Freeconomy Blog
Wed
08 Sep
The Flaw of modern Environmentalism
| 40 comments |
After I wrote the Moneyless Vrs Shop Local blog a few weeks ago, a friend of mine, Shaun Chamberlin (author of The Transition Timeline), sent me a link to a fantastic article by Marcin Gerwin for the Permaculture Research Institute in the US. A number of the points Gerwin makes in this article are absolutely critical to us understanding the true nature of the situation we find ourselves in now, and what the consequences will be if we merely 'go green' in the same economic model we find ourselves in currently.
It is, however, a challenging piece for the environmental movement to have to read, as it questions the livelihoods of those of us who consider ourselves to have the greenest of lifestyles. His piece articulates many of the questions and solutions that Freeconomy stands for much better than me, so I'll just publish it here, and you can then comment on it below as normal - the more perspectives on it the better.
by Marcin Gerwin, Ph.d. in Political Studies.
Let’s imagine a green and responsible consumer. Let’s call him George. George lives in a sleepy town, near the center and the park where he often goes for a walk with his dog. George built his house with his friends two years ago. It is a very small house, only 320 square feet and it was made with cob – clay mixed with straw and aggregate. The clay for construction was extracted from George’s land behind the house – now you can see a nice pond there with water lilies. George was fortunate enough to find some recycled timber for the roof from the old garage that his neighbors were demolishing. He considered making a turf roof with wild flowers and herbs, but eventually he decided that a slate roof will be more practical because he will be able to collect rainwater from it and use it for watering his garden during warm summer days.
George buys his food at a local farmers’ market. All food that is sold there is organic and comes from farms within a 50 mile radius and George is happy to know that very little fuel is used to transport the food he purchases. Furthermore, he buys only raw, unpackaged food, which he brings home in his own bag. He doesn’t eat meat or fish. He knows that it takes a lot of land to feed the animals, and “after all” he tells his mom smiling “a cow is a human being too”. He drinks milk, however, and enjoys scrambled eggs on a Sunday morning. Well, not exactly all his food comes from the market. He buys bread and rolls in the nearby bakery. He tried baking bread on his own, but eventually he concluded that it takes too much energy to bake a single loaf of bread for him alone and that it would be more energy-efficient to buy it from the bakery.
Nevertheless, it was his New Year’s resolution to buy local produce only. George is concerned about the amount of fuel that is used for transporting food and he decided to go radical on this one. It was tough at the beginning as he likes to drink tea and coffee, and he loves bananas. He substituted regular coffee with a barley and rye “coffee” and instead of tea he drinks mint or chamomile infusions. Unfortunately, bananas are gone from his table for good, but he discovered new vegetables such as yacon and salsify, so he doesn’t miss them that much.
George doesn’t have a car. He goes to work on a bicycle and if it’s too far for a bicycle he takes a bus or a train. Even when he is going abroad, which was three times in his life, he prefers to take a train rather than an airplane. His electric energy consumption is very low. In his home he installed a solar PV module for 140 Watts and batteries. That’s not much, but sufficient to power 3 lamps, a radio and a small fridge. George doesn’t have a TV, dishwasher or a computer. Some of his friends say that his lifestyle is a bit primitive, but he doesn’t mind.
George has many books on his shelves, but when he discovered that many of them were available in a public library he stopped buying them. Once a month he buys his favorite magazine, but recently he even began reading newspapers in the library. His house contains very little furniture, just a simple, wooden table with chairs and a wardrobe. His sleeping mattress is laid directly on the clay floor. Inside his wardrobe there are only a few worn out shirts and new pair of trousers he got for Christmas. George has only two pairs of shoes and some rubber boots for working in a garden.
George doesn’t have a bath tub, only a shower. He has a smart shower head that reduces the usage of water by almost 60%. But George is most proud of his compost toilet that he designed himself. It fits nicely in the corner of his bathroom and is not smelly at all! The compost is used to fertilize a small elephant grass plantation that he shares with his friends. The elephant grass is cut every year and is used to heat their homes in winter.
George works in a small shop that makes artisan cheese. They make cheddar, gouda and valdeon cheese wrapped in Sycamore leaves. All their produce is sold in two local shops. George doesn’t earn a lot of money, but it is enough for his modest needs. He pays his medical and dental care insurance and he can easily afford going to the movies every Saturday. He meets with his friends after work (he works only 6 hours a day), they play guitar and sing. He goes hiking in the summer and rides a bicycle along the river. George lives a happy and stress-free life.
What if We All Lived Like George?
Now, let’s take this a step further. Let’s imagine that all people in North America, Europe and Japan decided to reduce their levels of consumption and consume only as much as George. What happens?
The massive destruction of the Amazon rainforest stopped. The market for soya and timber shrunk so much that it was no longer profitable to cut down vast areas of the forest. The existing soya farms were forced to compete for the remaining customers in China and India. In Canada and Scandinavia the number of trees cut down within a year has decreased significantly. In Democratic Republic of Congo, however, the rainforest is still cut down to make way for roads to mines sponsored by China which had no intention of abandoning its consumer lifestyle. Nevertheless, in many parts of the world the pressure on the natural forest was reduced enough to remove some birds and mammals from the red list of endangered species.
Positive change was quickly noted in the oceans. The population of fish species started to grow. Cod numbers increased in Baltic Sea and at the coasts of Canada. Also, with adoption of organic farming methods, water in the rivers became less polluted and more fish were able to live there. Life even came back to the Louisiana coast were agricultural runoff borne by the Mississippi River had created a 7000 square-mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
The levels of air pollution in the cities has changed so much that the air is almost as clean as in the countryside. The level of carbon dioxide has decreased for the first time since the 19th century and scientist began to be more optimistic about human impact on climate change. Oil consumption was reduced so much that one barrel costs only 18 USD.
Now let’s go back to George. How is he?
George lost his job. The artisan cheese turned out to be too expensive for the new consumers and his boss decided to cut personnel. Everyday George cues in a long line waiting for warm soup and 2 slices of bread distributed by the government aid agency. He sold his bike, guitar and solar panels to buy food. He eats the soup and shares the bread with his dog. George’s friends lost their jobs too. His parents don’t have a job, his aunt lost her job. Actually almost everyone that George knows lost their jobs. He meets them all waiting in the long, long line to get warm soup.
How did it happen?
