Most of the big global problems are primarily due to over-consumption, that is to the fact that far too much producing and consuming is going on. These cannot be reduced to sustainable levels unless we achieve extreme “degrowth”. The only social form that can enable this is the small, highly self-sufficient, cooperative, frugal village
Our industrial-affluent-consumer society is grossly unjust and unsustainable, We are far beyond levels of resource use, environmental impacts, “living standards”, and GDP that can be kept up for long let alone spread to all people. These are probably five to ten times the level that all people could ever rise to. This over consumption is the fundamental cause of the big global problems such as resource depletion, environmental destruction, the deprivation of billions especially in poor countries, and resource wars. The profit and growth driven economic system is inevitably generating skyrocketing inequality alongside increasing impoverishment, thereby causing the anger destroying social cohesion and prompting the rise of fascism. Accelerating debt levels have set up the coming global financial crash.
Few realise the magnitude of the combined sustainability and injustice ”poly-crisis”, nor that there must be dramatic “degrowth” down to levels of production and consumption and therefore GDP that are a small fraction of present levels. There is only one general social form that can enable this.
But can’t technical advance “decouple” growth and affluence from resource and environmental impacts? Many studies now show that it can’t. The only solution is to shift to ways of living that enable dramatic reductions in throughput.
An outline of The Simpler Way
Only the small, highly self-sufficient, cooperative, self-governing, needs-driven (not profit-driven) and frugal village community can get the per capita resource and environmental impacts right down, while actually improving the quality of life. Here are the main reasons why.
Self-sufficiency
Converting our towns, neighborhoods and households into thriving local economies producing many of the basic goods and services they need from local resources of land, labor, skill and capital, can greatly reduce many costs, such as for transport, infrastructures such as roads and ports, packaging, and waste recycling.
For instance, almost all food can come from home gardens, community gardens, woodlots, meadows, fishponds, poultry pens, and “edible landscapes” of fruit etc. in parks and small farms within and just outside settlements. Most of these can be on the road areas we have dug up because few cars will be needed as most could get to work on foot or bicycle. Localised alternative agriculture is far more efficient than agribusiness. Nutrients can be totally recycled in closed loops from gardens through kitchens and animal pens to compost heaps and methane digesters and back to soils. There would be little or no need for a fertilizer industry, sewer systems, supermarkets, food packaging, advertising or transport. Much food would be free from the commons, such as fruit from the trees in the parks.
Our study of egg supply found that their dollar and energy cost via the usual supermarket path involving global supply chains, shipping, trucks, feed mills, power, chemical feed additives, and bad conditions in factory sheds, were around 1% of costs if eggs are produced in back yards or local cooperatives.
Most products needed for materially simple but sufficient/frugal lifestyles can be made via craft and small business processes, not distant mass production factories, using plants and timber grown on community land. This includes basic tough clothing, pottery, baskets, leather, herbs, firewood. Dwellings and community buildings can be made extremely cheaply from earth. Localising these industries eliminates the kinds of costs evident in the egg supply example.
Commons, committees and working bees
The town would own and maintain many commons, such as the parks, workshops, energy systems, community orchards, bamboo clumps, herb patches and forests, ponds for ducks and fish, and some of the farms and cooperatives, These would be overseen by committees and working bees. There would be much less for councils to do, meaning far lower rates. There would be committees for agriculture, looking after elderly people, youth affairs, education and especially leisure. Contributing to working bees would be an enjoyable way of paying some of your tax
Petrol stations could be converted into neighbourhood centres containing a workshop, recycling racks, surplus food sharing, tools to hire, a library, an art gallery, craft rooms, a café, recycling racks, a stage for performances and a large space for community assemblies
Few people would need a car. Many basic goods would be produced in small firms within the town or close by, so few trucks would be needed to bring goods into the town. Far less international trade would be needed, thus reducing the need for trucks, aircraft and shipping. A few community cars might be available for hire.
Work
Because we were living simply and many things would be “free” from the commons we would not need to buy much. Therefore, we might only need to work for money two days a week. Much producing would be by hobby and craft activity, and much would be done on enjoyable working bees.
Aged care
Most old and infirm people would be able to stay in their homes, looked after by the relevant committee, working bees and rosters. They would continue as valued, experienced members of the community. Hospitals and hostels would be in the centre of town amid gardens and animals, enabling it people to drop in for a chat.
Education
The main educational goal would be helping young people to become good caring, cooperative and skilled citizens of the town, aware of how the town depends on prioritising the welfare of all, of the need to care for local systems, conscientious, and with the multi-skills needed to maintain things. Young people would learn these skills and values by participating in working bees and committees. We would introduce them to a wide range of hobbies, leisure pursuits crafts, ideas, philosophies etc, and especially to limits to growth themes showing why affluent lifestyles and resource intensive ways must be avoided. We might have the teenagers running the poultry co-ops. They could go on to professional training as at present, but we would need far fewer technocrats, lawyers, engineers etc
Leisure
These settlements would be leisure-rich. The neighbourhood would be full of familiar people, interesting things to do, common projects, animals, gardens, forests, wind mills, art and craft groups, lakes, little firms and community workshops. The leisure committee could organise weekly concerts, visits, local holiday sites, talks, festivals and celebrations. There would be many hobby and craft groups, with people eager to teach their skills
Because the town would be leisure-rich people would be less inclined to go away at weekends and holidays, thereby reducing national energy consumption. The leisure committee would work out resource-cheap holiday options, e.g., hire a horse and Gypsy wagon and follow a map through interesting nearby towns.
