Very well said - thank you. Though, as an unapologetic NIMBY, I have to confess that I hope that the "right" thing to do happens somewhere over the horizon. I have a particular concern about densification - I understand it has to happen but all those people stuffed into tiny homes with neighbours within arms' reach and no garden to tend or invite birds and insects and wildflowers into are not going to become the army of environmentalists the world needs. Most of them will become desensitized to the natural world and biodiversity as they stare at their four walls and televisions.
I hear you, Richard. Heather and I live in rural coastal Maine and, as much as I know that an urban civilization has less sprawling impacts, I'm not interested in living that life. But don't forget that a thoughtful, well-designed, ecological urban community is possible, with ample green spaces and gardens and non-bird-killing windows... Still not my cup of tea, but the cities in a better future can be threaded into the real world. And I think we overlook that some of today's environmental scientists grew up in urban settings but then expanded their interests into the real world through education and adventure. That's my off-the-cuff thought, anyway. Thanks so much for chiming in.
That densification is going on out here in Oregon in our large metro area. Row homes and multi storied apartment complexes jammed together in appalling density- cheek to jowl living. A middle class version of those awful favelas (sp?) in Brazil. Pack as many people as you can into the smallest hectare of valuable land. Yet, one could argue the residents of these mass-produced, hastily thrown together, slap-dash constructions- insta-slums though they might be, are much better off than most of the world's population. I can visualize Humanity bifurcating into folks like Jason and folks living in the hyper-dense cities..almost two species.. neither understanding.deeply the geist or weltanschauung of the other.
So really we should decide which species we should bother to protect or not, which of the cuter species will be relegated to children’s pajama prints. Maybe some of the kids will ask what happened to that species? Well, sadly kiddo, we need to keep the lights on and the computers and tv running, we all need our personal transport and our out-of-season diets, because humans, we are the most important life on this planet because some story from a couple of thousand years ago told us so and because the other possible stories that might have told us to live as a part of nature and not apart from it were the stories told by savages that decided that they belonged to the land and not the land belonged to them.
Because we believe that keeping that ol’ GDP ticking upwards is a good thing, even though it’s only an experiment that started last century and even though every war is good for GDP and every school shooting is good for GDP but sharing home baked goods across your back fence to your neighbour who you love despite their idealogical differences doesn’t do shit for GDP.
Our response to climate change is to basically pave paradise and put up solar panels and wind farms, all of which are not a solution but a continuation of the fossil fuel industry. If we were serious, where are all battery powered mining vehicles and all the roads built from non-fossil fuels sources, built with battery powered equipment. No, it’s not happening.
Why is the response never to question our energy use, our political systems, our economic system (so detached from reality). Why is Degrowth never an option? Live simpler, more local lives.
I’m in the wrong place here, sorry Jason, I did like your writing but like I said I’m obviously in the wrong place here.
No, you're definitely in the right place, Leon, and broadening the view. Overtly unnecessary consumption, GDP craziness, and the whispers of human supremacy all around us are baked into the solutions as much as the problems. But I'll push back a little on the long view of solar and wind (and whatever else can scale up), since they're rapidly taking over the energy market. The megacorps will milk the planet and rupture the biosphere for a while yet, but other than the plastics and fertilizer markets, their hegemony has a horizon now. And it's worth noting that the full footprint of a renewably energized civilization will be much smaller and far less toxic than the current petro version. We're in the ugly transition now, when both are taking up space.
Another very fine and (to me) stirring essay conveying very effectively its complex message. I'm philosophical at times and tend toward Kantean ethics in decision-making so I apply the "What if everybody did this?" maxim: it effectively eliminates nimby-ism. As you know, I am far out on the long tail of pessimism and think that climate catastrophe is already in the cards, so tend to be dispairing and apathetic. Which is useless. Maybe you could write about how people like me are part of the problem! Or maybe you just did...
I lean toward optimistic pessimism, Michael, in that I have a lot of doubts about how much chaos and suffering we'll be able to avoid, but I plunge ahead anyway. So I understand a pessimism rooted in the scale of what confronts us and the wilful blindness many of us have toward it all. And because there's no place to escape to outside of the world we've built, we're all part of the problem to some degree. We're trapped yet complicit. Still, though, to the degree we each chip in toward solutions with some actions, some cash, and a simpler life, we're all part of the solution to some degree too. Right?
Couldn't agree more. I try to do a little.. in a few days I have a meeting with an environmental group to make a large (for me) donation.. "Money talks...". You know the rest.🙂
Great piece, and I'm thrilled to find your stack! I wrote something similar recently, though maybe more on the side of NIMBYism. When it comes to industrial scale energy, there are few YIMBYs, only YIOBYs (Yes In Others' Backyards). https://open.substack.com/pub/larryhogue/p/embracing-my-inner-luddite
Very well said - thank you. Though, as an unapologetic NIMBY, I have to confess that I hope that the "right" thing to do happens somewhere over the horizon. I have a particular concern about densification - I understand it has to happen but all those people stuffed into tiny homes with neighbours within arms' reach and no garden to tend or invite birds and insects and wildflowers into are not going to become the army of environmentalists the world needs. Most of them will become desensitized to the natural world and biodiversity as they stare at their four walls and televisions.