People stopped buying cars and decided to use public transport, so within one year all car factories were closed. Hundreds of thousands of workers were fired in Europe, USA and Japan. All car repair shops, tire making companies, car washing facilities and almost all gas stations were closed. Bicycle making companies recorded record profits but they couldn’t offer new jobs for the workers from the car factories, because they invested in new technologies and now all bicycle parts are made by machines.
Book publishers declared bankruptcy. With people reading books mostly in libraries they were not able to make enough profit. The quantity of books they were able to sell was too low. Along with publishers, bookstores were also forced to close their businesses. Ethical consumers understood that a million daily copies of a newspaper had a tremendous impact on forests. So, people quit buying them as well. As a consequence, journalists and editors lost their jobs. Printers lost their jobs. Producers of ink and printing equipment also lost their jobs. Producers of paper lost their jobs.
Hard times came for the construction industry. People are building small homes, which means that the producers of concrete, paints, windows, doors and roof tiles sell less products. With lower sales they were forced to cut down jobs. Millions of jobs for unqualified workers were no longer available.
The same happened in the clothes industry. Cotton farmers lost their jobs, factory workers in China, Bangladesh and India lost their jobs as well. Small farmers growing coffee, tea and cocoa in the tropics were shocked when the importers told them that they cannot afford to buy their produce. Millions of them lost their source of income.
The stock markets experienced a crisis that was never seen in their history. “The Great Depression Was a Joke” read the headlines. “Record Losses on Wall Street”, “Another Bank Goes Down”, “Sustainability is Killing Us”. But that was only in the first few weeks. Later on the newspapers went bankrupt. The repercussions were felt around the whole world. From Brazil and Argentina to Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka. The credit crunch was now a pleasant memory of the past – a ‘crisis’ the bankers only wished to experience.
At a government level the situation was equally dramatic. The national budget’s revenue decreased by more than a half! There was not enough money for salaries for school teachers, for doctors, for nurses, for policemen, for the administration and for the army. Not only was construction of new roads stopped, but there was also not enough funds to maintain the existing roads.
At first workers went on strike and protested loudly in front of the president’s office. They burned tires and waved flags of their unions. But soon they understood. There was not enough money in the budget to pay them. The protests were in vain.
The heads of all EU countries, the president of USA and the prime minister of Japan appeared everyday on TV and in the radio. They begged their citizens to consume more. “Please” they said “please, you must go shopping or our countries will perish.”
Our Economic System Relies on Consumption
The point is that the economic model of Western societies relies on consumption. Excessive consumption provides economic development, it provides jobs. The more people consume, the more jobs are created. When people consume less, jobs are lost. There is a famous quote from the retail analyst Victor Lebow who helped to create a vision for the economic reform in the US after World War II:
Our enormously productive economy (…) demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption (…) we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.
Think about disposable Gillette razors. Would it be such a good business if you could sharpen the blade once a while, rather than buy the whole new product over and over again?
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t reduce our levels on consumption. We must. The natural resources on our planet are used at an unsustainable rate. Too many forests are cut down, too many fish caught, too many soils are degraded, too many species are endangered with extinction – and too many people are appearing on our planet every year. My point is that if we wish to provide a livelihood for every person on this planet, it won’t be enough to promote sustainable levels of consumption. Our current economic model was designed for excessive consumption. Consumption is its engine. Honestly speaking, greed is its engine. If we wish to have a sustainable future we must change the whole economic model, culture and introduce true democratic political systems – or else we will be waiting with George for food handouts.
So, what can we do?
Certainly, it is completely unrealistic that all citizens change their consumption patterns at once in the way that George did. But with a predicted population of 9.2 billion people in 2050 we cannot expect that it will be possible for everyone to have a car, a two-storey house in the suburbs and a large piece of meat for breakfast and lunch. Solutions like zero-waste production, recycling, renewable energy, water and energy efficiency, organic agriculture, preventive medicine and many others are the foundations of sustainability. But where will the jobs come from?
To answer this, let’s look into a something different for a while. Have you ever wondered if there is a country where people enjoy a good life and they keep their consumption within the limits of their local environment? According to the "Happy Planet Index", published by the New Economics Foundation, the no. 1 place like this is Vanuatu – an archipelago of islands on the western Pacific. What makes life so good there? People live in traditional communities with close social ties. They fish, and grow food in their gardens. Some of the food is also gathered from the wild. The land is fertile and a close spiritual contact with the land is a vital part of local culture. The life is slow-paced and people are content with what they have. Andrew Harding, a BBC reporter, came to the remote Pentecost Island to investigate their lives. “There is no hunger here, no unemployment, no tax, no police, no crime or conflict to speak of,” he says. “It may not be a paradise, but you can see why people here want to keep the outside world at arm’s length.”
Norman Shackley, chair of the British Friends of Vanuatu and a former resident of the islands, recalls meeting a young man who had just returned to his home island after studying at Nottingham University. "I asked him what he was going to do with his life now” says Norman Shackley, “He just pointed at his fishing rod and said ‘this’. He could have been one of the top earners in Vanuatu if he wanted, but he was contented with his simple life and didn’t want anything else.”
Happiness is not dependent on geography, however. We can live a happy life in Poland, USA, Japan or Ukraine. We can live a happy life – and one that doesn’t destroy the natural environment that supports us. What we need for this are: good community relations, secure livelihoods and close contact with nature. As David Korten points out “We (all) want tasty nutritious food uncontaminated with toxins. We want healthy, happy children, loving families, and a caring community with a beautiful healthy natural environment. We want meaningful work, a living wage, and security in our old age.” Since we know all this then are our governments working hard to achieve this aim? No. They are working hard to increase the gross domestic product (GDP). And what that has got to do with anything? According to the International Monetary Fund Vanuatu is on their list of countries sorted by GDP – and is ranked at 170. That’s below Zimbabwe….
Money is a practical thing. It can be used to facilitate exchange of goods. On the Vanuatu islands people use pig tusks for this purpose. There are even 14 banks storing pig tusks in their vaults. However, their livelihoods are not dependent on money. As Jean Pierre John from the Metoma island in the north of Vanuatu answered when asked what is the secret of their happiness: "Not having to worry about money."
