Prepare for a Changing World

Because of the rapid decline of the ecological systems on which human society depends, the probability is high that serious political, social, and economic disruptions will occur. We should prepare for this contingency, especially by cultivating one or more basic skills, such as food production, construction and repair, basic medicine, basic sanitation, and so on. Having these skills and teaching them to others will be vital in maintaining and rebuilding human civilization in the event that a collapse occurs.

The danger with including a principle like this is that it sounds so “doom and gloom,” so apocalyptic. But that isn’t the point at all. This is more an example of hedging one’s bets. To quote a cliché: “The only thing that’s certain in life is change.” If we’re lucky, we’ll be able to live our entire lives in a country that has access to hospitals, grocery stores, clean tap water and sanitation, and electricity. But there is no guarantee of this. Much of the infrastructure in the United States is old; we expect it will be repaired when it breaks, but if a major depression occurs it’s possible that increasing numbers of Americans will no longer be able to count on access to basic services we see as natural. And in many other places these services are still just dreams. Almost a billion people are underfed, and lack of clean water and sanitation accounts for 10 percent of the global disease burden.

If we don’t shift our economy away from being dependent on ever-increasing levels of consumption—an impossibility on a finite planet—Earth’s ecological systems will fail and, with them, the economies of many countries. (And these will be deep failures that will make the current recession seem trivial.) Already the effects of climate change are being felt in some areas and are leading to less certainty in crop cycles, declining access to fresh water, and more erratic weather patterns. Not possessing a diverse set of skills or the knowledge to adapt to changing conditions will leave you at the mercy of others—but having a skill will enable you to adapt, and to barter your knowledge. And if these changes don’t occur in your area or lifetime? Many of these skills can be fun to learn, so just consider them eccentric leisure activities and fodder for cocktail party banter.

Over the years a slew of books has offered survival tips in case a rapid economic or ecological decline makes our current way of life impossible. The Post Petroleum Survival Guide and Cookbook is a recent one that injects a sense of humor into what could be a dire discussion. (See here for a list of several more.) This readable guide includes many important tidbits of information—from how to can food, grow sprouts, and do basic first aid to instructions on designing rainwater collectors, composting toilets, and solar ovens. It also provides references for those who want to specialize in a specific topic. Of course, it’s impossible to learn all the skills, but learning a smattering of many or gaining expertise in one will be useful, in case all the skills in Excel, Word, and surfing the Web we’ve been honing over a decade become suddenly irrelevant.

This essay is reprinted from World Watch Magazine, May/June 2009

Life of Service

We are all part of a greater system, and the whole will only be healthy if its constituent parts are. Thus we should help those who are in need, especially in ways that provide a useful understanding of the world and our role in it—namely that we are dependent on and part of the Earth, and that only through sustaining this beautiful, fragile system will we lead meaningful and satisfying lives.

With the current recession, economic insecurity is spiking worldwide. But even before this crisis, there were almost 2.6 billion people living on less than US$2 a day. Those of us with the means to help others less fortunate than we are have an obligation to do so. I won’t justify that statement here; anyone who has seen others suffering and doesn’t feel compassion to help will surely not be transformed by anything I might say in this essay.

Nor will I go into the ample research showing that helping others often makes one happier and more fulfilled. But what I do hope to make clear is that some ways of helping are better than others. There’s an old Chinese proverb, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Of course, that was before oceans were acidifying and fish threatened to become a rare luxury, but the broader point still rings true. Providing temporary aid that doesn’t get to the root of the problem is futile. (For a detailed discussion of this, see the book Sweet Charity.)

Considering our rising population and declining ecological systems, it’s imperative that we teach people to live simply. Not surprisingly, living simply will actually reduce economic worries, while increasing free time and reducing impact. Too often wealth is conflated with wellbeing, when in fact the two are only tangentially related. By recognizing that a good life depends not on wealth but on health, basic security, community, and purpose, lives can be very good while being simple and low-impact.

Charity, in theory, could be a perfect vehicle to teach this, but is rarely utilized in that way. Instead, most charitable operations provide a fish each day and do nothing to counteract the billions spent by advertisers to teach that unless you have not just swordfish on your plate but a yacht to catch them from, you’re not going to be happy. Hence, people have trouble making ends meet, even when earning good salaries, because they’ve reached their credit-card limits and taken additional mortgages on their oversized homes—all for consumer goods like flatscreen televisions that increase their electricity costs and encourage them to sit still and watch more ads.

Imagine if charities were designed to reeducate “failed” consumers in simple living, ecological stewardship, and informed citizenship, so that when a new family walks into the food pantry they receive food aid, but only after they agree to enroll in a course on financial planning, living simply, media analysis (to help defend against advertising messages), our ecological footprints, and so on. Or when a diabetic walks into a free clinic, he is treated—but only after agreeing to take a course on healthy cooking and to work several hours in the clinic’s community garden. Yes, give fish to those in need, but teach them how to fish while they eat. Slowly but surely, by replacing the influences of the consumer society, people will learn how to live healthier and more sustainable lives, and most likely become happier in
the process.

Of course, one problem here is that few such programs exist. For the social entrepreneurs reading this, consider starting one. For others, don’t let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good. Search out a local urban garden or food security agency that at least understands these points and then push them to do more to address root causes.

