I May Not See Everything - But I'm Not Blind

Part 1. (Long, long ago, and then just back a few generations )



Let's suppose that you were born in Shangri La and for your whole life that was all that you had ever known. Let's also say that virtually everyone you know has been swimming in the same wonderful sea of abundance and comfort. Now let's suppose that there are some rumblings which indicate that the world as you know it may not continue in the same way into the forseeable future. How would you deal with those rumblings? Would you amplify them, tune them in better, so you could look at their messages more directly and with greater clarity? Or would you let them remain as static which is an annoyance because it distracts from the comfort of Shangri La?

Given those two conditions you would have every right to expect that the wonderful world you have known would continue that way, since that is the way it has always been. That would be a fairly safe bet. You would hope that there would be minor variations in climate, etc. to help you know that it is not just a dream and to stress you somewhat just keep it interesting. But there would be no need to be concerned because you would have every good reason to believe that the party will just keep going on.

Would you highlight your inklings, even though they initially increase your sense of uncertainty and nibble at the picture of "everything's just fine," or would you send out even more invitations and, as they say: "Party on, Dude!"

Now imagine that in that happy valley where everything is lush green, and the temperature is always manageable, and where there is abundant food and water, and it's not too crowded that there is one pivotal change that happens gradually and progressively over a period of time. And let's say that one thing is a shift downwards in annual rainfall.

I was listening to something on NPR today about how that actually happened to a fun-loving and easy going group of people in Cape Verde, a collection of small islands off the west coast of Africa. For whatever reasons it essentially stopped raining there. And with that one central and pivotal development they simply couldn't grow their own food anymore. Then everything changed. It got to the point where, it was said, people were just passing out in the streets from lack of energy, the energy which comes from food which is based on the planting of seeds and timely application of soil and water and sunshine.

If it were not for aid from the world at large (whoever that was) and the relief from that, the people would have disappeared, from the slowness called starvation. A scary prospect for any individual, or family, or village. But a whole culture?


(It turns out that many of the Cape Verdeans left their land and settled elsewhere. They have kept alive the longing for their land and the spirit of their people and thankfully that lineage will continue in spite of their natural calamity.)


Part 2. (Contemporary Shangri La, and Contemporary Drought in Shangri La)

Here in the NorthEast we have been blessed with more than adequate rainfall for so long that we could almost take it for granted (although recently there has seemed to be more intensifications of downpours followed by dry spells than previously experienced by me in my 65+ years.) Nevertheless we continue to have more than adequate supplies, although we see bans on watering lawns more frequently. Yes, in our own Hundreth Town we live in another Shangri La, . We have been spared the "longing" of the Cape Verdeans; the longing for their way of being and their own abundance from when they had more than enough.

I give thanks regularly for the abundance which we have. But I also recognize the fragility of the whole which goes with it. When I look at the weather maps of our country and look at the rainfall amounts over the past few years in the drought areas of America, I am concerned about what could be.

It's a funny place to be. I know what we have, and what could develop if the having of that which we have come to take for granted were to evaporate before our eyes. Not rapidly, but slowly, much like watching paint dry. And I am reminded of the story of the frog in the pan of water. If the frog is placed in the pot of water and the water becomes suddenly hot, the frog will take appropriate action and jump. However, if the water is gradually heated, the frog gets used to it, and precipitous action is not called for, i.e., it's better to put up with the hot water which is known than to risk a move which will entail moving into the unknown.

Part 3; (What if instead of water, it was oil?)

Damn...this whole part just got lost in etherspace! I'll try to finish it tomorrow. But in the meantime look at a very important essay by Jeffrey Brown at The Oil Drum blog.

This Writing Stuff Can Be A Bit Risky

The last several entries I have made have been decidedly on the heavy side. I've been writing about spacing out, psychological shock, talking about difficult things, pandemics and social isolation, etc. But, what can I say, that's what I've been writing about and that what has been on my mind.

Also, I've been visiting two additional websites which look at themes which fit the "bad times, they be 'acomin" genre. One is Sudden Debt and is devoted to the shenanigans in the world of finance and the persistent question about how long the present bubble can continue before a major correction occurs. The other is Generational Dynamics which is about a way of looking at the world of trouble that the world is in, and how, when one looks at history from the point of view of the impact which successive generations have on the course of history, interesting patterns evolve which may be useful in predicting trends in current times.

