"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."

Welcome to Infoshop News
Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 08:36 AM CDT

Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming

News ArchiveIf the Green Capitalist response to climate change will only add more fuel to the fire, and if government at a global scale is incapable of solving the problem, as I argue in previous articles, how would anarchists suggest we reorganize society in order to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and to survive an already changed world?
There is no single anarchist position, and many anarchists refuse to offer any proposal at all, arguing that if society liberates itself from State and capitalism, it will change organically, not on the lines of any blueprint. Besides, the attitude of policy, seeing the world from above and imposing changes, is inextricable from the culture that is responsible for destroying the planet and oppressing its inhabitants.


If the Green Capitalist response to climate change will only add more fuel to the fire, and if government at a global scale is incapable of solving the problem, as I argue in previous articles ( http://www.counterpunch.org/gelderloo...12010.html and http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?...1416543025 ), how would anarchists suggest we reorganize society in order to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and to survive an already changed world?

There is no single anarchist position, and many anarchists refuse to offer any proposal at all, arguing that if society liberates itself from State and capitalism, it will change organically, not on the lines of any blueprint. Besides, the attitude of policy, seeing the world from above and imposing changes, is inextricable from the culture that is responsible for destroying the planet and oppressing its inhabitants.

Nonetheless, I want to outline one possible way we could organize our lives, not to make a concrete proposal, but because visions make us stronger, and we all need the courage to break once and for all with the existing institutions and the false solutions they offer. For the purposes of this text I'm not going to enter into any of the important debates regarding ideals—appropriate levels of technology, scale, organization, coordination, and formalization. I'm going to describe how an ecological, anti-authoritarian society could manifest itself, as it flows from the un-ideal complexity of the present moment. Also for simplicity's sake, I won't enter into the scientific debate around what is and isn't sustainable. Those debates and the information they present are widely available, for those who want to do their own research.

I base the description of this future possible world both on what is physically necessary and what is ethically desirable, in accordance with the following premises.

Fossil fuel extraction and consumption need to come to a full stop.
Industrial food production must be replaced with the sustainable growing of food at the local level.
Centralizing power structures are inherently exploitative of the environment and oppressive towards people.
The mentality of quantitative value, accumulation, production, and consumption—that is to say, the mentality of the market—is inherently exploitative of the environment and oppressive towards people.
Medical science is infused with a hatred of the body, and though it has perfected effective response to symptoms, it is damaging to our health as currently practiced.
Decentralization, voluntary association, self-organization, mutual aid, and non-coercion are fully practical and have worked, both within and outside of Western Civilization, time and time again.

Welcome to the future. No one ever knew global society would look like this. Its defining feature is heterogeneity. Some cities have been abandoned, trees are growing up through their avenues, rivers rush where asphalt had once covered the ground, and skyscrapers crumble while deer forage at their foundations.

Other cities are thriving, but they have changed beyond recognition. Rooftops, vacant lots, and sidewalks have turned into gardens. Fruit- and nut-bearing trees line every block. Roosters welcome every dawn. About a tenth of the streets—the major thoroughfares—remain paved or gravelled, and buses running on biofuels traverse them regularly. Other streets have been consumed largely by the gardens and orchards, though bike paths run down the middle. The only buildings that have electricity twenty-four hours a day are the the water works, hospitals, and the radio stations. Theaters and community buildings get power until late on a rotating basis, so they can stay open for film nights or other events. Everyone has candles and wind-up lamps, though, so there's a light on in many a window until late. But it's nothing like how it used to be; at night you can see stars in the sky, and the children gape in disbelief when the old-timers tell how people had given that up.

Electricity is produced through a network of neighborhood-based power stations that burn agricultural waste (like corn cobs) and biofuels, and through a small number of wind turbines and solar panels. But the city works on just a fraction of what it used to. People heat and cool their homes through passive solar and efficient design, without any electricity. In the colder regions, people supplement this in the winter with the burning of renewable fuels, but houses are well insulated and ovens are designed with the greatest efficiency, so not much is needed. People also cook with fuel-burning ovens, or in sunnier climates solar ovens. Some cities that put more energy into manufacturing and maintaining renewable forms of electricity generation (solar, tidal, and wind) also cook with electricity. Many buildings have a shared washing machine, but all clothes drying is done the old-fashioned way: on a line.

No one has a refrigerator though every building or floor has a communal freezer. People store perishables like yogurt, eggs, and vegetables in a cool box or in a cellar, and they eat their food fresh or they can it. People grow half of their own produce in gardens on their block. Nearly all their food is grown within twenty miles of where they live. None of the food is genetically modified or produced with chemicals, and it is bred for taste and nutrition, not longevity and durability for transport. In other words, all the food tastes better, and people are far healthier. Heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, among the greatest killers in capitalist society, have all but disappeared. The super viruses created under capitalism, that killed millions of people throughout the collapse, have largely disappeared, as the use of antibiotics has almost stopped, people live in healthier conditions globally and have stronger immune systems, and global travel is not so frequent or fast-paced. People also have a much greater environmental consciousness and personal connection with their bioregion because they eat what's in season and what grows locally, and they help grow it themselves.

Every house has a compost toilet and running water, but no sewage. It's become sort of an unwritten rule around the world that every community must remediate its own waste. Sending pollution downstream is the greatest taboo. The relatively few remaining factories use fungi and microbes, on great forested plots around the factory compound, to remediate whatever pollutants they produce. Neighborhoods turn all their waste into compost or fuel. The amount of available water is limited, so buildings are equipped with rainwater catchments for the gardens. Households that greatly exceed the recommended quota for water usage are publicly shamed. The recommended quota is not enforced; it is simply a suggestion distributed by those who work in the water syndicate, based on how much water the city is allowed to divert from the water source, as agreed upon by all the communities that share the watershed.

In most cities, people hold periodic or ad hoc neighborhood assemblies to maintain the gardens, paths, streets, and buildings, to organize daycare, and to mediate disputes. People also participate in meetings with whatever syndicate or infrastrucutral project they may dedicate some of their time to. These might include the water syndicate, the transportation syndicate, the electricity syndicate, a hospital, a builders' union, a healers' union (the vast majority of health care is done by herbalists, naturopaths, homeopaths, acupuncturists, massage therapists, midwives, and other specialists who make home visits), or a factory. Most of these are decentralized as much as possible, with individuals and small working groups trusted to know how to do their job, though when necessary they coordinate through meetings that usually run as open assemblies using consensus, with a preference for sharing perspectives and information over making decisions wherever possible. Sometimes, interregional meetings (such as for the communities of a watershed) are organized with a delegate structure, though meetings are always open to all, and always seek to reach decisions that satisfy everyone since there are no coercive institutions and coercion of any sort is widely frowned upon as “bringing back the old days.”