Ultimately, the best way to serve may be the least satisfying: lobbying to make major changes in the systems that prop up the consumer culture. But one can be an advocate for change while helping individuals directly. And every person awakened from the consumer dream can also start helping others, both directly and through advocating systemic changes.

This essay is reprinted from World Watch Magazine, May/June 2009

Gardens Growing

A couple of great articles that might help the idea of growing one's own food spread.

First an article about how the Obama's are setting up a garden at the White House. No better advertisement for gardening than The First Family of Cool taking this on.

And then, how to enact one's sudden urge to get in on the game:
Here's an article describing Sharing Backyards, a small effort to help connect yard owners with people who want to garden. And then, in some areas there are even innovative new sustainable businesses trying out the same concept. See Your Backyard Farmer for an example.

So, get out there and start gardening--your land or someone's elses. The spring is here!

One kid? Or Voluntary Human Extinction?

Wow, I thought the Living Earth Ethical Principle on family size was challenging--since it encourages all families to give birth to just one child (though families should adopt as many additional children as they have the means and interest to raise). Then I learned today about the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement." These are individuals who have not only agreed to stop reproducing but actually want the human species to go extinct (though not through violent means, just through choosing not to continue).

While I understand the impulse, really, once we can bring down the human population to a sustainable level--perhaps 1 billion with high-income lifestyles or 6 billion with middle-income lifestyles, then we can live in balance with the planet (though these estimates decrease each year we live beyond the biocapacity of the planet as ecological capital continues to be degraded or depleted). So while I find the movement thought provoking and funny, I hope people in the movement will consider a new focus: The Voluntary Human Reduction Movement, where members are encouraged to give birth to no more than one child per couple (with twins the accidental exception). That's a message that might resonate better, spread further, and still have significant benefits.

Video that makes a painful comparison

You've heard the old comparison between the human species and a cancer. But have you heard cancer's side? Watch this video to hear its defense:

Exercise or Eat a Big Mac?

On February 12th, the BBC posted a new article about how exercise reduces colon cancer and a video about how during the recession, more people are eating at McDonald's and other fast food joints, which will, when done in excess, lead to obesity and many nutrition-based diseases, cancers included. This certainly makes an interesting juxtaposition. In the first article, Sara Hiom, director of health information at Cancer Research UK, explained that "around half of all cancers could be prevented by changes to lifestyle." And that "maintaining a healthy bodyweight is one of the best ways to lower the risk of bowel and other cancers - potentially helping to avoid an estimated 13,000 cases each year." In other words, skip the MickieD's.

There are many paths I could take with this blog, but let's jump straight to the most important one: in this moment of economic uncertainty you can eat very healthy on little money if you're willing to prepare the food yourself. Yes, it takes more time, but then again, perhaps we'll start having more of that as unemployment leads people to scale back their spending and live with smaller incomes. Learning to cook would be a good way to eat healthier while saving money (and would even give you a bit more exercise than waiting at the drive thru). Dried beans, rice, fresh veggies and spices can be made into an exquisite meal for little 'dough.' And you'll be much better off than eating $1 burgers.

Combine that with exercise--as simple as walking to the grocery store or doing a little gardening (saving a bit of money on food that way too)--and you'll be a lot healthier. Spring is coming, which makes this a perfect moment to find a plot you can start cultivating. Or if you live in an apartment, why not try setting up a little balcony (or indoor) garden. You can tend that year round. Watch the below video to see one guy quite inspired by his balcony garden. Feel free to use less exotic plants than he does! Even some basil, tomato plants and a few other herbs would be a good start.

More on the Climate Impacts of Meat

I don't think I have to belabor this point, but eating factory farmed hamburgers and steaks has a much larger ecological impact than lentil soup or a nice veggie stir-fry. Here's a Scientific American article that provides some concrete statistics. A half pound of conventional veggies shipped all the way from Peru? 4.4 ounces of co2 equivalent.

A half pound of hamburger? The equivalent of 3.6 to 6.8 POUNDS not ounces of co2 equivalent. (It's actually a small amount of methane but that has 23 times the climate changing potential of co2.)

So, point is: eat very little meat, and what you eat should be raised naturally, and ideally low on the food chain, like chicken not beef. But an occasional grass-fed hamburger on very special occasions can be ok--as long as special occasions don't include all days that end with the number 3, every Sunday, or days that start with T or S. More like: 3 or 4 birthdays and a few holidays--leading to meat and fish consumption on the order of two pounds a month. (Or just make Sunday your meat night and have one big 1/2 pound of meat then.) The Earth could sustain that level of meat consumption. In fact, it would welcome it: right now we eat about 435 million tons of meat and fish each year (275 and 160 million tons respectively). If everyone pulled back to a kilo (or 2.2 pounds) per month we'd only be eating 41 million tons per year--just 9% of current meat and fish levels. Even at a population of 9 billion, this number would only rise to 54 million or 12% of current consumption levels.

Along with being healthier, our oceans would heal, greenhouse gas emissions would fall, we could go back to raising animals more naturally, and grow more vegetable and grain crops for human consumption leading to less hunger (if better distributed, which would mean that total farming jobs wouldn't have to fall). I know, it's a dream, but cut your own meat consumption--that's a starting point and then encourage others to follow suit. And I've found that it's definitely easier to encourage people to make meat a smaller part of their diet than abstain altogether. Good luck!