People tend to forget that money is not a real good. You cannot satisfy hunger eating a 100 USD bill or even a pound of coins. The true value is in the goods for which it can be exchanged: in vegetables, fruits, clothes, building materials, tools etc. We can have these things without the use of money. We can grow food, gather wood in the forest, dig clay and make pots, weave fabrics and sow clothes. We can even make our own ketchup.
In traditional local economies people can be independent and self-sufficient. Their livelihoods are not dependent on distant stock exchange markets, on unaccountable governments, on the European Commission in Brussels (an undemocratically elected institution, superior to member countries, often imposing policies that do not have social approval). These local economies existed also in Europe, not that long ago. We can still create local economies where people will be able to live off the land with a very little or no need for money.
Let’s go back to George. He has just finished eating his bean soup and now he is able to think more clearly. “Why wait for someone to give us job?” he says to his friend Lucy. “We will grow our own food!”
“Where?” asks Lucy. “In your backyard? There is not enough space. Maybe enough for basil and thyme, but forget maize or wheat.”
“There is plenty of land near the river.” George replies. “There are hundreds of acres of grasslands, I was riding there on my bicycle.”
“Possibly, but do you have money to buy it?”
“We don’t need to own it. We will use it and care for it. Come on Lucy,” George gets up. “We need seeds and tools, and a wheelbarrow. Let’s go and find some.”
A year later the grasslands by the river were transformed into rich vegetable gardens and vast fields of wheat, barley, rye, maize and oats. George has a right to use 2 acres of land were he planted pumpkins, squash, eggplants, tomatoes, radishes, cucumbers, potatoes, lettuce, broad beans, sunflower, currants, strawberries as well as fruit trees and nuts. He hopes to have a small forest garden there too. The project that he started was not about owning the land, but about land stewardship. They were very fortunate that the grasslands belonged to the county, or, in other words, to them. So, George organized a meeting in the city hall where people of his community decided how to provide access to this land in a just way. They set up a composting co-operative and a seeds exchange network. To extend the growing season they needed materials to build the greenhouses, so they decided to sell an old warehouse that belonged to the county. The city mayor was hesitant at first about the new way of arranging things, but he checked the constitution and it was expressed clearly, that people govern the state either directly or by their representatives. “So now they are governing it directly,” he concluded.
The food crisis it the city was over. People were able to satisfy their basic needs on their own and in autumn they were celebrating a bumper harvest. George still doesn’t have enough money to buy the solar panels he had before, but he has got an olive oil lamp. With his friends he built an oil press and they don’t need to worry about the lighting. George is also back in cheese manufacturing. He is back working in the shop part-time. People cannot afford to buy a lot of cheese, so the owner decided to accept vegetables and herbs in exchange for the cheddars they make. In winter they plan to launch a local currency to facilitate exchange of locally produced goods and services.
It may seem backward to suggest that people should farm instead of working in a space station. Nevertheless, in the world where resources are scarce and populations climb fast it is a time-tested solution (thousands of years of practice in all parts of the world) which will enable them to become economically independent and to have a meaningful life.
In the Western culture progress is defined as going from vinyl records to CDs, then to DVDs and finally to Blue-ray Discs. We used to have black and white TV-sets, now we’ve got High Definition television. That’s called progress. People get used to new technologies so fast that they think about them as indispensable parts of their lives. Can you believe that people could actually live without the internet? But that was only 20 years ago! Life must have been so hard back then… Oh no! 20 years ago? There were no cell phones either! To get out of this technological race is considered backward. Or perhaps… this is progress?
When governments try to tackle unemployment they encourage new investments, construction of new factories and generally they do their best to maximize the growth of GDP. More roads, more cars, more consumer goods, more services. In the Western economy, to create new jobs you must increase consumption. New technologies must be constantly invented, fashion changed, cars replaced, office equipment broken down and new needs created. But if the consumption slows down, this will no longer be the option. People will be out of a job for good, with very little hope for change.
The global economy can be more green, use less water and use much less energy. There is no doubt about it, the technologies are ready to be implemented. However, if we consume less then for some people there will be no jobs within the global economic system. Yet, there are opportunities waiting for them in the locally self-sufficient economies.
To create sustainable local economies we should start with ethics. Bad values got us into this mess in the first place. It is not a lack of technology that caused pollution of the rivers. Chevron Texaco used to dump 163 millions liters of toxic wastewater per day directly into the streams of the Ecuadorian Amazon. There was technology available to re-inject the wastewater deep underground. But they wanted to save 3 USD per barrel. Now the whole area of Lago Agrio is poisoned and people are suffering from contamination related diseases. It would have never happened if the values of corporate executives were those of caring for nature, helping one another and interconnectedness with the land.
The ethics for an environmentally-friendly lifestyle are simply exemplified in permaculture. They are: care of the earth, care of people and setting limits to consumption. Permaculture gives emphasis to working with nature, rather than against it, cooperation, caring for soil, water, plants and animals. Based upon these values we can use principles and techniques of permaculture to design gardens, villages or urban communities.
However, even the most appropriate ecological techniques will not do much help if we don’t have the land to start with. Access to land can be provided by land trusts, by local communities directly or in other ways that people find practical. In the land stewardship project that George started the right to use the land was granted in exchange for the care for soil and environment. No pesticides usage was allowed, neither use of industrial farming systems. His community is like the administrator of the land rather than the owner. It grants its members the right to use a certain piece of land, on the condition that it will not become eroded or poisoned. The right to use this land can be passed to the next generation, but if the farmer degrades the land, he or she can lose the right to use it.
In Madagascar the government introduced an innovative program of reforestation where a community that plants trees and cares for them for 3 years can become the owner of reforested land. In Madagascar there are hundreds of thousands of hectares of abandoned lands which can be restored and used by the growing population. The restored lands can be used as a sustainable source of food, fuelwood and timber. Even the most severely degraded lands can be restored, as Geoff Lawton proved by establishing a garden in a desert in Jordan.
Then, if we really think about creating sustainable livelihoods for all people on our planet, not just for our closest relatives or people who happen to live within the borders of the same country, we should allow migration to the places where the land is available. There are countries which are already overpopulated to the extent that they can no longer feed themselves and must rely on imported food. A prime example of this is Japan, which now imports 70 percent of its grain. There are also countries where land in unequally distributed. In Paraguay, for example, 1 percent of the population owns around 70 percent of the agricultural land. In this case farmlands should be re-allocated, in a democratic way.