Because power is always localized to the greatest possible degree, the vast majority of decision-making is carried out by individuals or small groups that share affinity and regularly work together. Once there is no longer an emphasis, for purposes of control and accumulating power, on imposing homogeneity or singularity of outcomes, people have found that much coordination can simply take place organically, with different people making different decisions and figuring out for themselves how to reconcile these with the decisions of others.

Although today's societies are structured to create feelings of community and mutuality, there is also a great amount of space for privacy and solitude. Many neighborhoods have communal kitchens and dining rooms, but people can and often do cook on their own and eat by themselves, when the mood strikes them. Some societies have public baths, while others do not, depending on cultural preference. The forced communalization of past experiments in socialist utopias is absent from this world. Private property has been abolished in the classical sense of the means of production that other people rely on for their survival, but anyone can have as many personal belongings as they can get—clothing, toys, a stash of candy or other goodies, a bicycle, etc.

The smaller or more intimate the community, the more likely it is to operate a gift economy—anything that you're not using, you give away as a gift, strengthening your social ties and increasing the amount of goods in circulation—which is perhaps the longest lasting and most common economy in the history of the human species. Beyond the neighborhood level, or for items that are rare or not locally produced, people may trade. The syndicates of some cities may use a system of coupons for the distribution of things that are scarce or limited. If you work in the electricity syndicate, for example, you get a certain number of coupons that you can use to get things from the bicycle factory or from an out-of-town farmer.

The most common items produced in factories are bicycles, metal tools, cloth, paper, medical equipment, biofuels, and glass. More common than the factory is the workshop, in which people craft any number of things at a higher quality and slower, more dignified (and healthy) pace. Workshops usually use recycled material (after all, there are many old shopping malls filled with junk and scrap) and make things like toys, musical instruments, clothes, books, radios, electricity generation systems, bicycle and automobile parts.

Work is not compulsory, but nearly everyone does it. When they can be their own bosses, and make things that are useful, people tend to enjoy working. Those who don't contribute by working in any way are often looked down on or excluded from the nicer aspects of living in society, but it is not considered acceptable to ever deny someone food or medical treatment. Because they don't help others, they are unlikely to get fine foods, and healers are unlikely to give them consultations, massages, or accupuncture unless they have a specific problem, but they won't be left to starve or die. It's a small drain on the resources of the community, but nothing when compared to the parasitism of the bosses, politicians, and police forces of yesteryear.

There are no police anymore. Generally people are armed and trained in self-defense, and everyone's daily life includes activities that foster a collective or communal sense of self-interest. People depend on cooperation and mutual aid for survival and happiness, so those who damage their social ties are above all harming and isolating themselves. People fought to overthrow their oppressors. They defeated the police and military forces of the ruling class, and they remember this victory. The imperative to never again be ruled forms a major part of their identity today. They are not about to be intimidated by the occasional psychopath or roving gang of protection racketeers.

In short, the city has a negligible environmental footprint. A high density of people live in an area that nonetheless has an impressive biodiversity, with many plant and animal species cohabiting the city. They don't produce pollution that they don't remediate themselves. They take some water from the watershed, but far less than a capitalist city, and in agreement with the other communities that use the watershed. They release some greenhouse gases through fuel burning, but it is less than the amount they take out of the atmosphere through their own agriculture (since all their fuels are agricultural, and the carbon they're releasing is the same carbon those plants removed from the atmosphere as they grew). Nearly all their food is local and sustainably grown. They carry out a small amount of factory production, but most of it uses recycled materials.

Outside the city, the world is even more transformed. Deserts, jungles, mountainous regions, swamps, tundras, and other areas that cannot sustainably support high population densities have rewilded. No government programs were necessary to create nature preserves; it simply wasn't worth the effort to remain there once fossil fuel production ended. Many of these areas have been reclaimed by their prior indigenous inhabitants. In many of them, people are again existing as hunter-gatherers, enacting the most intelligent form of economy possible in that bioregion and turning the conventional notion of what is futuristic on its head.

Some rural communities are self-sufficient, supporting themselves with garden agriculture and animal husbandry, or more intentionally with permaculture. Many people who moved out of the cities during the collapse set up these communes, and they're happier and healthier than they'd ever been under capitalism. Some of the permaculture communities are composed of more traditional households, with each family tending an acre or two of land, spread out with a fairly homogenous distribution over a wide expanse of territory. Others comprise of a densely populated communal nucleus with several hundred inhabitants living on a dozen acres of intensively cultivated gardens, surrounded by orchards and pastures for fruit, nuts, and livestock, with an outer ring of natural forest as an ecological buffer and a place for occasional woodcutting, hunting, and wildcrafting. These rural communities are almost entirely self-sufficient, have a sustainable relationship with their landbase, encourage a high biodiversity, and produce no net release of greenhouse gases.

Rural communities in a tight radius around the cities carry out intensive agriculture aided by certain manufactured goods, in a symbiotic relationship with their urban neighbors. Every week, using horsecarts or biodiesel pickup trucks, they bring food and biofuels to a specific neighborhood in the city, and cart away compost (largely from the toilets, as food scraps go to feeding the urban chickens). With this rich compost, glass for greenhouses, metal tools, and the occasional tractor or mechanical plow shared among several farmsteads, they can produce high yields year round without destroying their soil or relying on chemicals and fossil fuels. They use intercropping and other permaculture methods to preserve soil health and discourage pests. These farms are dotted by orchards and small forests so there is a high biodiversity, including plenty of birds that eat the insects. Because they do not grow their plants in massive monocrop fields, pests and diseases don't spread as uncontrollobly as in capitalist agriculture. The use of local plants, multiple breeds, the protection of the soil and the preservation of forests also mitigate the impacts of drought and other extreme weather caused by climate change.

There is still a fair amount of transportation between bioregions. Cities are linked by trains running on biofuel, and people regularly cross the oceans on boats powered primarily by the wind. A certain amount of interregional trade happens this way, but above all interregional transportation allows for the movement of people, ideas, and identities. People are less mobile than they were in the final days of capitalism, but on the other hand people are not compelled to follow the vagaries of the economy, to be uprooted in search of work. Bioregions are almost entirely self-sufficient economically, and people can support themselves. If they move, it's because they want to travel, to see the world, and they are free to do so because there are no more borders.

Longer distance communication happens primarily through the radio. Most urban or semi-urban communities have telephone and internet. Highly toxic computer production has mostly ended, but a few cities use new, slower but cleaner methods to continue manufacturing computers at a minimal scale. However enough old parts are in circulation that most neighborhoods that want to can keep a few computers running. Many rural people live close enough to a city to access these forms of communication from time to time. People still get news from around the world, and they continue to cultivate an identity that is partly global.