John J. Xenakis, the author of GenerationalDynamics, posted a comment on my entry entitled: "A Little Technorati Drum Roll Please..." (2/14/07). In it, he states: "I like to tell people that what's coming is coming, and it can't be stopped by any politician or anyone else, any more than a politician can stop a tsunami. You can't stop it, but you can prepare for it. So I tell people this: Treasure the time you have left, and use it to prepare yourself, your family, your community and your nation."

Powerful words. It reminded me of James Kunstler's encouragement to "enjoy the abundance while you can still have it." It also reminded me of a line in one of my previous posts where I said: "I wonder if Climate Change gives a hoot as to whether Mr. Cheney says that the American Way of life is not up for discussion."

So, I started thinking about those words and my recent topics, and I pushed the uncomfortable factor into the land of Murphy - of Murphy's Law - but on steroids. By this I mean, I started wondering about really bad scenarios and what John said about not being able to stop what's coming. The three scenarios were economic collapse, the pandemic, and a world war over oil - all happening approximately at the same time and the phrase "The Perfect Storm" popped into my head. It's a little like writing my own personal Stephen King novel in my head and then finding that I was drawn into it too uncomfortably far.

What happened was that I propelled myself into a perfect little storm in my mind and that became a little like a black hole in my consciousness which was absorbing my attention and my mind. I found that I was becoming more grim by the moment, I was thrown off "my game," and there was a background uneasiness about it all which made me restless. The whole storm was heightened by feelings of uncertainty.

It was unsettling, to put it mildly. And that is one of the reasons why I have been inactive on my blog for the last few weeks. I just knew I had to get myself out of the morass which I had created in my mind. (That is not to say that The Perfect Storm couldn't happen in external reality, but that it was not present in actuality, and I had become victim of my own internal virtual reality (mind) exercise. If you remember from one of my previous posts, I said that what happens in the mind influences the body and the emotions. And that's what happened to me over these last few weeks.)

I'm happy to say that "I'm back" and regaining my natural balance points and accustomed compass readings and can now start to talk about that process. To be continued...

I'm Curious About That Speech Last Night and "The Unthinkable"

Yes, I am curious about the President's speech last night.

We all know that for a speech to be effective the attention of the audience has to be led in certain directions and away from other directions. Starting with that premise, and recognizing that discussion is vitally important, I am mulling over the following questions:

1. Just what are the mistakes which the President is taking responsibility for? If we knew what they were, then at least we would know what he is talking about and then the country could compare notes and know if he is referencing the same mistakes which undoubtedly led to certain consequences at the November elections.

2. What are the consequences which are so "unthinkable" that he doesn't make reference to? To my way of understanding the only thing which is unthinkable is something which is not real, something which you can't imagine. By his saying that those consequences would be unthinkable leads people to too quickly say, "uh-oh, we better not think about that / those things which are so unthinkable that we can't even begin to think about what they are." Huh? And, anyway, on the most basic of levels, hasn't a majority of the whole country been thinking about not "staying (that) course?" So it must be something else that is so unthinkable. Well what is that? Let's get that out on the table so we can then take appropriate steps based on that unthinkable thought.

I heard of a research project years ago where a speaker asked the audience what their most horrible fear of dying was. He then asked them to write it down briefly, and not sign it. The papers were collected and to make the story short, he then later gave the papers to a group of mental health professionals along with another group of papers which were written by people suffering from anxiety disorders. The task of the professionals was to distinguish which diagnostic group had written the fearful (unthinkable) thoughts which would then show that it was a reflection of their diagnostic group. (The papers were anonymous, but they were also marked in such a way that the researchers knew which group the responses were coming from, i.e., from the audience of "normals" or from one of the diagnostic groupings. Since the evaluators did not know which group was which, they were "blinded" in a research sense.)

Guess what: the worst fears were worst with all groups. The evaluators couldn't distinguish "normals" from "people with a formal diagnosis" on the basis of their fears! We all have these unthinkable thoughts. To me, even knowing that we all have them, even though mine will be different from yours, is somehow comforting.

(N.B. I heard this story many years ago. I remember thinking afterwards that I would like to have seen the original research study but have never been able to track it down, but in honesty I haven't really tried all that hard. Nevertheless, in this context I believe it speaks to a vitally important issue.)

If it is so unthinkable, it must be so really terrible that we as a nation would be willing to continue contributing to the chaos over there. What is the titular head of this country saying that we have to avoid ... here ... at all costs?