Our political systems need some improvements as well. True democracy means that people can make decisions regarding their own lives. However, in most cases decisions are made by people’s representatives and too often they don’t keep their promises, lack skills, vision, they represent interests of their parties or business elites rather than the people and they are not accountable. We can organize the political system in a different way. It all starts on the local level, in the municipality. Citizens meet to discuss the daily issues affecting their lives and take decision regarding the budget, local taxation, land use permits etc. The mayor and local administration are employed to put their decisions into practice. In other words, people are like stakeholders of a company and the mayor is like a CEO. When the CEO of a private company doesn’t perform his duties well, he gets fired. In the same way citizens should be able to change the mayor or any other member of local administration. It is the citizens who pay their salaries. Administration must be accountable! Their job is to serve people, not the other way around.
One of the pioneers of the modern participatory democracy is the city of Porto Alegre in Brazil. Since 1989 the citizenry hold meetings where they decide on the priorities that decide how the public money is spent. Gianpaolo Baiocchi writes: “Citizens took over many functions usually reserved for bureaucrats: setting city-wide spending priorities, planning investments, and reviewing payrolls, not to mention setting the rules for the participatory budgeting process itself and monitoring its outcomes. Because since the 1990s Brazilian cities have assumed responsibility for most social-service provision and infrastructure investments, citizens are able to exert significant control over transportation, education, public health, and public works.” Among the benefits of direct participation in decision making are improved community ties and stronger involvement in the city life. Citizens are often able to choose projects to be funded better than officials as they know what they need, be it sanitation, water supply or a new housing. Research shows that participatory budgeting leads to lower poverty rates and improved education. And above all – community empowerment.
Don’t you think it’s a little odd that people cannot decide on what their tax money is spent on? The concept of taxation in democratic countries is to collect money that will be used to improve the quality of life of the communities. Yet, taxpayers have almost no say in the allocation of their money. True, they can choose the representative who will spend the money for them, and, if he or she turns out to be irresponsible, they can wait 4 years for another election and choose someone different. Well, it doesn’t seem very effective. Imagine a company where a manager must wait 4 years to dismiss an employee. It’s even worse – the manger must pay salary and benefits for all these years and do what his employee tells him to do. Isn’t it strange?
Consequently, people at the local level should be able to decide on nationwide issues. Why not? They meet, discuss, consult with experts, then vote in their own municipalities. Then votes in the whole country are counted and a decision is made. It’s called democracy.
The Transition initiatives that are spreading across the UK and other parts of the world is democracy in action. Participatory democracy doesn’t need a special law to be enforced. Formal regulations may be useful, but they are not obligatory. All it takes is that the mayor of the city accepts the recommendations decided upon by the local community. And when the mayor doesn’t want to listen? Than the local community can dismiss him or her and choose somebody else. The important benefit of the Transition initiatives is that thanks to regular meetings they provide a rich social life and stronger social ties. People living in one city can get to know each other better and work together in many ways.
Our current global economy was not designed to enhance community life. Its aim is to maximize profits. It depends on excessive consumption to provide jobs. We can make it greener, we can improve resource efficiency, energy efficiency, water productivity, we can recycle materials, use biodegradable plastics etc. But still, we need the consumer lifestyle to power it. Yet, the consumer lifestyle is not the way of the human being.… We don’t need all that stuff to be happy. Life can be simple, fun and meaningful with less gadgets, less cars, less stuff. To achieve that we need to create locally self-sufficient economies and to renew democracy.
Additional note from Mark - If we all lived to the life of George before his realisations, which many environmentals will claim to want to live like eventually, what do you think would happen to the National Health Service (NHS) that none of us want to seem to give up? How would it continue to work as it does now?
THE FREECONOMY BLOG is written by Mark Boyle, who has been living for 19 months without money, and is the founder of the Freeconomy Community. He is the author of The Moneyless Man.
Comment on this Post:
katie comments ...
i like the stuff about parecon.
surely its possibly for the NHS to be run in an alternative way too? more participatory led,
machines could be built more sustainably by being made from materials resourced sustainably as possible, and the machines can be made so they are easily upgraded, the parts easily recycled, the machines easy to check and repair etc,
if its easier for people to eat healthier, and an easier, more empowering world to live in with less pressure to smoke or do 'hard' drugs or binge drink, then perhaps there'd be less need for nhs
services, which would reduce the amount of machinery etc used.....
and with successful complementary medicine growing too, that can ease nhs work,
and community supporting each other.
again that could ease the nhs a lot.....
somehow, those of us that wish to, we have to
find a way that we can evolve so that we come back to nature again, with the best that wonderful technology has to offer, e.g. using renewable energies, recycled materials, recycling, making technologies easier repairable and recyclable etc....
and of course those that wish to live without technology, fair play to them, but for those wishing
to live with the more useful parts of technology at least, this is a suggestion...
with careful management, responsible making of these, i think it is possible to have 'best of both worlds'. Though, as the article reminds me, in order to do so, we may need a freeconomy/gift economy/participatory economy, or at the very least an eco-capitalist economy.
cheers for the article ; ) i'm very interested in parecon, m.albert etc.....
Toby comments ...
It's a shame that people are so quick to label 'environmentalists' as all the same. The local green movement I am part of involves less consumption, which is based on making money for rich people, and calls for equal distribution of wealth and more sharing based on trade instead of market forces/economy etc. We all have skills, we can all grow food, and these come into the eco-movement majorly.. Why George didn't realise all of that in the beginning makes no sense to me (I dont' actually know anyone like this). Next, you'll be arguing for more consumer greens.. But the fact is that being green actually means less consumption because it's our consumption of the Earth's resources that is destroying it's greenness.
Shannon comments ...
I live in the U.S. I've often wondered about just such a situation, as when George's community overcame the unemployment and lack of food. Could that work in areas of high population, such as New York City? Where would they farm in such a densely populated area? Would they have to commute to agricultural areas far from the centers of living? Maybe there would then be land wars...
I've heard before that if everyone in the world today went back to an agrarian lifestyle, there simply wouldn't be room enough for us all to farm. There are just too many people.
Any thoughts?
Mike comments ...
To answer your question, Mark, I think that if we are ever going to reach a point where we live more like nature intended, then we'll have recognized that we're just one animal species on a diverse planet, and our individual health will probably take a hit.