The economic basis for society has greatly diversified within any linguistic community. In other words, someone may live on an agricultural commune with a technological level most similar to that of Western society in the 19th century, but next to them is a forest inhabited by hunter-gatherers, and a few times a year they go to a city organized by syndicates and neighborhood assemblies, where there is electricity, buses, a train station or a harbor, where they can watch movies or read the blog of someone on the other side of the world. Pictures and news from around the world pass through their commune on a fairly regular basis. They speak the same language and share a similar culture and history with these communities that are otherwise so different. An effect of this is that a clannish, insular identity that could lead to a number of problems, among them the potential regeneration of domineering and imperialistic behaviors, is constantly offset by the cultivation of a global identity and a mixing with highly different members of a broader community. In fact, because most linguistic communities extend far beyond a single bioregion and because people enjoy an unprecedented amount of social mobility, there is an unending circulation of people between these different communities, as every individual decides, when they come of age, whether they want to live in the city, the countryside, or the forest. Not only do borders no longer exist between artificially constructed nations; social borders no longer prevent movement between different identities and cultural categories.

For the older people, this way of living feels like paradise, mixed with the gritty details of reality—conflict, hard work, heartbreak, and petty drama. For the younger people, it just feels like common sense.

And every year, the world heals a little more from the ravages of industrial capitalism. The amount of real forest and wetlands have increased as some areas rewild, while heavily inhabited areas become healthy ecosystems thanks to gardening, permaculture, and the elimination of cars. Greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are actually declining, albeit slowly, for the first time in ages, as carbon is returned to the soil, to forests and wetlands, to the newly green urban areas, and the burning of fossil fuels has stopped. Over a third of the species on the planet went extinct before people finally changed their ways, but now that habitat loss is being reversed, many species are coming back from the brink. As long as humanity doesn't forget the hardest lesson it ever learned, in a few million years the biodiversity of planet earth will be as great as ever.

Dignified living has replaced profit as the new social yardstick, but in a coup against all the engineers of social planning, everyone is allowed to make their own measurements, to determine for themselves how to achieve this. People have regained the ability to feed and house themselves, and individual communities have proven that they are the best situated to craft a mode of sustenance that is best adapted to local conditions and the varied changes brought about by global warming. In the end it's a no-brainer. The one solution that all those who were profitting off of climate change would never discuss was the only one that had a hope of working.

For the longest time, people didn't give credence to those who were warning about climate change, about ecological collapse, about other problems created by government and capitalism; those who were calling for radical solutions. In the end they saw that the best decision they ever made was to stop trusting those in power, those responsible for all these problems, and instead to trust themselves, and take a plunge.

Those readers who doubt the possibility of this vision can check out Peter Kropotkin's Field, Factories, and Workshops of Tomorrow, which scientifically lays out a similar proposition, over one hundred years ago. They can also look into how the native land they live on was organized before colonization. Where I'm from, the Powhatan Confederacy kept the peace and coordinated trade between several nations in the southern part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. To the north, the Haudensaunne kept the peace among five, and later six nations, for hundreds of years. Both of these groups supported high population densities through intensive horticulture and fishing without degrading their environments.

Where I live now, in Barcelona, the workers took over the city and factories and ran everything themselves in 1936. And where I happen to be as I write this article, in Seattle, there was a monthlong general strike in 1919, and the workers there also proved themselves capable of organizing themselves and keeping the peace. This isn't a dream. It's an imminent possibility, but only if we have the courage to believe in it.
Share
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Ask
  • Kirtsy
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • SlashDot
  • Reddit
  • MySpace
  • Fark
  • Del.icio.us
  • Blogmarks
  • Yahoo Buzz
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming | 30 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Makhno on Friday, September 17 2010 @ 03:19 PM CDT

As the author of this piece says:

I'm not going to enter into any of the important debates regarding ideals—appropriate levels of technology, scale, organization, coordination, and formalization.

That is precisely why this piece is worthless from an anarchsit point of view.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: MagonistaRevolt on Friday, September 17 2010 @ 05:04 PM CDT

bullshit.

I loved it.

If you wanna start a vegan flame war, a "but but but technology" flame war, etc. etc., or have sectarian anarchist myopeia that you want to see ONLY YOUR FLAVOR REPRESENTED, look elsewhere.

This is the kind of glimpse into the future that keep me struggling...

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: veranasi on Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 01:05 AM CDT

look, we chalk it up to flavors, but even more racist than "noble savage" thought is the city itself. the city serves the central authority. so much that it slipped the author`s mind that paying bumpkins in shit might be offensive. now, if for some reason, the polis has to exist, we have to eliminate the traditional oppression that comes with it. in fact, if folks in the city were nicer, less snooty and laws were laid back country folks could show cities how to be self sufficient. we don`t have journalism classes at our high schools. we do have horticulture and animal husbandry classes. trust me, if you came to me, your house would be self sufficient and you have too much time on your hands. but, not if you paid me in poop. compost is not a magical cure all. you can have way too much. truth is, agriculture is needed to sustain cities. for the most part, rural communities can take care of their own- nature willing.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Frotchie on Tuesday, September 21 2010 @ 08:05 AM CDT

To be honest, I'm really surprised that you can believe that.  We know each other in real life and I think your ideas are usually a lot more thoughtful and nuanced than this.

Whether or not oppression has traditionally come with "the polis," cities are our last hope for avoiding the destruction of the planet.  Manhattan is more environmentally sustainable than any rural county in the US.  There are going to be 7 billion of us soon.  Even in the event of a mass die-off (which I really hope doesn't happen), or a strangers-in-a-tangled-wilderness "post-civ" scenario, we're probably still going to be so numerous that our only shot for survival is clumping together into densely populated areas where energy and resources can be shared.  

 

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Makhno on Friday, September 17 2010 @ 05:29 PM CDT

The method of this article is simply to throw a whole bunch of shit against the wall and see what sticks.  The author's completely uncritical and unanalytical approach means that we get a little bit of everything:  a little bit of primitivism, a little bit of industrialism and organized work, a little bit of modern technology, a little bit of syndicalism, a little bit of delegated decision-making, a little bit of a market economy, etc.

This mish-mash of different approaches avoids any responsibility on Gelderloos' part for doing the neccessary theoretical work that would make this a meaningful contribution to anarchist praxis.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: MagonistaRevolt on Friday, September 17 2010 @ 05:57 PM CDT

again, bullshit. First off, there is no mention of market economy. And secondly, this "mishmash" of different approaches is called anarchism. If you want to force your purer ideology onto others, that's something else entirely.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: sweet tea on Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 10:48 PM CDT

I enjoy specific and ultra-theoretical (and even sectarian) anarchist writing as much as the next person, but this article seems a different kind of project: it exists to present a possible view of what an anarchist transition away from post-industrial society might actually look like. It would be highly dishonest, and really just stupid, to posit a transition that is totally theoretically coherent, internal to one specific anarchist trajectory. Thats not how the world works. The purpose of this piece, it seems clear to me, is not  to contribute so much to anarchist theoretical discourse as to provide a tool for discussing and brainstorming possibilities: a hueristic device of sorts for the many people we encounter who say to us, "Yeah, yeah, i get all the big words, but what might it actually look like?". This piece is not a proposal or a platform; if you try to read it that way you are wasting your time. Maybe youve gotten too used to thinking like a Marxist.