Is it the consequences of peak oil that we can't talk about? Or of peak debt and the consequences of that? Or of rampant diabetes? Or of not being able to go to pixel heaven and buy the next bigger sized plasma TV?

3. I am curious about which "American interests" he is referring to in his speech. I presume he is talking about oil, oil, oil, but maybe he's referring to other interests. As a curious person I really am curious about what those interests are. I am not saying that as a country, a great country, we shouldn't have national interests, but since he was speaking and appealing to the country directly, I feel I would like to have more clear statements so we can make better informed decisions .

Well, I had been wanting to get back to writing about trance induction and television, and about the importance of the food chain and the importance of an unrushed lifestyle, but they will have to come later.

Perhaps I should also end this posting by saying that maybe there should be no comments added to this post since unthinkable things which many are already thinking anyway might be said and then who knows what that would do to the (un)balanced way of life we don't have.

Turning off the TV and not rushing has helped me to think these thoughts. Is that unthinkable for me to have done those two things?

Needed: A Few Good Elevator Pitches for Global Warming

Here in the northeast the weather is just lovely. Mid-50's today and the Patriots won. What more could you want for the week before Christmas?

On the other hand, all this continuing and truly unseasonable weather is further evidence of a basic planet wide system which is moving further and further "out of whack."

I started Friday by reading a "rant" by Jim at his blog. It's probably not a good idea to starting off my posting with a suggestion that you go and read his post, but that's exactly what I'm going to do. Go now; it's the posting for 12/15/06. While there also read the comments section. Especially the entries from Arcolaura, and mine under the name of SimplyTim. Oh, and by the way, don't forget to come back here for the rest of my post.

Now, where to go with all this. I tested the waters with several people over the past few days. The form of the brief conversations was:

"Beautiful day."

"Yes. But so unseasonable."

"I'll take it anyway. Rather this than snow."

I would put in a few comments, for example, "I wonder if this is what they mean by Climate Change," or "It reminds me of Al Gore's movie - 'An Inconvenient Truth,'" or "Changes are happening."

Well the truth is that I thought those last three comments but didn't give voice to them. Why? Why not say it? Why is it that with so many people who have concern about global warming that they are hesitant to bring those concerns up for discussion? I point the finger at myself as much as anyone else, maybe more so.

The simple truth is that the people I mentioned it to clearly weren't interested in going any further with a serious discussion, at least at that time. (In some of my previous posts I easily went into what could be called an elevator pitch by saying that I had recently taken a "vow...I will rush no more." In those instances, the conversation went from there easily. Why not with this topic? Maybe it's because with rushing almost everyone can identify with it and have multiple examples in their mind. With the weather, with climate, it's too abstract. Maybe that's the real problem here in terms of mobilizing people towards action, towards outrage.)

With one person I said after a pause: "the change is coming."

He said: "Yes."

I had the distinct impression that he was just saying that winter will get here eventually. But there was a question in my mind as to whether he saw what I was saying in a much larger picture but didn't want to get into it.

And that's where I am wondering what some good "elevator pitches" would be. People in business and politics and activists do it all the time. Why are there so many others who are so reluctant to get the message down pat and practise it so that it can bring the conversation a few steps further. I would love to hear what some of your thoughts are.

Arcolaura said that she tends not to come up with quick responses while some others can. My sense is that there was so much depth and perception in her comments that it would be hard to spontaneously come up with them on the spot. That depth requires time and mulling over. However, her ideas perhaps could be shunted back to some of the spinmeisters to polish "pitches" which can break through, or invite more discussion; not just of the presence of changes, but of the implications and also what can or should be done.

Some other thoughts:

1. On NBC nightly news tonight there was an "in-depth report on global warming." I didn't time it, but they think 120 to 180 seconds is sufficient for an in-depth analysis. I won't even say it - yes, I will, are they for real?

There was a "chilling" reference to a new report that it is now thought that all of the ice in the arctic may be gone by 2040. I want to say: "WOW!" But the reality is that I don't know what that really means. I can imagine that it is big but what does it really mean? Maybe that's part of the problem with taking the discussion further with lots of people. The implications for most people are unclear. And with that lack of clarity, it's easier to keep doing business as usual.