What's worth noting is that we aren't likely to get to that 9 billion people in 2050 mark - we're going to be hurting for oil by then. Because our species' health has benefited enormously from harnessing the power of oil, it will also collapse when it's no longer available.
As the author pointed out, we need to grow food where we eat it, that's the only long-term solution.
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Katie - machines being made more sustainably? I feel the point of the article is arguing against that exact point. Modern Western economies depend on the economies of scale, which in turn depends on mass consumerism.
@ Shannon - thanks for that. Yeah that's a bit of a myth to be honest, there is enough land, and its something I've researched a lot. It would just require radical land reform.
@ Mike - I couldn't agree more. Thanks for that.
simon: of the elder family comments ...
A most excellent piece there, thank you for sharing it with us Mark. More of this sort of 'what if' projected outcome thinking needs to be done so we can be more certain to go down the correct path to a paradisical future for all souls in the universe.
As far as the NHS goes, I would gladly give it up in its current format. I would far prefer free preventative healthcare. I think if we had a society more like that of Vanuatu or ancient Lemuria, then there would be very little need for such healthcare. the spiritual connection with the land and in fact with all that is and our remembering of our true nature as gods and co-creators is what our new society needs to be based upon. But transitioning to this as smoothly as possible is going to be the trick, as there are so many people with deeply ingrained beliefs and investments in the capitalist society we currently live in, who don't want to lose what they think they've got.
So a question back to you how do we show them that they can be happier and healthier without all the material possessions and without their needing to exploit and enslave people?
simon: of the elder family comments ...
@Mike "Because our species' health has benefited enormously from harnessing the power of oil, it will also collapse when it's no longer available." I'm not at all convinced of the truth of this statement. I know truth is subjective and until directly experienced is only philosophy, but is there evidence to back up what you are saying? How about the health of the people of Vanuatu who probably don't harness the power of oil much, do they have poorer health than us oil dependant folk?
Diana comments ...
Mark, I don't think you've dealt satisfactorily with Shannon's comment which is perfectly rational. There may well be enough land for all after land reform, but getting the people to the land is going to be a logistical problem for the millions of urban city dwellers.
simon: of the elder family comments ...
@Dianna and Shannon. I see your point, but if there isn't actually a shortage of land for all to be able to use, then it is, as you say, just a logistic problem and therefore should have a logical solution (any Vulcans on board?). I think if the communities got there heads round properly allocating stewardship of the available land and somehow we persuade the rich landowners that they don't need all that land and would actually be a lot happier without it, then it shouldn't be that difficult to tempt people who live in major cities and blocks of flats to go back to working the land. Ho hum! I'm not so sure though.
simon: of the elder family comments ...
A point in the article has gotten me thinking (as most of it did really, but this bit in particular) about where we would be if we hadn't had the internet. Would we be waking up to the conspiracy, enslavement, suppression and corruption that is going on all around us? I know we used to live without it, but were we any freer?
Kieron comments ...
An interesting read. The stuff at the end just sounds like mob rule though.
Get enough folks to agree with you and that's the rules, reguardless of if it's fair.
If it was left up to people locally to decide the rules in their town civil rights for African Americans would not have existed in much of the Southern US when they did. I'm not convinced that they would exist everywhere even today if it were up to the popular opinion in each town.
sophie baulch comments ...
Thanks for the blog Mark, I agree with loads of this. I'm definitely up for building closer communities, empowering ourselves by using the democratic system we have, instead of just expecting someone else to make the decisions for us, being as self-sufficient and sustainable as possible etc. I do get a little miffed when people make sweeping statements about 'the government' though, as if all the parties are the same. This misconception seems to be linked to people's dis-empowerment and apathy towards exorcising the democratic rights they have. Whilst some parties favour techniques to try to manipulate the economy into growing others want to reduce the state's powers to allow the market to grow naturally. I believe the smaller the state and the less it interferes, the more natural situation you will have, the better able we will be to handle transition. I'm not sure whether this would necessarily mean that the economy would have to stop growing, although the case of Vanuata is an eye-opener. Surely people, most of whom are not willing to give up money, will still need clothes and tools, but if there's less state intervention and they feel the economic effects of oil shortages, they will start to buy goods that are made to last, from more durable materials and therefore ecologically friendly, made by artisans who command a decent wage for their labour, but who's productivity would be less than with factory built goods, which would mean higher employment rates? Perhaps I'm living in a fantasy land, but I like to trust that the universe knows how to look after us, that people will wake up and change at the rate that God intends them to, without us having to fight for it or steal land from the wealthy. Nature, after all is not a system of equality. Sorry if that's a politically incorrect thing to say, but I believe that theft is not just wrong, but also harmful to those who commit it. I also believe that it is a good idea to own land ourselves if possible. People seem to think that countries that default on the debts or go bankrupt will not have their assets seized and that life will go on unaffected. If you rely on a land-lord or a government agency for your home or the land you work, you are potentially in a very vulnerable position. I'd love to go moneyless, but whilst I'm waiting for the universe to provide funds to buy land I'm going to stick up for the government that I believe will allow me to do so with less difficulty, and with least damage to the environment, and that's this one. I'm also a bit perplexed as to why some people equate the NHS to capitalism. It is quite the opposite. We do not have capitalism, as capitalism is anarchy. We have socialism. The NHS is state controlled, it makes us dependent on the state and less likely to help each-other directly. It disintegrates community bonds, which is why it was a goal of the KGB to introduce it into western countries. (Check it out if you don't believe me!) Unfortunately although democracy is truly awesome it is also vulnerable to subversion. The current generation of consumers has been so profoundly damaged that I think it is probably irreversible, unless you revert to totalitarian / terrorist techniques to curb it! I think we must just empower ourselves, build community, set an example and be willing to help others if they awaken, without interfering in their lives if they don't. I'm getting really political, but one of the beautiful things about the freeconomy is that it is so purely good, that it almost transcends all political divides. I'd love to find ways to defuse conflicts and for all those who are awakening to see that we are all working towards the same goal. The freeconomy could be the key to this.
Louise Brookes comments ...