Though, I must say, Makhno, I think in your criticism you ve accidentally hit the nail upon the head: if Anarchism has historically ever advocated a "singular" method of destroying state and capital, it must be this: throw a whole bunch of shit against the wall and see what sticks. How else can we explain the last 150 years of our failures and successes? Would we have been better off if we had settled on the 1927 (or whenever) Platform as the arc de triumph of libertarian thought, and stagnated into irrelevancy like some workers world party newspaper salesman? I sympathize with any frustrations as to the sometimes lack of coherent thought and analysis in anarchist circles, but i think if there is any way to explain why anarchy continues after all these years to be a relevant jumping off point for rebellion and struggle, it is to some extent because of this shit-on-wall approach.

And yeah duh to that other commenter: cities are bad! -- we ve all read Endgame and the half dozen other versions of the same book Jenson has been pumping out. If this piece is an attempt to apologize for them that is a problem. But for those of us unwilling to merely accept mass death as a "transitionary model" to get byond cities, we need something more. (And if the mass death model is cool with you, why are you on an internet comment board? Its a nice day outside, go enjoy it before we all die) . I dont think gelderloos is naively pro-city here anyway; regardless, i think this piece can be useful as an attempt to actually brainstorm a way through them. (Which is a hell of a lot more useful than the last six issues or so of Green Anarchy.)

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Peter Gelderloos on Friday, September 17 2010 @ 06:26 PM CDT

First off, I didn't submit my name with this article, and in the past I've specifically asked that my name not be put in the headline of an article, because it gives too much emphasis to certain authors. As it's continued to happen, I'm toying with the idea of giving up on the site.

Secondly, Makhno: I don't go into those debates in this article because that would make the article in this format unreadable, and because those debates are happening elsewhere, and I have participated in them elsewhere. Plenty of people have already argued why veganism isn't such a good idea, people have argued why cities can in very strict circumstances be a good idea, and there's no need to even argue why hunter-gatherers are a good idea but it has been asked, what to do with the extra 6 billion people?

I believe in the importance of debates and taking a stand, the difference is, evidently unlike you, I don't believe you go from theory to reality but vice versa. Taking primitivism or syndicalism or whatever, and building a world out of it is an extremely authoritarian endeavor and I would fight it to the death. The point of departure for any response to global warming is the world we already inhabit, which includes the populations and the infrastructure that, one way or another, has to be dealt with. Even beyond the practicality, there's the fact that a homogenous world could not exist without authority. So, in the absence of authority, it becomes freaking obvious that in some places you'd have hunter gatherers, and in other places you'd still have cities.

One thing I should have done was to make it clear that this is not an end product, and that I don't believe in such a stable state. There is still the possibiliy for primitivism in this world, for attacking the city, for trying to decrease the human population until that becomes a better option. This world is not a solution to every problem, just to global warming. The struggle will continue.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Admin on Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 02:35 AM CDT

We have no idea who submitted this article and the original source.

I have a vague recollection of Peter asking about his name not appearing in the title of his articles. I didn't approve this article and probably would have approved it with the name. Our practice recently with titles is to leave the author's name off, but I think we need to go back to our policy of including the author's name when those authors are significant writers. Having the author's name in the title brings an article's authorship to more people. This is als helpful in the case of RSS feeds and other third party links to the article.

Chuck

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Makhno on Friday, September 17 2010 @ 07:07 PM CDT

First, in response to Magonista, just how do you think such a diversity of goods and services, with so many specialized work roles (not to mention adminstrative roles), as Gelderloos postulates in this article is going to be made available and used without a market economy?

Secondly, many anarchists (myself included) would argue that some of the options the author offers here are highly questionable, if not downright opposed to anarchist goals.

Peter (if you don't mind me calling you that), ideas don't just pop up out of nowhere; they are formulated by specific individuals or groups.  We may not always know where ideas originate, but when we do, I see no problem with those people taking responsibility for them. 

Your non-critical, non-theoretical approach in this article allows you to sneak in some unexamined assumptions that really should be examined, first and foremost the idea that because modern technology and urban life exist now, then the must exist in the future, as well.  Secondly, the idea that we are collectively responsible for the continued support of a current world population of six billiion people, rather than individuals, communities and regions being responsible for their own well-being.  I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Finally, as you said in your article, your whole piece is just a speculation, or a dream of a possible future; and like the dreams we have when we are asleep, it contains many logically incompatible elements.  If you want to deal with facts, then you need to do your theoretical homework in order to interpret those facts and their significance.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Peter Gelderloos on Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 05:12 AM CDT

Your level of arrogance isn't really corresponding with your level of analysis or factual engagement. You're also twisting my words. I never said that just because certain technologies exist now, they should always exist. The world I presented is one that is not finished, it is still in transition. The population is shrinking, some cities have already been abandoned, and there is the eminent possibility for people to struggle against remaining urbanization. There are currently more than 6 billion people on earth. I want a much smaller world population. What I do not want, however, is to make a theoretical decision about what is the correct world population, and then be apathetic to how we balance the accounts and what happens to the surplus. In the world I describe, the population is shrinking. As far as I can see, you have failed to point out any logical inconsistencies in this world. You've just blown hot air and insulted me. I've referenced both theory and research, but you continue to say I have a non-theoretical approach. Let me correct your word choice: I have a non-dogmatic approach. I'm basing this vision on a very long reading list that includes anarchists (Kropotkin, pro-city and anti-city debate, analysis of the experiences in Barcelona in 36 and Argentina in 2001, James C. Scott) and non-anarchists (anthropological analysis of the origins of the State, permaculture, scientific writing on civilizational collapse, research on what happened in Havana after the oil embargo, writing on favelas and informal settlements). Please say something substantive or stop wasting my time. As for veranasi, I don't understand your assumptions or your value system. First of all, no one is getting paid in this article. The farmers aren't getting paid in shit. And I don't understand how you can pretend to have some kind of sympathy with country bumpkins while holding on to a city dweller's valuation of shit. Shit is great. Give me more of it. By the way, it might help you to know that that compost/produce cycle is directly coming from Kropotkin's description of a system that arose informally in Paris. And by the way, I make it explicit in that section that those high-yield farmers around the big cities are in fact not self-sufficient but are engaged in a mutual relationship with the city dwellers, forming a self-sufficient whole. For example glass for the greenhouses and other tools are made for them in the cities.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: veranasi on Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 05:31 AM CDT

whoa there peter. take a breath and learn to take some criticism. your article excites me but it`s far from perfect. your exact phrase was "symbotic" and it was an exchange of capital. i just don`t think it ought to be so static. and it`s not sympathy, i am a bumpkin. i`ve worked on cattle and produce farms, and i`ve lived in hills surrounded by forest. and finally, yeah, since the beginning of civilization the city has been an oppressive force, instead of dismissing criticism, let`s figure out the imperfections in your plan and move forward. if you don`t want criticism, don`t post articles.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Peter Gelderloos on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 12:55 AM CDT

Veranasi, I'm happy with criticism, but I don't think Makhno offers anything that qualifies as criticism until their most recent post that suggests two assumptions I'm supposedly basing the piece on. Sweet Tea has pretty adequately responded to this, so I don't feel a need to.

