h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK to continue in this line. I want to point out that What I'd Like is for a few considerate people, of all these six billion, to think how easy it actually is to make a major difference for the benefit of Planet Earth and coming generations of people. My previous posting was about conserving plants and animals. The majority of the biodiversity of the Planet Earth can actually be conserved on quite small pieces of land compared to the total land expanse of the Earth. It can be done without much trouble and sacrifice. All that is necessary is really *intelligent* work, co-ordinated between a few different groups of dedicated people, based on the knowledge and information that is already available about the distributions of plant and animal species on Earth.

I want to now talk about something relating more to human society. This is that small groups of people can make a difference to the totality of human society, as well.

Again, we may not be able to avert the major catastrophes. These may still happen ... maybe in the forms of mass starvation, or disease epidemics, or massive wars between vast numbers of people. These things will likely happen. Human population growth, if not stopped voluntarily, may keep expanding until there is a gigantic 'crash' and in a short time billions of humans may die. This is inevitably the way populations cycle in nature. Either they fluctuate slowly around a stable point, or they go up and down rapidly in 'booms' and 'crashes'. Our population doesn't seem to be fluctuating slowly around a stable level ... it appears to be going through a 'boom' that sooner or later may be forced to end in a 'crash'. But anyways ...

A small group of people could probably not do much about the overpopulation of the Earth, and about the massive consumption of resources that will result. The depletion of these resources will lead to the crashes. The depletion and the crashes will in all probability happen. But - small groups of people can make this difference over the long-term ... we can set an example for other people to demonstrate that this doesn't have to be the way. We can show people a different way. Maybe, eventually, larger numbers of people can learn this way, and maybe, eventually, the vast majority of humans will choose this sort of way, and voluntarily keep down human populations.

It may be extremely difficult to get humans to not reproduce so rapidly. We may even come into conflict with what is regarded to be basic human nature. But I think that a rational way can be found.

What I'd Like would be for small groups of people to start living in an alternative fashion to the great mass. I'd Like for some people to get together and discuss this sort of thing. I'd like it if such people and myself could become a 'We'. Then 'we' can devise a way of life based on the principles of much slower consumption of resources ... or instead call it 'more effective resource management'.

The goal is for people to 'slow down' a lot, and to simplify. Stop using such vast amounts of energy. Stop consuming so much. Learn to live with less, learn to live a simpler life. I'm not talking of depriving people of essential resources! I'm talking of a much more efficient use of those resources. I'm talking about sharing things more, and taking greater care of the resources you have at your disposal. It's not necessary that everybody have a big house. We can find ways to share living spaces, use them more economically. It's not necessary that everybody have a big fast car. We can share means of transportation. Maybe we should re-think the value of traveling with horses, with bicycles, or with our feet. Maybe we need to ask if it's really necessary to be in such a hurry.

I'm not saying we should go back to the fifteenth century! I'm not saying we should abandon technology! In fact I think we could make especially efficient uses of modern technology ... especially communications technology! If we use communications technology a lot more efficiently, then maybe we might not need to physically move around as much as before. We can be in touch with people without having to physically visit them. We can do 'electronic work' that is about the transport of knowledge and information, around the globe on global information networks, rather than producing and transporting physical goods.

The thing I'm envisaging is a combination of old technologies and new technologies. In many cases we might find that old technologies are better, more efficient, in the sense of needing less total consumption of fuels, and resulting in less pollution and waste. But in some cases we might find that 'modern' technologies are more efficient. I'm saying we should rationally consider the pros and cons, always with the ultimate goal of achieving a simple but satisfying, sustainable,low-cost way of life. Low-cost in terms of such things as environmental costs like pollution. Sustainable, in the sense of not consuming resources faster than they can be replenished. We really need to think globally here, and long-term. The idea is that we should not be 'robbing' future generations of human beings ... or non-human beings for that matter.

What I'd Like is for us to consider the options we have in that line. There are lots of things to try out! I am especially thinking of having 'communities' that are not linked by gross physical connections, but by subtle electronic connections. This way you can have 'communities' of people that are dispersed all over the globe, but nevertheless in close contact, through rapid electronic lines of communication. But here, too, we must always be willing to count *all* the costs. I am somewhat wary of cell phones, for instance, because of the *possibility* that there might be inteference with health from the microwave radiation. I am a bit worried that cell-phone companies might downplay possibile health risks by putting on enormous pressure, because there are enormous amounts of money to be made.

Nevertheless, I do believe that we could find communications technologies that are really high-tech and cutting-edge by which we can form new kinds of human communities, dispersed over the globe but nevertheless tightly-knit, and in these we can try out alternative modes of existence, along the line of sustainability and simplicity.