In a sustainable system or circular economy - more people would have work not less. The only difference would be that instead of linear wasteful processes they would become circular, which means additional processes requiring more Workers. Also it is likely that many communities would be highly self sufficient in basic necessities but would still trade albeit now in a sustainable manner - economy would still exist. Newspapers and ink would be sustainably produced, logistics would be sustainably fuelled and so on and so forth. Even technology would be forced to become circular. Perhaps it would have to slow down or learn how to make the most of less resources. Consuming goods doesn't have to stop it just has to change. If I can buy computers, cell phones, cars that are ecological - great! Why not. I'm sure George would too if those options were available. The thing is our options are being forcibly limited by those with other ideas - so we should ignore them and get on with it. Network with like minded folk - build ecological goods and logistics and trade away... While we're on the point I've always thought a useful replacement for weapons would be something that made the enemy fall asleep. Then you could pick them up and put them somewhere where they can't cause any more trouble. Or take away their guns. So we can do away with arms dealing jobs while we're at it
Alan comments ...
Excellent article, Mark. Did you read the email I sent you yet?
@Simon
Re: your question, "how do we show them that they can be happier and healthier without all the material possessions and without their needing to exploit and enslave people?"
I think it will be hard to convince many (most?) people to begin with to give up their current lifestyles, deeply ingrained in Mother Culture, until they can see that that there is either no alternative, or if pioneers have already beaten a path they can follow. Sad to say, a lot of the masses actually don't believe that they are having anything more than a negligible effect on the environment's degradation (out of sight, out of mind). But, the best chance is for a small bunch of determined folk to get out there and show it can be done, and how. They won't have to convince many others, just the stragglers that are slowly peeling off from the rest of herd! As the early adopters take up a simpler life, more will join.
Heiko comments ...
Democratic reform like described there is what I have been babbling on about for years. Also EVERYONE should be allowed to participate including women, children and foreigners. I'm nearly 50 and have never been allowed to vote in a national election on the current system, just because I spent all my adult life outside the country that issues my passport. I believe that REAL democracy is absolutely crucial to change.
frank comments ...
Hi. Ive read this scenario before. Its interesting. Nice one for putting it out. Ive been meaning to do some additional research on happiness, lifespan and the hierarchy of poor to rich countries for years. As well as Vanuatu, which is new and interesting, there is Okinawa, Assabyjan and other places which are 'poor' * but where the people live long and happy lives. Normally the lifespan of the people of countries correlates to the incomes of those countries, but there are exceptions to this. Lowest incomes, the people live to 35, and the countries with the highest incomes, the people live to an average of 78 or so. If anyone else is interested in doing that research that would be very good. The reason why lifespan is important is that it is a marker of mental and physical health. Happiness and wellbeing.
Re: katies first comment at your freeconomy blog and machines. There was a point in my life where I had to come to accept that most technology wasnt too necccessary, (it was a good article in whose world? newsletter in the early 90s) I came to realise that a lot of technology is just merely interesting, and no more important than that, and as my area of interest renewable electricity, small wind and solar, and diy associated electronics and it was hard for my mind to readjust itself and put technology into its new place. Especially electricity. Where for the home it is a want and not a need. You can get up with the sun and go to bed with the sun, you can have people around you, instead of a telephone, and you can have people who live in your vicinity and we 'could' arrange our communities in the general way that the article talks about in Vanuatu. The way i see technology is in order of importance. First we as a community, and as a world have to provide ourselves with the basic physical needs.
WE HAVE TO DO THAT FIRST.
Then, when we've done that most of the other 'stuff' we want is just extra, to that. Technology, most of it is just stuff. Apart from basic technology, hammers, axes, spades, hammocks, dwellings, etc. At that time, Permaculture, a permanent culture, would encourage us to do 'best practise', taking all factors into account, to do least harm to people, to the ecology, and the care for the resource abundance, and would enable us to make 'good' interesting technology.
* ('poor' is one of the greatest cultural debilitating and demotivating insults of our time, the 'stick' hitting the people at the bottom, that causes them in the eyes of their neighbours to feel bad about their basic but adequate provision. It also demeans Absolute Poverty, in which people are quite seriously dying.)
frank comments ...
Hi. This is just a quick comment. I shouldnt really comment without doing a lot of thinking and then try and put down the best picture of what I want to say that I can. So please bear in mind this is just fast writing.
Ive read this scenario before. Its interesting. Nice one Mark for putting it out. Ive been meaning to do some additional research on happiness, lifespan and the hierarchy of poor to rich countries for years. As well as Vanuatu, which is new and interesting, there is Okinawa, Assabyjan and other places which are 'poor' * but where the people live long and happy lives. Normally the lifespan of the people of countries correlates to the incomes of those countries, but there are exceptions to this. Lowest incomes, the people live to 35, and the countries with the highest incomes, the people live to an average of 78 or so. If anyone else is interested in doing that research that would be very good. The reason why lifespan is important is that it is a marker of mental and physical health. Happiness and wellbeing.
Re: katies first comment at your freeconomy blog and machines. There was a point in my life where I had to come to accept that most technology wasnt too necccessary, (it was a good article in whose world? newsletter in the early 90s) I came to realise that a lot of technology is just merely interesting, and no more important than that, and as my area of interest renewable electricity, small wind and solar, and diy associated electronics and it was hard for my mind to readjust itself and put technology into its new place. Especially electricity. Where for the home it is a want and not a need. You can get up with the sun and go to bed with the sun, you can have people around you, instead of a telephone, and you can have people who live in your vicinity and we 'could' arrange our communities in the general way that the article talks about in Vanuatu. The way i see technology is in order of importance. First we as a community, and as a world have to provide ourselves with the basic physical needs.
WE HAVE TO DO THAT FIRST.
Then, when we've done that most of the other 'stuff' we want is just extra, to that. Technology, most of it is just stuff. Apart from basic technology, hammers, axes, spades, hammocks, dwellings, etc. At that time, Permaculture, a permanent culture, would encourage us to do 'best practise', taking all factors into account, to do least harm to people, to the ecology, and the care for the resource abundance, and would enable us to make 'good' interesting technology.
* ('poor' is one of the greatest cultural debilitating and demotivating insults of our time, the 'stick' hitting the people at the bottom, that causes them in the eyes of their neighbours to feel bad about their basic but adequate provision. It also demeans Absolute Poverty, in which people are quite seriously dying.)
Anthony comments ...