Makhno's other points, that my writing lacks any theoretical basis, or that I'm calling for market exchange, or that I'm suggesting a finalized society or that I believe technologies that exist now will have to exist in the future, are as exasperating as they are objectively false.

Your comment was also weird. If you have as much rural experience as you claim, why would you use urban/civilizational valuations of shit, which in other contexts is a good thing? I also think you misunderstand capital. In the world I described, there is no capital. Today, vegetables and manure may be products, and thus represent a relation of capital. But the capital doesn't exist in the thing itself. So your criticism doesn't help me much to evaluate this vision of the future, since its basis is a social relation that you have projected into the article.

As for fetishization of technology, I can't remember who said that one, but this also seems to me to be a misunderstanding. Conflating "technology" with modern technology (as opposed to, say, hunter-gatherer technology) and then rejecting any discussion of the possible merits of CERTAIN technologies is the fetishization of some vague anti-technology. Suggesting a mix of new technologies, old abandoned technologies, and even hunter-gatherer technologies, along with above all new social relations and relationships to the environment, as a solution to global warming can't really qualify as a fetishization of technology, if that concept is to have any critical weight.

In proper Marxist terms, fetishizing technology would be the creation of cultural value around technologies to increase their sale value (someone who's read more Marx correct me if I'm wrong on this one).

Afto.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: veranasi on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 03:08 AM CDT

it is capital. shit is an object invested in the hopes of positive food production. producers of food will bring it to a neighborhood in exchange for shit. if it were me, knowing that i genuinely wouldn`t need so much shit and i`d probably find offensive and i`d rather share my skills, i think i`d want books for dropping off food. that too is a city/ rural symbiosis.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: veranasi on Friday, September 17 2010 @ 10:01 PM CDT

oh my! so the people in the country still work for the poleis and the poleis pay them in shit. nothing`s changed, civilization is stronger than ever.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Makhno on Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 03:22 PM CDT

Let me quote from your first post, Peter:

....what to do with the extra 6 billion people?

...The point of departure for any response to global warming is the world we already inhabit, which includes the populations and the infrastructure that, one way or another, has to be dealt with

And from your second one:

....how [do] we balance the accounts and what happens to the surplus[?]

As I pointed out before, your whole argument is premised on two unexamined assumptions:

(1)  That "we" are somehow collectively responsible for the existence of the entire world population, whatever the size of it may be

(2)  That any future anarchist society must "deal with" the infrastructure (modern technology, cities, etc.) that currently exists.

Unexamined assumption number one almost guarantees the continuance of vast, institutionalized formal social structures, because collective responsibility requires collective action, which would have to be coordinated and repeated on a regular basis in order to be effective.

Unexamined assumption number two does not allow for the possibility that such technological infrastructure might simply be abandoned - indeed, would have to be abandoned, if we are to live truly free lives.  Did your impressive reading list include Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society, by any chance?  Because of your uncritical approach in this article, you blithely assume that urban society and primitivist lifestyles could peacefully co-exist, while both theory and the evidence of history suggest otherwise.

There is, finally, a third unexamined assumption in your piece:  the notion that large-scale structures of delegated authority are compatible with a free society, and would mesh seamlessly with the more fluid, face-toface decision-making processes carried out at the local level.  Well, actually, the local processes you describe in your article don't sound all that fluid or spontaneous to me.

 

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: sweet tea on Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 11:04 PM CDT

Um.....we are responsible for what do with human populations. Not the "we" of anarchists but the "we" of all humans, of our species. It is all our problem, and it affects everybody.

And, on a similar note, "we" do have to "deal with" the problems of modern industrial infrastructure, the physical stuff of production, transport, etc. This infrastructure doesnt just dissapear when we leave the cities en masse or storm the bastille or whatever. The pollution, scientific knowledge and modes of thinking, the literal physical byproducts of hundreds of years of industrialism, will be all around us, in our countrysides and our cities and in our heads. What do we do with them? What will be useful under the immediate circumstances, and what should be dispensed with? How do we "govern" the various uses of technologies in our communities, communities which will contain a variety of people of different backgrounds who have different perspectives on appropriate levels of technology? What is your answer to this? Will your bcak to the landers simply exclude anyone who has a different idea about what levels of technology are appropriate? What is your answer to where they will go and what they will be "allowed" to do? Is it simply all out war on the tool users? Are they to be "eliminated?" Or does your primitivist line in the sand allow for some flexibility on this matter? 

The predominant attitude of capitalist industrialization is one of rampant "progress" at all costs; what will be the attitudes towards innovation, human creativity and the altering of our environments, under various anarchist societies? These uestions will not dissapear by not asking them, and they revolve in part around what is to be done with the physical leftovers of our industrial culture. And i, like gelderloos, strongly distrust anyone who says the answers to these uestions are simple or exist in some book prior to the situation which gives rise to them: "THE ANSWER IS NO TECHNOLOGY, EVER, AND THAT TIME STARTS RIGHT NOW." I agree that cities are a problem; i think the problem of dogma is just as troubling. No: these are complicated and difficult uestions, and they will have complicated and difficult answers.

Edited on Saturday, September 18 2010 @ 11:10 PM CDT by sweet tea
[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Makhno on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 02:19 AM CDT

First, in response to ST, let me make this clear:  I have no objection to Gelderloos offering a variety of different strategies for a future free society.  What I do object to is his stated intention, which I quoted in my first post, of not subjecting any of these strategies to any kind of critical analysis, and just lumping them together on the unexamined assumption (number four) that they would peacefully co-exist with, and even complement each other.

The belief that we, as a species, are collectively responsible for each other's welfare is a moral judgement, and as such, can neither be proven nor disproven.  All I can do is point out the possible consequences of such a belief, if carried into action.  If we are each responsible not just for the welfare of our friends, families, and neighbors, but of the entire globe, then action on a global scale is required, and this would require global organization and global infrastructure.  This technological, economic and political infrastructure would be needed not just for a limited time, but forever, generation after generation.  We are talking about production, distribution, communications, maintenance, administration - and, yes, enforcement - on a global scale.  In such a scenario, such concepts as individual or community autonomy, direct democracy, would be meaningless.