A few moments later one of the scientists put it well: "It's what we don't know (about the implications of continued global warming) that concerns me. What are the surprises waiting for us?" Well said. There was a report in the paper yesterday about how they can't find any more dolphins in the Yangtze river. The end of a species, they wondered. I'm sorry, I can't relate to that. Maybe I have this gigantic blind spot but what does that really mean to me? I know it's important but there's that blind spot again - it's like I can't just see over the horizon. Maybe that's where the spinmeisters need to help out with scripts that will move conversations and me as well.

What would be a good example of a sound bite or an elevator pitch which captures one's attention, and seems to stop opposition? Well, when vice president Cheney said: "the American way of life is non-negotiable," it seemed that all discussion stopped for a while. That's powerful. It had the effect, I think, of stopping alternative thinking and by default, let things go on as usual.

Thankfully the discussion didn't stop in my mind and just possibly it didn't in the minds of many others. It takes time to look at that and to see behind the words and the rhetoric. Could it be that in the recent elections that is what the electorate was saying, that the non-negotiability of it all, and the raw power which is used to maintain that position is inherently wrong. Following that logic, the majority of the people didn't really know what has to be done, but they knew that a change had to take place, and they voiced that with their individual votes.

A lot of maybe's here, but maybe that's why the collective "we" don't take the real discussion further, why we don't make a collective decision to slow down, to change direction, because the vice-president was right, that there is a part of us which doesn't want to change. We'd collectively rather rush forward towards maintaining so nothing is lost. But remember, there is the other side in that same collective mind which knows it has to change...but the path, the route, the actions are not as collectively clear. Maybe my elevator pitch to that when combined to global warming is: "I wonder if global warming gives a hoot about the non-negotiable American way of life?"

In a somewhat disjointed way, I keep thinking about that frog in the movie, An Inconvenient Truth; if the heat keeps going up very slowly he doesn't do anything. He doesn't jump until it's a reflex - is that what we're talking about here? It will take a surprise, a threat to not the American way of life, but to the safety of the planet to then change? The nation know that we are collectively taking in too many calories, and yet look at the obesity rates. Now change oil for calories and wonder what would get the "collective" to change. The mind-set which is perpetuating the current direction is monumental and pervasive. The change will have to come from within. It will be a simple awareness, perhaps captured by the clarity of an elevator pitch which is so direct, so stealthy in it's clarity, that it leads vast numbers to shift direction in one way that will make a difference. Then legislation will help the mind-set to move in a direction, not the other way around.

2. As far as I can tell the government has been doing nothing substantive to deal effectively with this problem. Individual politicians appear "green" and will posture this way and that way, but as a whole, the government is deadlocked as usual. I'm basically a pretty conservative guy, but really, the political process on this matter is a joke. Yes, I know how that is a terrible overgeneralization but that's just how I see it. The bigger joke is, I suspect, most people know it, just like most people know that we are witnessing climate changes, but don't know how to move the process forward, for real. What we need is a good "meme" which in it's simplicity changes everything in a positive direction, at least with to the question of global warming.

3. A step in the right direction would be to do what the province of Quebec did, change the speed limit to 60 miles per hour. AND enforce it! Not with giving a ticket if you go 5 miles over the limit, but if you go 1 mile over the limit. My solution would be not to give a financially crippling ticket, just a modest ticket, but take a long time to give it. And then do it again 3 miles down the road, and repeat the process over and again. That would work. It wouldn't solve the whole problem but it would be a step in the right direction.

4. Remember that the basic rule of storms is that they continue until the original imbalance which created them is resolved. If CO2 is one of the major culprits, and we keep producing more and more CO2, and ...

5. A good piece of news may help. I went to two stores today looking for a copy of Al Gore's movie: An Inconvenient Truth, and both stores were sold out.

Addendum: 12/18/06 - My elevator pitch is: "I will rush no more! " Here's why that is so sweet: with that the emphasis is off global warming, and yet it's related. Everyone can identify with the natural balancing which is contained in the mantra, it gets underneath the usual counterarguments. And since rushing is essential to the perpetuation of the life style which we have all been inducted into, to change that piece, from within, one individual at a time, the possibility of "viral marketing" is very real.

"What if, just what if..." Scenarios

I've been thinking about putting up some "what if" scenarios on my blog as a way of stimulating thinking and discussion about how things could change, sometimes almost in an eyeblink, and what the impact of those changes would be for individuals and also for large groups, even societies. In doing this I walk a fine line because I don't want to produce unnecessary anxiety in those who are prone to excess anxiety. Yet, this type of "exercise" may sharpen our appreciation for the abundance we presently have, and also to recognize the fragility of this complex system when a pivotal piece of the whole is no longer available, or is jeopardized.