I hear you, Richard. Heather and I live in rural coastal Maine and, as much as I know that an urban civilization has less sprawling impacts, I'm not interested in living that life. But don't forget that a thoughtful, well-designed, ecological urban community is possible, with ample green spaces and gardens and non-bird-killing windows... Still not my cup of tea, but the cities in a better future can be threaded into the real world. And I think we overlook that some of today's environmental scientists grew up in urban settings but then expanded their interests into the real world through education and adventure. That's my off-the-cuff thought, anyway. Thanks so much for chiming in.
That densification is going on out here in Oregon in our large metro area. Row homes and multi storied apartment complexes jammed together in appalling density- cheek to jowl living. A middle class version of those awful favelas (sp?) in Brazil. Pack as many people as you can into the smallest hectare of valuable land. Yet, one could argue the residents of these mass-produced, hastily thrown together, slap-dash constructions- insta-slums though they might be, are much better off than most of the world's population. I can visualize Humanity bifurcating into folks like Jason and folks living in the hyper-dense cities..almost two species.. neither understanding.deeply the geist or weltanschauung of the other.
So really we should decide which species we should bother to protect or not, which of the cuter species will be relegated to children’s pajama prints. Maybe some of the kids will ask what happened to that species? Well, sadly kiddo, we need to keep the lights on and the computers and tv running, we all need our personal transport and our out-of-season diets, because humans, we are the most important life on this planet because some story from a couple of thousand years ago told us so and because the other possible stories that might have told us to live as a part of nature and not apart from it were the stories told by savages that decided that they belonged to the land and not the land belonged to them.
Because we believe that keeping that ol’ GDP ticking upwards is a good thing, even though it’s only an experiment that started last century and even though every war is good for GDP and every school shooting is good for GDP but sharing home baked goods across your back fence to your neighbour who you love despite their idealogical differences doesn’t do shit for GDP.
Our response to climate change is to basically pave paradise and put up solar panels and wind farms, all of which are not a solution but a continuation of the fossil fuel industry. If we were serious, where are all battery powered mining vehicles and all the roads built from non-fossil fuels sources, built with battery powered equipment. No, it’s not happening.
Why is the response never to question our energy use, our political systems, our economic system (so detached from reality). Why is Degrowth never an option? Live simpler, more local lives.
I’m in the wrong place here, sorry Jason, I did like your writing but like I said I’m obviously in the wrong place here.
No, you're definitely in the right place, Leon, and broadening the view. Overtly unnecessary consumption, GDP craziness, and the whispers of human supremacy all around us are baked into the solutions as much as the problems. But I'll push back a little on the long view of solar and wind (and whatever else can scale up), since they're rapidly taking over the energy market. The megacorps will milk the planet and rupture the biosphere for a while yet, but other than the plastics and fertilizer markets, their hegemony has a horizon now. And it's worth noting that the full footprint of a renewably energized civilization will be much smaller and far less toxic than the current petro version. We're in the ugly transition now, when both are taking up space.
Another very fine and (to me) stirring essay conveying very effectively its complex message. I'm philosophical at times and tend toward Kantean ethics in decision-making so I apply the "What if everybody did this?" maxim: it effectively eliminates nimby-ism. As you know, I am far out on the long tail of pessimism and think that climate catastrophe is already in the cards, so tend to be dispairing and apathetic. Which is useless. Maybe you could write about how people like me are part of the problem! Or maybe you just did...
I lean toward optimistic pessimism, Michael, in that I have a lot of doubts about how much chaos and suffering we'll be able to avoid, but I plunge ahead anyway. So I understand a pessimism rooted in the scale of what confronts us and the wilful blindness many of us have toward it all. And because there's no place to escape to outside of the world we've built, we're all part of the problem to some degree. We're trapped yet complicit. Still, though, to the degree we each chip in toward solutions with some actions, some cash, and a simpler life, we're all part of the solution to some degree too. Right?
Couldn't agree more. I try to do a little.. in a few days I have a meeting with an environmental group to make a large (for me) donation.. "Money talks...". You know the rest.🙂
Great piece, and I'm thrilled to find your stack! I wrote something similar recently, though maybe more on the side of NIMBYism. When it comes to industrial scale energy, there are few YIMBYs, only YIOBYs (Yes In Others' Backyards). https://open.substack.com/pub/larryhogue/p/embracing-my-inner-luddite