Finally, Peter, I never said that you called for market exchange in your vision of a free society; what I am suggesting is that the vast diversity of goods, services, and specialized labor roles you propose would require it.  People could not possibly give away all these goods and services for free, and direct barter would not always be possible.  A common medium of exchange - i.e., money - would be needed, as well as an agreed-upon mechanism for setting prices.  You never thought through the consequences of your position, which makes this unexamined assumption number five.

I offer no specific answers to any of the issues that have been raised in this thread.  I believe it is much more important to ask the right questions.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: redsdisease on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 05:49 AM CDT

"People could not possibly give away all these goods and services for free"

Maybe I'm stupid, naive or missing something, but why not?

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: sweet tea on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 07:57 AM CDT

Makhno- the point gelderloos seems to be trying to make, with the whole global warming thing, is that this a problem we all are having to deal with, that affects everyone and every living thing on the planet, that future anarchist solutions to social problems need to take this into account.

Why does recognizing the global nature of this problem, which i assume you wouldnt deny, translate for you into the necessity of some global big brother, united nations type superstructure? Saying this is something "we" all have to deal with doesnt mean each individual becomes responsible for every other individual human -- thats just poor reading skills. What it means is that this is something that  every human community of the future will have to aknowledge and react to, and that the industrial or post-industrial behaviors of individual societies have the potential to affect everyone on the planet.

To say recognizing this means giving in to the inevitability of some global authoritarian superstructure to govern human affairs means the authoritarians win; its basically saying, "the only way to solve a global problem is with massively unwield,y hierarchical global systems." (It is also strangely reminiscent of right-wing, isolationist discourse). Im an anarchist because i dont think that solving the symptoms (and causes) of global warming actually necessitates this kind of hierarchy. But it does reuire discussions that recognize the global nature of the problem.

 And again, you seem to be reading this piece like its a proposal. Its not. It's a vision for one way that shit might go down, not a proposal for a future static anarchist utopia.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Peter Gelderloos on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 08:32 AM CDT

Wrong again, Makhno. I never stated I had no intention of subjecting these arguments to critical analysis. I said that critical analysis was important, and that those debates and that information was available elsewhere. The implicit reasoning is that it would interrupt the smoothness of an essay of this format. Let me quote it for you:

"For the purposes of this text I'm not going to enter into any of the important debates regarding ideals—appropriate levels of technology, scale, organization, coordination, and formalization. I'm going to describe how an ecological, anti-authoritarian society could manifest itself, as it flows from the un-ideal complexity of the present moment. Also for simplicity's sake, I won't enter into the scientific debate around what is and isn't sustainable. Those debates and the information they present are widely available, for those who want to do their own research."

In other words, you're either dishonestly twisting my words, or you're unable to make a careful, accurate reading of my arguments. What might this tell me about the quality of your thinking in general? Should I take it seriously? If there's criticism, please share it. If it's more of this flame shit, I'm not interested. Enjoy your ideologically pure and logically incoherent future.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Cornelius on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 02:36 AM CDT

Thanks for writing this Peter. Anarchist discourse could use much more vision to balance with the ubiquitous critique.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Peter Gelderloos on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 08:44 AM CDT

Oh yeah, and Sweet Tea mentioned an opposition to cities. This is an interesting point. I still haven't made up my mind on cities. I know that I wouldn't want to live in one, ideally, but that many people do and would continue to want to. In other words, we can assume that in an anti-capitalist revolution, lots of people would be fighting to turn cities into something else entirely, lots of people would be leaving cities as the easiest thing to do, and lots of people would be fighting against them or trying to phase them out. I think it's logical to think that within a couple decades of the collapse of state authority, that debate would still be unresolved.

I think a society consisting of a few million inhabitants, consisting of an urban center and rural periphery, just about 50 miles in diameter, would be sustainable as described. If Veranasi lived there, we'd have doubly emphasize that the rural dwellers would have access to all urban goods, including things like books, so that they don't obsess over the manure and miss their quotas, which Makhno assumes would be necessary even when the vast majority of goods are made at the local level.

Keep in mind that such a city is not coming from an ideal, but moving towards one. In other words, the concrete landscapes of today would be turned into much more a habitat than they are now, with much greater biodiversity, a good part of it wild and not directly used by humans (e.g. all the hawks and sparrows and squirrels and insects that would live in such a city), a detoxifying ecosystem that also helps people survive rather than starve to death, while regaining consciousness of the earth's limits and voluntarily decreasing their population, an ecosystem that also opens new niches for the many other species that are scrambling to survive the changes already inflicted by industrial civilization. In other words, in no case do you start from an ideal, but every ecosystem I describe, from the overgrazed plains  to modern farmland to modern cityland, is moving in the right direction.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Makhno on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 12:12 PM CDT

ST, if you are content to let each community make its own decisions about how to use its resources based on its own needs and values, and leave it at that, then that's fine with me; but Gelderloos says things like the following:

....what to do with the extra 6 billion people?

...The point of departure for any response to global warming is the world we already inhabit, which includes the populations and the infrastructure that, one way or another, has to be dealt with

There are currently more than 6 billion people on earth. I want a much smaller world population. What I do not want, however, is to make a theoretical decision about what is the correct world population, and then be apathetic to how we balance the accounts and what happens to the surplus.

Once again, Gelderloos is assuming that we have a collective responsibility about which we cannot afford to be "apathetic".  It is not enough for him that we each live our daily lives and concern ourselves with our immediate problems and our face-to-face relationships with those around us; he insists that we take on the burden of "balancing accounts", and always base our decisions on how six billion other people would be affected by them.

It is precisely because we have a global system of production and exchange, and the authoritarian social structures and technological infrastructure this requires,  that we now have global environmental problems.  We have developed a global consciousness that makes large-scale coordination of one sort or another seem natural and inevitable.  In his article, Gelderloos speaks of "inter-regional meetings", which he admits would have to operate with delegated authority.  He also speaks of "inter-regional trade" and "inter-regional transportation", both of which would require inter-regional coordination well beyond the level of face-to-face decision-making possible only at the local level.

Peter, in your latest response to me, you failed to address most of the detailed critiques I have made, dismissing them as a "flame war", although I have confined myself to arguing against your ideas, and have made no ad hominem attacks.  Are you unwilling to answer my arguments, or are you simply unable to?

As for the reply you did make to me, why should people reading your article have to "do their own research" if they want to understand which aspects of your "vision" are controversial - such as technology, scale, organization, coordination, formalization, and sustainability?

