting a new, and perhaps more difficult challenge. If we find ourselves in an environment where we can have most anything we want....
What do we want?
This is a profound question about what we value etc, that is typically given low priority in the real world where the question is more, what can I get? Our life in the real world is typically a matter of navigating the need to negotiate and compromise, so the question of what we REALLY want usually doesn't get the focus.
In any case, for the better and/or the worse, we are going full speed ahead in to the virtual world, like it or not. I think it's probably mostly a mistake, but if true, it's a mistake we're going to make, so let's see what we can learn from it.
As usual, I'm am greatly enjoying and appreciating the language in these essays.
A new pioneer movement is an inspiring paradigm (after the current popular demonization of pioneers for being members of the homo sapiens species fades away.) I have the privilege of being old enough to have subscribed to and avidly read Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Catalog. I don't remember the tone ever being preachy or guilt-inducing: it simply took for granted that we were interested in finding new ways to live. The motivation was practical ingenuity within whatever living conditions readers found or pursued. I've always been a city dweller, but still explore such universally pertinent questions from WEC as "do you know where your weather comes from?"
We absolutely need a major cultural shift, partly because I'm afraid that only epic changes in culture can carry enough impact to shift our complex institutional structures in the directions we as individuals can already see clearly. Just one example: Nothing changes as long as we let global manufacturing conglomerates hoodwink us about recycling without setting up circular manufacturing systems; or guilt us for using plastics without changing how everything is actually packaged. In the meantime, the most popular pioneer boundaries pushed will probably be unions and worker justice since that hits people right where they live. Solidarity and community have to begin with self-interest. Labor activities (with some help from Big Government) have to be local and community-building, the very definition of turning cogs back into people.