The first topic comes from a presentation made by Dmitry Orlov and entitled: Closing the Collapse Gap. In it he discusses the collapse of the Russian empire at the end of the cold war, and then makes a general statement that one of the lessons of history is that empires come and empires go. They all go, and some of them collapse fairly rapidly. The collapse of the Russian empire was a clear case in point.

He then asks an interesting question: "what lessons could the United States learn from the Russian collapse?" He explores that question through a "compare and contrast" process. In walking you through a series of slides he draws some conclusions which are disquieting to say the least.

Let me take just one of his observations. He says that the suffering experienced by the Russian people was terrible. No doubt about that. But he also says that as bad as it was, it in a sense was made easier because of several factors. For example, he says that they had no expectation that the Russian government would come to their rescue. They never had that expectation based on decades of experience. After the collapse they experienced terrible despair and apathy and confusion but they knew they would have to deal with it on their own. There was to be no "methadone" for them in that crisis; it was a "cold turkey" withdrawal. By contrast, he observes that in the U.S. there is a pervasive sense of entitlement and also a belief that the government will come to the rescue of the country, no matter how big the crisis or disaster. He questions that possibility given a sudden collapse and as a result feels that the suffering would be even more profound here.

For the purposes of this posting I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with him. I am wondering out loud in the shape of "what if, just what if...?" For me, it fits in with James Kunstler's thesis elaborated in his book: The Long Emergency. It also heightens my desire to develop realistic self-sustaining practices and to develop connections with like minded people, to be a part of developing neo-communities. Finally it motivates me to continue to reduce my debt level, and to seriously cultivate a life of conscious simplification and non-overconsumption as a strategy for positioning myself for coming through difficult times. And if those difficult times don't come (in my lifetime,) then I will still have enormously enriched the quality of my life and the life of my family and community.

I encourage you to look at his presentation. I feel I can almost guaranty it will rivet your attention for an hour.

Let's see what discussion / comments come from his observations.

Addendum: 1/16/07...In the text above I said that for the purposes of this posting I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Mr. Orlov. The rest of the story is that it is my considered opinion that he is bringing our attention appropriately to pivotal issues which deserve our attention...now. It is my opinion that hard times they be a'comin. I'll be writing more about this.

Struggling vs. developing my voice in these blog entries

When I look at my last post I know what I am saying but it also seems too complicated. When I'm talking with someone directly I am more to the point. I'm ok dealing with complex issues, in fact, I really enjoy them but only if I can find a simple design contained within the complexity. But when complexity becomes complicated, well, yuck!

Writing for my blog is a new process for me. It's like I'm still finding my "voice" and my primary drum beats. It's ok that I don't have it all together already in the sense that this is just the way it is. Trying to get it right - right away - misses the reality that this process develops over time. Grappling with something is fine and actually fun for me. Struggling, a habit I know too well, is self defeating. Struggling ultimately reinforces the trying, not the learning. Struggling puts more energy into the struggle and it is all an energy game.

The strategy which makes sense to me is to catch myself as soon as I can in the struggle, and then acknowledge the struggle, watch it for a few moments, then "release it." " How to release," you ask? By letting go, by bringing your attention to your next exhale. Do that for a few moments / minutes / decades and then place your energy on something which draws your attention and which is appealing. That way I / you are not putting more energy into a process which has already stopped being a lively experience. It takes practise but it is a way out of the struggle.

In that way then, the struggle becomes a cue to watch and experience differently. It becomes an opportunity to lighten up and then the struggle is accepted for what it is, a short circuit which blocks further and easy development. A struggle is then just part of the process, like a punctuation point which gives a hint that there is rushing going on, a trying to make it go faster. Better to ease off the throttle and shift gears before getting back on track. Better yet to refresh the compass direction before setting out again.

I feel better now.