No doubt it would have interrupted the "smoothness" of your essay, and might have made it less "simple", if you had addressed opposing points of view, but it would also have made it far more interesting and useful for your fellow anarchists.

 

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Peter Gelderloos on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 04:02 PM CDT

Makhno, don't paint yourself as free from ad hominen attacks. And stop adding to the list of falsehoods you're painting. It's untrue when you say I haven't responded to your critiques and you've responded to mine.

The only things you've mentioned that I haven't responded, as far as I can tell, regard interregional transportation and decision-making. However, I don't think you really mentioned those in a critical way until this most recent post.

In any case, to be brief, interregional trade and transportation goes back way before exchange, civilization, and coercive hierarchy. We can also find decision-making or coordination (an important distinction) beyond the face to face or local level in examples which most anarchists respect, such as the Aragon Peasant's Federation (much more libertarian and less bureaucratic than the Catalan industries at the time), the current Greek anarchist space, and the Haudenosaunee. That's all dealt with in detail in Anarchy Works, with a great deal of research to back it up. Your stylistically absurd argument that the smoothness of my article is ust an attempt to avoid the facts is insulting, dishonest, manipulative, and wrong. 

Finally, those quotes from my post that you've used twice now to assert that I assume we have a "collective responsibility" and take the burden of balancing accounts is another flat out lie and manipulation. The things you are quoting are my responses to your authoritarian ideology that assumes we have to take responsibility for the ideological vision of the entire world. I don't see that we have to take on that burden, but I assume that most communities would probably want to take on their local burden, and use reality as a starting point rather than ideology. The world I am describing is so heterogeneous precisely because I am operating, just like Sweet Tea, on the assumption that each community would make its own decisions.

Your representations have been consistenly false, manipulative, incoherent, mean-spirited, and superficial. I'm going travelling now. You can piss off.

 

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: Makhno on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 06:31 PM CDT

Well, I hope Peter enjoys his trip, but it's a shame that he takes criticism so personally.  When I raised the issue of inter-regional transportation and decision-making, I had in mind more technologically and industrially advanced groups  than the Iroquois Federation or Spanish peasant collectives from the 1930s, since that is what he seems to be describing in his essay.  His vision includes, for example, electricity, buses and trains, antibiotics (in limited use), global travel (also limited, and evidently all by boat, since he doesn't mention airplanes), communal freezers, radio, telephones (land-line or cellular?), computers (with internet access), and, of course, factories.  He doesn't mention television, so I don't know what his thoughts are on that.

There don't seem to be any private automobiles in this hypothetical future world, so perhaps there will be no more need of a highway system?  I'm not sure if that is what the author intended, but if it is, it could make inter-regional transportation a bit more challenging.  If, on the other hand, highways are to be maintained (not to mention waterways and train lines), then that would require quite a lot of  regular inter-regional coordination, with all the delegated authority, bureaucracy, and hierarchy that implies.  As for the wind-powered boats (i.e., sail ships) setting out across the oceans, would they be using global positioning satellites, or just a compass and sextant?

Internet access, as well as inter-regional or intercontinental telephone communication, will require a means of transmission, which will either have to be cables or satellites, or a combination of the two.  Radio frequencies will have to be allocated and regulated.

Now, perhaps all of this technology can be maintained without the use of fossil fuels, as Gelderloos insists, but it will still necessitate the use of one hell of a lot of natural and man-made resources.  We're talking about steel, rubber, plastic, paper, chemicals.  Just look at even the simplest radio, telephone, or computer and consider what it took to produce all the parts.  Scavenging existing stock might work for a while, but eventually it will need to be replenished, and that means more mining, logging, industrial production.

Industrial production means industrial organization, but since Peter's future society is run on a syndicalist basis, that shouldn't present any difficulties.  All of this alienating labor will, of course, be strictly voluntary, but if people should need any extra incentive over and above the sheer joy and satisfaction of contributing to the communal well-being,  they could be offered coupons for food and other necessities.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Unfortunately, Gelderloos completely ignored my argument that this wide variety of goods, services, and specialized labor roles could not possibly be maintained by barter alone, and would require a common medium of exchange (money), and a mechanism for setting prices (and wages?) - that is to say, a market economy.  To answer a question someone else posed earlier, the reason all these things could not just be given away is simply that this would not allow for the efficient allocation of goods and resources.  Even Peter admits that there would have to be trade of one sort or another.

In such a future society, regardless of whether individuals or communities felt a sense of global responsibility, they would be forced to deal with systems of production and exchange that go well beyond the local level, thus reducing their autonomy in terms of decision-making. 

I'm not expecting any further responses from Gelderloos in this thread, so this will probably be my last post as well.  At any rate, I believe I have asked the right questions.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: FanyaKaplan on Sunday, September 19 2010 @ 07:31 PM CDT

No one has yet pointed out the most salient problem with the above article.

It claims to provide a "solution" to global warming and then goes on to outline a utopia completely detached from the realities of social collapse and political conflict.

Sure lets all get together and be nice and helpful to one another.

There are already plenty of New Age texts that offer similar "solutions".

The society described in this article seems to be a "virgin birth" from a more or less total global social revolution, thus there are no fascists, no civil war, apearently no significent organized violence of any kind.

Pretty much it says "look if we had a classless stateless society, global warming would not be a problem."

No shit.

 

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: flint on Monday, September 20 2010 @ 06:23 PM CDT

It's better than a lot of stuff, but I find the wishful thinking about the elimination of viruses, cancer, etc... because we've gotten rid of that body-hating medical science.

 

Gelderloos would also probably benefit from watching changes in solar technology.

Some tradeoffs seem odd to me, such as being for electricity-powered centralized water works (with a quota that is enforced through gossip and shunning) but opposition to sewage processing outside of individual household composting toilets. Probably more important as to whether we have decentralized/centralized feces/urine processing is that we keep the feces separate from the urine. Lots of good stuff in urine as compared to less useful stuff--it's a golden stream of nutrients to reclaim.

That said, if you really care about capturing phosphorus and the like it makes even more sense to get more control over our irrigation run off from agriculture. I'm still waiting to see a study with hard numbers on Havana's urban gardening yield. Seems to be a real fetish for having gardens extremely close to habitation; I'm not sure the last five miles between the city and a suburban farm gain you all that much in terms of conserving fuel for a locavore diet--might make more sense to have increased population density and mass transit rather than another little farm; it might make sense for roofs to be green for water management (succulents for green roofs) and less for growing food. Hydroponics trumps labor intensive permaculture for yield on square foot (and you don't even need soil) and it's also got great water management... doing hydroponics in the suburbs close to population centers in greenhouses (like Thanet Earth or Eurofresh, but in the suburbs) might make more sense, then with lower energy input organic farm lands being farther out and more effected by seasonal and weather variation.