Hi Mark interesting extrapolation however I do remember reading another author who pointed to a further step in this progression. If you have ever read any of Daniel Quinns books you will know where I am coming from. He suggests that we return to the way of living that worked for millions of years before the agricultural revolution increased the workload, exploded the population and caused the food to get locked up/ produced instead of it being freely available as nature provides. Just wondering if you had read any of his work and what is your opinion on his research?
simon: of the elder family comments ...
@sophie baulch "People seem to think that countries that default on the debts or go bankrupt will not have their assets seized and that life will go on unaffected. If you rely on a land-lord or a government agency for your home or the land you work, you are potentially in a very vulnerable position." I don't know the specifics of where you live sophie, but in England & Wales most private folk don't really own their own land outright, it all belongs to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. There is what is known as allodial title in Scotland which is outright ownership, but other than that, on the british Isles we are custodians on her behalf. So I wouldn't feel much safer owning land in the current system. Saying that, I have also read that the United Kingdom is in chapter 13 bankruptcy, but I don't see anyone going for repossession of the lands.
@heiko I would say that all who have lived in the community for a reasonable length of time, no matter what nationality, race, creed, age should be allowed to take part in the decision making processes of that community. Of course very young children and possibly very old people may need to pass some sort of basic comprehension test to make sure they are capable of deciding things.
Mike comments ...
@Simon
I suppose my sentence wasn't clear - I wrote "species' health" when in fact what I was trying to say was that our ability to harness oil (resulting in lots of food) has allowed our global population to swell. If/when we run out of oil, our species' population will fall as a result of less energy to produce and move food.
It sounds like you and I agree, though, that losing access to processed foods would be a good thing for an individual's health.
simon: of the elder family comments ...
@ sophie baulch. I don't mean to be picking on you here sophie but I feel I must enlighten you a little as to the nature and intentions of our government. If you have a few minutes please give this topic on fmotl.com a quick read http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=5717&p=52300&hilit=Frankfurt+school+of+subversion#p52300 there is much evidence there and elsewhere that our government has been and is committing treason against the people. It's not a nice discovery to awaken to I'm afraid, but the truth must out. Only then can we really form a true democracy or possibly even better a federation of sovereigns.
simon: of the elder family comments ...
@Mike, yes, I totally agree, though I will sorely miss some of them :o)
Wouter comments ...
Nice article, just that you got it all wrong. You say living like George would cause all kinds of losing jobs. But you don't speak a thing about creating new jobs. Going from a oil-based to hydrogen based economy would not mean any loss of jobs. Not cutting the rain forest would actually create more jobs, than cutting it down would. And Creating non-polluting industries and technologies (none of which exist today) would in fact create more jobs than ever would be lost. You are in extreme denial; or you are being paid currently by someone who believes Earth benefits from Money, including corruption and Lobby-ism. Wake up please!!!
Thea comments ...
If George lived such a sustainable life why did he have a dog? I bet he consumed meat and other resoucres- and what did he contribute? Domestic animals are one of the most invisible and unecessary consumers of our resources.
Joe comments ...
Interesting article. Well-written, factual, and kept me reading. I like the fact that he was able to realize that money is ultimately just a piece of paper (or a bag of coins) - you can't eat money. Because society has put its trust and love in a piece of paper which is only good for facilitating buying and selling, we are all on a crash course toward killing ourselves, and destroying the earth in the process. We need a solution, and it won't be easy: it's going to cost us. But if self-sacrifice is what it's going to take for us to reverse the curse that the planet is currently under, then so be it; let's all bear it, smile, as we wear it.
Lemsip comments ...
People will still buy books as the library cannot stock all the books people want to read. They will buy the odd book the library won't stock or is so popular there is a waiting list to borrow it of more than six months. They will borrow a book and if it's good enough to keep then go out and buy it.
Also there will be an increase in labour intensive industries resulting in more jobs but lower company profits and therefore lower corporate tax paid and a lower GDP.
Instead of buying disposable products there will be an initial surge in buying of more durable equivalents such as a water filter jug instead of bottles of water and washable nappies instead of disposable nappies and to buy these people might need to learn to do without luxuries for a while, work overtime or get credit.
sophie baulch comments ...
@ Simon.
Yes. I'm quite aware of the EU being infiltrated by communists / corporatists and that we are in a federation. In fact I studied it at university! I'm also quite sure that the 'truthers' and lawful rebellion movement has been heavily influenced by the same 'psychological warfare'. We all rejoiced when the Berlin wall came down, but we never found out who the members of the Stasi were and they are still out there now in the country that dominates the EU.
Please see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN0By0xbst8&feature=related
There probably are by now very few actual 'agents'. They are not necessary. The people are destroying their democracy themselves now, as they have been so well indoctrinated. If you read Margaret Thatcher's memoirs you will find that she was very aware of it and that the conservative as a whole are trying to fend it off and prepare us for peak oil. The whole idea that 'the government' is working against us poor innocent victim people smacks to me of the same subversion that the lawful rebellion forum speaks of. It is not a case of good guys versus bad guys. Psychological warfare attempts to turn everyone against each-other to create societal collapse. Personally I think it's great that the conservatives are taking apart the centralized government, which would be very useful to any elected or unelected body, which could eventually come to power, by whatever means.
Throughout history the freemen were the ones with land and the slaves or serfs were the landless. I think it could be quite arrogant of us to assume that we have evolved beyond that as a race, although it's a lovely idea and I fully support Mark. I'm going to try to get some land and fend off any government (or bankers?) that might try to take it from me. At least I feel safe in the belief that the Queen won't try to do so. God bless her! (and I never thought I'd say that!) You could be right about the repossession thing. I guess we could (and probably eventually will) declare bankruptcy as a nation and just stop paying our debts off. I hope it's not too late though, as I think you would see an ever more severe and sudden economic crash than we are already heading for, which would not give most people time to adjust to a more ecological / permaculture way of life and would probably lead to a lot of violence and some sort of extremist / totalitarian government. I'm praying for as much transition time as possible. Austerity measures may well give us that. If you get an extremist socialist government as a result of economic collapse they may very well decide how the land is used without giving poor old George the chance.
mreed comments ...
I have lived "on/off the land" most of my life. And was born on/to it. Despite having a university education in the "arts", I managed to remain in contact with reality and am quite certaing that you sir, are an idiot. I really expected to see at the end of this "story", some rainbow bright stickers and a smiley face next to a unicorn.
Please grow up and stop misinforming your fantasy world, slacker peeps. Really, it's sad.
mreed (farmer in ks)
mariealix comments ...