And the gift from this is an awareness that the original intent is still there:

• To talk about shifting consciousness from rushing and hurrying to a pace dictated only by the reality of the current situation and not impaled on the demands of the external system, which for sure seldom has my / your best interest at the forefront of their agenda.
• To hear from others about how they came to a shifting point and how they followed through with it.
• To recognize and share information about the perilous times we are in from the point of view of impending changes which will occur to our society as climate change continues and the peak oil process progressively plays out the reality of how utterly dependent we have become on that substance.
• To recognize how we have been ultra conditioned to over-consume and to hand our lives over to specialists and how we give away our life-time to make money to pay for all that.
• To reconnect and rediscover basic skills necessary for self and group sustainability.
• To explore how people form new circles of common interest around the sustainable process.
• To integrate complex issues and to say it in plain english.
• To cultivate our inner sense.
• To clarify our values.
• To live the good life and to be in harmony with our surroundings

I suspect that should keep me busy for a while.

Perilous Times and Choices

About a year ago I started a conversation with a new friend, Ted. We meet once a week and have coffee and talk about life, the world, values, choices, propaganda, and the good life. It sounds like heady stuff but the ongoing conversation is thrilling and we both look forward to it each week.

He and his wife are committed to growing some of their own food organically and living a simple life which moves in the direction of being self-sustaining. Neither of us are much into consumerism these days. Our conversations revolve around those topics and whatever else is on our minds. The conversations are intriguing and interesting to the both of us. Ted sometimes comments that his head is buzzing for hours after I leave, although, at times, I wonder if it's also because of the very strong mud / coffee he prepares for us. For me, it's like these conversations have become compost for my own movement towards a less hurried and more centered, value expressive life style.

Early on he introduced me to the idea of peak oil and we discussed its implications for the individual, the cities, suburbanites, and the world. James Kunstler's book, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century, became the focal point for our conversations for several weeks.

Kunstler's message is simple: peak oil (the point at which half of all the oil reserves in the ground will be gone) is a fact. It's not exactly clear when it will happen but if it hasn't already, it will in the relatively near future, and when that happens, gradually at first, but with building momentum it will have nothing short of profound implications for our society. That is because we are inextricably wed to abundant and inexpensive oil. Our whole economy over the years was premised on oil being an inexpensive commodity. There was so much of it that we hardly ever gave it a second thought and with that it became more and more ingrained in our whole lifestyle. It was a positive development but we have inadvertently become more dependent on it in ways which we hardly notice. Some have speculated that if the typical office building suddenly hit a magical delete button which removed all the products which are based on petroleum or petroleum products that the building would suddenly become Lilliputian in size. Whatever the consequences for us, they will be even more significant for our children and their children. For myself I have adopted a belief that it will be a whole new ballgame in the not too distant future.

Some will say that this is too alarmist. I would say that it's risky business to keep certain blinders on. That's a good way to get mugged by reality. There is no doubt that we in the United States live in the lap of luxury. The basic needs generally are there - food, shelter and clothing. But let's take a peep behind the veil of abundance. The food on your table: you probably think that it comes from the supermarket a mile or so from your home. I dare say the younger children would say that is where food comes from. Obviously it doesn't. It was transported from other parts of this country and/or from other parts of the world. I've heard that the average piece of food on the shelves in the supermarkets travel, on average, 1500 miles to get there, and then we transport them the final few.

Or take a look at the labels on your clothes. Similar story there, too. My guess is that if I looked at the labels on all of my clothes, I would find that there is not one item that comes from within an hours drive of my home. That covers two parts of the basic trilogy; food, clothing and shelter.

I am not saying that all of this will change in a twinkling, or a moment. But if the premise is correct, and I think it, at the very least, deserves attentive consideration, that the present material abundance is premised and made possible because of accessible and inexpensive oil and petroleum products, then the implications of a reversal over time of that commodity will be, well, profound.

Back to the second part of the title of this little piece: ...and choices. Somehow or other, as individuals we have to become more self sufficient in many different ways. Kunstler's suggestion is to consider forming self sustaining communities. No one person has to do it all themselves and that simply wouldn't work for the overwhelming majority. But the self sustaining community part makes superb sense to me.

In a forum discussion on the pathtofreedom.com website there was a question as to how much land (acreage) was needed for an individual or family to be self sustaining. One person told a story of how when she was a child her family had a large garden and farmyard and they grew much or most of their own food. In that sense, they had some of their own basic needs met, but it gets better. When a neighbor passed by, e.g., coming back from fishing, he would be invited into the garden and encouraged to bring home part of his supper to share with his family. But it gets even better, because after that person left they would find a freshly caught fish for their supper. That's an example of how self sustaining is not just about one family, but of several families, or a community all contributing in non-intrusive ways according to their talents and skills. Sounds good to me. But it also reminds me of how far we have moved from that sense of basic independence and community.