Genderloos doesn't have much to say about meat, dariy and eggs except in terms that animal husbandry will be done in terms of permaculture. What about fish? Aquaculture and Aquaponics? There is great potential for recirculating aquaculture in cities; and we're clearly reaching the end of commercial fishing for wild catch. Regardless, we should expect some dietary changes; particularly among folks in the U.S. to reduce (if not eliminate) their consumption of vast quantities of meat. Maybe that's an assumption on his part in talking about organic farming and permaculture--but giving feed grains to cattle has got to stop.

Though he doesn't describe placement, I'm tending towards vertical axis windturbines and green roofs for cities as opposed to rooftop gardens OR solar panels. Offshore His opposition to lighting seems more appropriate to a world of incandescents as opposed to a world of LEDs. The love of candles seems odd here. Compare the carbon footprint of candles to LEDs. The wind up lights he describes would most likely be LEDs from now and into the future. If we want human powered electronics, maybe we'd be better off with stationary bikes that feed power into the home system. Speaking of electronics, in the last few years there have been major changes in the toxicity of production and disposal as well as greatly increasing energy efficiencies; and this seems largely driven by increasing regulation from the European Union.

Passivhaus is great, but he should emphasize the importance of converting existing housing stock (and their embodied energy) to more energy efficient and insulated models than say new contruction--ofcourse in Vauban they were able to do so with military barracks; so there is alot of potential for renovation.

Sure, we could have less roads--and the important thing here is to reduce transport by truck and get people to stop doing daily commute by personal automobiles. Also, bio-fuels? Seriously? Why all the love for trucks and buses but not trains? Favorable mention of sailing ships, but no need for these to be exclusively wind powered. We can (and have already started to) put sails on existing cargo ships to increase fuel efficiency; just as having ships travel slower increases fuel efficiency. Further, ships are about the most fuel efficient way to transport anything... and where it's an option to transport things by inland shipping along rivers and lakes; we should do so--as contrasted to over-the-road trucking. There are very many things we should stop shipping around; while we should still have capacity for some shipping for disasters if nothing else. Most heavier than air flight should go; but there are some options for lighter than air flight depending upon helium supply or hydrogen safety.

The emphasis on radio stations and movie theaters seems odd (and centralized) when we've got the internet and storage capacity continues to increase with using less resources and energy.

Freezers yes but Refrigerators no? He should look at the energy efficiency of chest refrigerators with Chalko's external thermostat.

Recycling is good, but he doesn't go into depth about what that would look like and how it would be powered. Be nice to see some love for electric arc furnaces as compared to coal/charcoal furnaces.

Alot of the choices Gelderloos is making seem to relate to how pessimistic he is about both energy supply and improved efficiency. If it's feasible to produce more energy than he guesses and if we are able to use energy more efficiently than he guesses--then I think there might be more options he'd be willing to consider. The difference between dark green/transition towns/low power/degrowth/energy descent strategy and a bright green strategy is probably related to both what energy supply is presumed possible and what efficiency is presumed possible.

In terms of his economic arguments, I'm more of a fan of communism than syndicalism/co-operatives (which I see more as a means to an end) if we are talking about utopia. Maybe a universal provision of food, healthcare, education and shelter... with anything more requiring participation in shared economic activity. Glad to see that we don't have to argue about specialization or division of labor.

In his infoshop comments he revisits the dark green shibboleths of depopulation and anti-urbanization. In his essay he mentions "collapse" as a foregone conclusion, which might also be why he does not espouse a revolutionary strategy to transition from our current society to the one he envisions.

Edited on Monday, September 20 2010 @ 06:24 PM CDT by flint
[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: rupture on Monday, September 20 2010 @ 09:06 PM CDT

Peter's article is fine.

It still amazes me how so many anarchists demand specific theoretical consistency out of others, which is authoritarian and oppressive.

The only reason I came to identify as anti-authoritarian is because I held a true desire to not be told what to do, and, just as importantly, not tell others what to do. To prefer syndicalism or primitivism or whatever is one thing. Such preferences have to do with what is relevant to the individual struggles we are forced into. But to claim that one must triumph over the other or one is the "right way" and the other is the "wrong way" immediately separates itself with anarchism, which is an ideal that allows people to choose their lifestyle and form of social organization.

In the event of an anti-authoritarian revolution, as Peter points out, many different and diverse social arrangements will arise. This is part of what excites me about anarchism and I am bothered by how few anarchists I meet that understand this.

[ # ]
Peter Gelderloos: An Anarchist Solution to Global Warming
Authored by: scott crow on Tuesday, September 21 2010 @ 03:12 AM CDT

I support Gelderloos visioning (which draws from his excellent book "Anarchy Works").  He simply laid out a hypothetical framework for us to imagaine what it could be like.  I re-read it jsut to make sure he didn't say this is absolutely the way it is all going down. I think thinking about how we envision what our futures could look like is important (post-apocalyse or not) in thinking of how we want to make them.  But in any exercise , it is just ideas and a stretching of what we might do. One of the reasons I subscribe to anachism is that our futures don't all have to look like the mono-culture we have in civil society now.

For any of us to say the future is absolutely going to look like this or is going to be that way is preposterous, especially in a theoretical framework. I would just like to say from having experienced a small glimpse of the total collapse of u.s. 'civilization' as we know it in the Gulf Coast region. That theories are meaningless when dealing with reality in that situation.  What really helped were examples and open questioning of what could be done, and how we could do it, how people did it before. In that situation what I really hit home was that we as anarchist/anti-authoritarian movements have on the one hand done so much with so little (in terms of power and resources), but on the other spent so little time imagining worlds beyond the next summit or the latest troubling issue. So that when society as we knew it collapsed (and I could NEVER emphasize that enough), we were flexible and able to do amazing resposive actions and planning. But when it came to the larger visioning of how to re-think our worlds, to dream of something different most fell silent, because we haven't given it much thought.

Fighting over semantics, or whether we will live in cities or re-wild are ridiculous to me.  I would say YES some of us will do both!  To me our fitires are full of AND (as in we will do this AND we will do that).  They will look like things we never imagined as well as well worn and tired ideas. Some areas will have strife while others are care free. There have been many good points made, but they will be meaningless without actions.

I would argue that it is more important for us to think of these futures broadly and inclusively instead of focusing on minutia that will not matter when you are hungery, cold, or out in the weather.  We all can only bolster strong theoretical arguments for the way the future is going to look, because its not here, so why get in a tizzy, when we can explore ideas. 

The more deliberate long term ground work we build and create today and tomorrow will influence those futures outcomes way beyond ideas that remain words.

I have said before we are standing on the edge of potential. So how's going to look?

---
-- scott crow

Dream the future
Know your history
Organize your people
Fight for change
[ # ]