Hi Mark,
I'm a French TV journalist working for a news program called "7 à 8". I'm very interested in your story.
Would you have a little time to talk about your life, your choices and your philosophy?
You can reach me at ma.brucker@elephant-cie.com
Thx
Marie
jillsouthern comments ...
Hi, I'm no expert on how to make the world a better place and I'm probably not explaining this very well but I did start to muse late one evening that it could be possible to have a world with no money at all. Yes, there would be a restructure of work allocation because all the banking and insurance/finance workers would be out of a job but, just suppose, instead of being paid for work all those fit and able to "work" clocked up say 6 hours per day of "credits" for doing something and, in return, everyone was provided with a roof over their head (or kept the one they have with no more mortgage to pay off), were provided with food and anything else they needed to exist etc. They could "work" at what they do now (if it is critical to civilisation) or could change "career" to move into food production or developing more sustainable things/something else more environmentally friendly. Now I know folks out there will say well that's not fair because some now have bigger houses etc than others. However, I have read that communism didn't work because no one had anything to work towards, their creativity was stifled because no matter how hard anyone worked they got no "reward", but what if there was a way to work towards "brownie points" for going over and above average performance so those folks who needed this stimulus would remain creative? I suspect that initially to live as others have suggested on this blog that there are simply too many humans on the planet, my suggestions may be more of a halfway house especially in view of the fact that the whole "money system" has been shown to be built on sand recently. Anyway I will stop my ramblings now - the best solution may well be a mixture of many of the ideas on here.
Trish Young comments ...
Although not directly related to this blog, the facts in this link are quite astonishing, a stark example of how separated we have become from everything we use.
Thanks to TED and Christein Meindertsma.
http://www.greenprophet.com/2010/04/surprising-pig-products-vegetarian/
Pete Waddingham comments ...
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." Cree Proverb
Fits well with the above....
I would love to live more sustainably but it is so difficult ... God knows how you convince thoughs not interested !
Danielle Vasconcelos comments ...
Hi!
I am brazilian, i loved your blog,has very interesting ideas about sustainability, congratulations for the initiative!
I feel sad about Brazil, have much to do, our reality is to move towards consumerism with each passing day, unfortunately.
I am sorry, my english is bad.
Congratulations!
Alan Walton comments ...
@ Heiko:
I must admit that I don't believe you should feel as though you missed out by having never voted. I've never even once been inside a polling station, and I became eligible to vote twenty years ago. My reasons for this choice are simple:
1) no politician is prepared to actually to tell voters the tough facts and be plainly honest, or to set policies in action for the long term. Until politicians can start to plan 10, 20, 30 years forward, and since everyone ought to be aware by now that the "malodorous faecal matter will momentarily collide with the rotating ventilation device", what is the point of participating? I'm of the opinion that, by the time I could even think of collecting a state pension, it'll only be fit for using instead of newspaper in my composting toilet - if there's even anything to collect by then;
2) practically nobody who stands for political office should be allowed to hold it. It seems as though having a major personality disorder is a prerequisite for the job (corruption, narcissism, psychopathy, megalomania, paranoia, schizophrenia - anyone seen any of these traits in any current or past world leaders?);
3) your vote counts for as much as a grain of sand on the seashore. If voting actually changed anything it would have been banned by now; and
4) it only encourages them!
Just imagine if they gave an election and nobody came; no party could claim the power to tax or assert their will over us "by the power vested in them by the people". What a thought! I withdrew my "consent to be governed" a long time ago. You ought to consider whether to withdraw yours…
@ Anthony:
I've also read Daniel's Quinn's books (some of them several times), so it's great to run into a fellow fan of the gorilla! =)
@ jillsouthern:
You are correct; communism faltered for a lot reasons, but it wasn't because people's creativity was stolen, so much as their productivity was stolen. People could not capture the fruits of their labours, so they saw no reason to exert themselves. Hence an old Soviet-era joke ran, "so long as the bosses pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work." Any command economy will eventually fail for a variety of other reasons, some of them being: pop music (don't laugh! Gorbachev cited this as a factor); corruption (Yeltsin, Brazil's Lula); just plain ol' broke; imperial overreach (Afghanistan); the list goes on and on.
Here's another Soviet joke about anti-Soviet propaganda, and how it was treated by the authorities:
A judge walks out of his chambers laughing his head off. A colleague approaches him and asks why he is laughing. The first judge replies, "I just heard the funniest joke in the world!"
"Well, go ahead, tell me!" says the other judge.
"I can't - I just gave a guy ten years for it!"
And lastly:
Gordon Brown is out jogging one morning, notices a little boy on the corner with a box. Curious he runs over to the child and says, "What's in the box sonny?"
To which the little boy says proudly, "Kittens! They're brand new kittens! Two days old!"
Gordon Brown laughs and asks, "What kind of kittens are they?"
"Socialists!" the child says.
"Socialists? Oh, that's lovely!" Gordon smiles and he runs off.
A week later, Gordon is jogging along the same street as before, this time with Tony Blair, and he spies the same boy with his box on the same corner. Gordon says to Tony, "Watch this," and they both jog over to the boy.
Gordon says, "Look in the box Tony, isn't that cute? Look at those little kittens. Och aye laddie, tell my friend Tony what kind of kittens they are."
The boy replies, "They're Tories."
"What!?" Gordon says, "I jogged by here the other day and you said they were Socialists. What's changed?"
"Well," the lad says, "their eyes are open now."
Katherine comments ...
Loved the article. Motivates me to keep trying.
On the topic of democracy, I've been living in Switzerland for 10 years now. They have a really democratic system. In our community (for us it's a small village but sometimes it can be a town or city) we have our own council. We get to vote on almost everything. They wanted to put in speedbumps, so they had two working parties of three people from the village - elected during the open meeting. One to investigate the speedbump proposal and one to investigate the financial side of it.
Anyone can go to the meetings (over18) and take part. I can't vote in proper elections a d referendums nationally or in the canton, but in the village I can. And even if I couldn't I could go and talk to my neighbours who can. Of course, sometimes democracy means the vote goes against you and progress does seem to march on, but people have more control and feel they have more control.
PERKINSIla comments ...
I strictly recommend not to wait until you earn enough amount of money to buy all you need! You can take the personal loans or just commercial loan and feel yourself fine