The economy
There is no possibility of making these changes while we retain the present economic system. It causes the big global problems, firstly because it allows market forces and profit to determine development, meaning that the most urgently needed things are not developed. Secondly it must have growth, so it inevitably generates increasing resource and environmental problems.
The basic economic priorities must be worked out according to what is socially desirable, democratically decided mostly at the local level, not dictated by huge and distant state bureaucracies. However, much of the economy could remain as a (carefully regulated and monitored) form of "free/private enterprise" carried on by small firms, households and cooperatives, so long as their goals were not profit maximisation and growth.
The biggest sector of the national economy would be the highly self-sufficient and self-governing town economies. These might have relatively small cash sectors in which (regulated) market forces could operate but the important arrangements would be planned and run by collective or public agencies, under the control of the town assembly. The town might own and run its own dairy farm. One large sector would not involve money; it would include barter, working bees, surpluses given away, and free goods (e.g., from the roadside fruit and nut trees).
There would be no unemployment and no poverty. These could easily be eliminated as communities set up the co-ops and small firms to make sure everyone who wants a job can have a livelihood contributing to meeting local needs.
Your monetary wealth would not be an important determinant of your quality of life; what would matter would be the public wealth you have access to, the landscapes, facilities, concerts, comrades, etc. Your welfare would depend on how well your town was functioning, not on how much money or property you had. Thus there would be strong incentive to care and contribute to your town.
Note how robust and resilient these kinds of communities are, largely immune from break down in national systems. If the supermarket shelves go bare, we will still have food in the ground and people who can fix things and provide.
The state
There would be relatively few big firms, little international trade, not much transporting of goods between regions let alone between nations, and very little need for transnational corporations, banks or the finance industry. There would still be an important role for the state, especially in setting standards, coordinating, R and D, and running any ventures that are not best left to cooperatives and small firms. But the state would not have that much to do, and it would have little or no legislative power, because all decisions would be devolved down to town meetings for approval. (That is, we would have Anarchist participatory democracy).
Values and culture
None of this is possible unless there is profound cultural change, away from competitive individualistic obsession with acquisitiveness, and to prioritising cooperative community welfare and non-material sources of life satisfaction. We must be content with producing and consuming only as much as we need for comfortable and convenient living standards. We must live very cheaply, recycle, design things to last and to be repaired. We must phase out many unnecessary products, such as sports cars.
Frugality does not mean hardship or deprivation; the goal is what Is sufficient for a good quality of life. This must become a willing choice, not a reluctant cost for saving the planet.
The quality of life
This would be far better than it is in present society. All would be secure from worry about unemployment, poverty, economic depression, isolation, loneliness. There would be strong community solidarity, especially at the neighborhood level where you would be very familiar with 150 comrades. (“Dunbar’s number”.) You would know that your town cares about you ...because everyone realises that the town must look after everyone or it will not work well. The huge present toll of struggle, worry, homelessness, depression, drug and alcohol dependence, mental illness etc. would have been eliminated.
Above all would be the morale and “spiritual” effects of knowing that you live in a beautiful, wise, caring community to be proud of. The situation would require good values and strong citizenship ...and it would reward these. We would enjoy cooperating and sharing and coming to working bees, because we knew these maintained the conditions that make the town work well for us all. But more importantly it would be satisfying to know that your society is cooperative and caring, not a competitive struggle that enriches a few while trashing many. And there would be the knowledge that our ways are crucial for defusing global sustainability problems.
And it is happening
Over the past thirty years a concern to move in this general direction has emerged and is gathering momentum, most evident in the Permaculture, Voluntary Simplicity, Eco-village and Transition Towns movements. There are many illustrations of their benefits. For instance the Dancing Rabbit ecovillage in Missouri has per capita resource consumption rates around 5 - 10% of US averages, while enjoying above average quality of life indices. The Catalan Integral Cooperative involves thousands in running elaborate systems with no involvement with the state or the market. Here’s how a Sydney outer suburb could be restructured in these ways. See also the 48 minute video A visit to Pigface Point.
This goal would not solve all global problems; issues like getting population down to sustainable levels would also have to be tackled. But it would either eliminate or defuse most of them, primarily because it is the only way to dramatically reduce per capita resource consumption.
What then should we do?
We should work hard at helping more people to see why the long-term goal must be transforming our existing towns, suburbs, and neighbourhoods towards the kinds of village settlements described above. This is the only way to achieve a sustainable and just world, and it is the way to liberate people from the unacceptable society we have now.
For a 35 page account, go to The Alternative, Sustainable Society.
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ted Trainer is a Conjoint Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales. He has taught and written about sustainability and justice issues for many years. He is also developing Pigface Point, an alternative lifestyle educational site near Sydney. Many of his writings are available free at his website, The Simpler Way.
|