Consider for instance how such groups will grow bigger. Like I said, one goal would be in fact to limit the rate of reproduction. Several things can be done in this respect. One is to recommend *adopting* children rather than having your own. This, I believe, can be an incredibly valuable thing! Just consider the numbers of AIDS orphans here in Africa. Communities that put an emphasis on adoption can 'rescue' thousands and thousands of these kids and give them quality lives. If many people did this, adoption services and networks around the globe will also improve, with on the one side the benefit that orphaned and unwanted kids will have a better chance of getting parents, and on the other side people who cannot or do not want to have their own kids, will have a better chance of finding kids they can adopt.

Communities can also grow by recruitment in other ways. Disseminating information about new styles of communal living will probably attract people who would also like such a thing. The idea I have is that dispersed communities along the lines mentioned here must be easily 'joinable' by people who want to go along with it. But they must also be easily 'leavable'! Ease of joining *as well as leaving* will keep them dynamic, but I believe this make them more attractive to people who do want to join, and stay.

Initially the people doing these things might be few in number and far-between. Such small groups may not be able to avert the catastrophes that may hit humanity-at-large. But these small groups - PROVIDED that they turn out to be *effective* at what they do, and intend to do, can serve as *examples* for the greater humanity. Examples that 'there is indeed another way, and it can work, if we are willing to let it work'. Maybe, in the long run, the greater part of humanity can come around to this way of living, for the benefit of Planet Earth with all its human and non-human species, the present as well as the coming generations.

What I'd Like is if we could actually find such a way of life, that is simple and cheap, and sustainable, without robbing, poisoning or depleting the Earth, and where we control our numbers voluntarily rather than be at the mercy of booms and crashes.

wow.

I'd like for that to come true.

> What I'd Like would be for small groups of people to start living in an alternative fashion to the great mass. I'd Like for some people to get together and discuss this sort of thing. I'd like it if such people and myself could become a 'We'. Then 'we' can devise a way of life based on the principles of much slower consumption of resources ... or instead call it 'more effective resource management'.

It sounds like you're talking about a commune/arcology system. These always sound great in principle. Where it fails is that human beings are... well... fallible. Look at the Communist party in the Soviet Union, for example. Human beings are wonderful in the abstract, but in the specific, they're venal and greedy. Keep the community small, and it'll be more of a success. Limit the members to those that have been carefully screened. And even then it won't last long past the first generation. (what, me pessimistic? Naw.)

If there's ever a major world disaster, I envision a commune system developing - individual communities with high amounts of population, linked to garden centers that produce food, and energy centers to power everything.

I recommend that you read Walden II, by B.F. Skinner. It's an interesting look at a communal society, and how such a thing might be made to work.

Hi Jenny, and hi Lentilla!

I've thought about all this things in detail. I've thought for instance a lot about human nature, like you put it, 'in the specific, they're venal and greedy'. I'm not sure if that *needs to be* the case. The way I see it, people are venal and greedy for several different reasons, and each of these 'reasons' is something that it is possible to do something about. To find answers to this it is necessary to do a bit of experimentation ... to actually try out some ways of 'working together' and seeing which of these work best. I think that we should *work with* actual human instincts. Humans desire certain things 'by nature' so to speak, and can be taught to desire certain things. My view of building a really strong kind of human community would be to have a community that can give people some things that they really need, that they really desire, in a better way than anybody else can. If they can get a taste of these kind of things in this sort of community, then they can start caring for the perpetuation of the community.

The communities I envisage are not people who are living in a totally enclosed/isolated commune. They are communities that are in contact with and interconnected with larger, enclosing and surrounding communities. I am thinking of a 'core' community in each case that is based on a certain area of land, and has a fairly small population, of about 200 or so people, and these would be in contact with others as well as with 'mainstream society'.

I'm just thinking about possibilities right now. I'm still far from being in the position of actually trying things out. I do wish to make a point that my ideas that I have right now go well beyond what anybody has actually managed to try up till now. It goes very far beyond the communist experiment in the Soviet Union. I mean my system is more flexible than theirs. They had an inflexible system that did not take realities into account and they tried to enforce it on a vast scale. My own 'system' is not so rigorous, and I am really working at incorporating every aspect of reality (how humans behave, what they desire, etc.) into it, and I'm going to start trying it out just on a small scale, and fine-tune it from there. It doesn't matter if it 'flops' so long as it leaves posterity with a few more ideas, records of what we tried and how we tried it. If we fail, maybe future generations can learn from our failure. Humanity can keep on trying!

But anyways this is how I'm going about it *in practice* at the moment. I'm discussing it with various people over here in South Africa. Mainly if it starts out at all, it will start out with myself and some family and friends ... maybe initially as few as 20 people, but people who are very like-minded. Then we will start our community-building and enlarging efforts and we'll start discussing among ourselves lots of different 'issues' and how we're going to handle them. The idea I have is that among us we'll have to agree on a sort of a 'Constitution' as to what we're about, and how we're going to go about it. Once we got a constitution agreed, people can join if they accept and identify with the constitution. It will be very simple, basically, just outlining the vision and mission of a simple, satisfying, sustainable sort of society of people living in harmony with Nature. The details needn't be spelled out ... the details can be left for people to try to figure out themselves in practice. But I want that we should write down everything we think of, everything we try, and note whether it is successful or not, but to keep trying, and leave our writings for other people to read so they can get even more ideas and try out even more different things.

I have thousands and thousands of different ideas of what could be tried out. If one thing doesn't work, then there may be a hundred more things that can be tried out, and maybe one of these may work.

I will look for that book by B. F. Skinner ... can't remember seeing it anywhere so far but thanks for recommending it!

Hey Lentilla, I haven't so far got my hands on the book, but I have been checking around online. The idea seems to be of a 'controlled' community! I know that Skinner was a behaviourist and in favour of controlling 'behaviour' as a way of controlling people's minds. Me and Skinner don't see eye to eye! I see human beings and the human mind in more complex terms and I don't think we should try to control people like that. My own view of communities and societies would allow very diverse behaviours rather than trying to get everybody to conform to certain patterns of behaviour. That is why I couch the ideas in vague terms ... to allow for various different interpretations. I don't want for there to be a 'dogma'. I'd rather that there simply be a heck of a lot of different ideas, different options, different choices: 'Try this', 'try this', 'try this', 'try to come up with your own ideas and solutions', 'tell us all if it worked or not'.

There would be lots of ideas, and lots of information going round. There will be *practical* things we'll be trying out. For instance solar energy! This goes along with trying to be more sparing with energy, and working towards sustainability. We could try out various ways of utilising solar energy. There are in fact myriad different kinds of solar energy use, not just electric solar cells ... but we will be using those too. Here in South Africa more and more these days you'll see solar energy devices in use ... solar water pumps, solar heaters, solar cookers, solar air conditioners ... so there's a heck of a lot of possibilities.

Then we'll be going into agricultural experimentation ... geared towards cultivating necessary food-and-other-product plants in an environmentally friendly way. We'll be experimenting with new techniques for improving soil structure and fertility; with biological control of pests and diseases; with a large variety of 'new' crop plants (but I think *not* GM) and so on. Personally I would *like* to encourage vegetarianism, and finding ways of making a vegetarian diet as nutritious and sustaining as possible. This could be a goal for *some* members of the group. In other words vegetarianism would never be *enforced* on everybody, but those of us who choose vegetarianism could work to improve the quality of our vegetarian diets and prove to others that it is a viable alternative. I believe that vegetarianism is generally ecologically less costly than carnivory.

My idea is to concentrate a heck of a lot of expertise in a small community. I am over here talking to people, making contacts, finding out where to get the relevant know-how and info. Right now it's a slow process since I've still a lot of personal problems to overcome before I can start working to help others, but things are moving, and I'm making contacts.

Solar air conditioning? I can't quite seem to wrap my mind around that concept...

solar air conditioning? well how about a roof with solar panels and air vents so that the temperature within is kept comfortable? I've seen some eco-freindly houses in the UK even that have a system along those lines, which can provide some of thier energy needs.

I met a traveller in a squatted community centre nearby who had recently been to an alternative summit in Germany. He said that amongst all the political debate, the gathered discussions of alternative lifestyles and communities, the one useful thing that he took away from him was the knowledge of how to make a simple but hygenic toilet in the earth.

What he'd learned how at the 'earth latrine' workshop was something he'd already found of great use on his travels, and for organising squats, festivals and outdoor parties. So sometimes a 'how to' guide on the basics of an important technology is really useful.

Yes, that makes sense Somehow I'd gotten stuck with the idea of passive solar heating, and of course that wouldn't work too well with cooling more than drawing shades and planting shade trees...

They've experimented with different forms of housing in Austin, Texas. Homes built from recyclables, movable kitchens, pounded-earth houses - it's really fascinating. The movable kitchen could be put outside during the summer, so that the heat from the cooking wouldn't heat up the house.

Yeah, Skinner believed that the perfect commune could be created by indoctrinating the children to behave in a socially appropriate fashion - basically brainwash them from birth in little creches, a lá Logan's Run, and then they'll be perfect little citizens. I don't think that your community should be run like that, because it leaves no room for individualism. Individuality is what makes the world go round! But it does make for an interesting read.

Hello again everybody especially purplejenny!

I'm thinking of a heck of a lot of 'simple' eco-friendly technologies that can be used and developed in communal living styles. Simple earth latrines, certainly! Different kinds of waste processing and recycling. Earthworms, for instance, can be used to process and recycle many different forms of waste.

The big thing would be to demonstrate that a community using such methods would not be 'backwards' relative to high-tech mainstream communities. Basically it would be necessary to demonstrate that people in such a community could nevertheless be happy, and free, and achieve as much of their inherent human potential as possible.

In fact I am extremely concerned about human potential, and what it means to achieve it. I am also extremely concerned about freedom.

In fact when I think of it, I don't even really want to work towards a *single* kind of community, or a *single* 'Way of Life'. My own idea is actually to have a diversity of different cultures, of different ways of life, of different sorts of communities, but all of which can neverheless harmonise with each other and co-exist with minimal conflict.