Nothing is new

under the sun

So let them continue to have their fun.

But busy ants know

that winter will come

While grasshoppers starve in the cold.

Looking over my notes, clippings, and other idea-starters from the past week, it looks like déjà-vu all over again. Why even bother writing anything new when nothing changes?

Bankruptcies clawed back to a new high after the big rush to beat the stricter new law in 2005. Similarly, home sales dropped after government incentives expired. The Labor Department said employers added 71,000 new jobs last month — far below the 200,000 needed to reduce the unemployment rate, while the census laid off more than 100,000. “The truth is,” the president said, “it’s going to take a few years to fully dig ourselves out of this recession. It’s going to take time to bring back 8 million jobs.” Ho hum. Tell me something I didn’t know.

Most of the Gulf oil has disappeared — or has it? — and Gulf seafood is safe to eat — or is it? Depends on who you ask and what day it is, but nothing changes.

The stock market’s up because of signs the economy is climbing out of the recession, or it’s down on indications that the Great Recession still isn’t over. (The agile creativity of those analysts slays me.)

On the food front, a fourfold increase in reported cases of salmonella resulted in the recall of 228 million eggs. Actually, I found this one rather interesting, for a couple of reasons.

For one thing, all 228 million came from a single company, Wright County Egg, of Galt, Iowa, but with 13 different brands. Talk about an egg factory. The eggs made people sick in Minnesota, Colorado and California. Talk about eating locally. And later that same day the recall was increased to 380 million (that’s nearly 32 million dozen, up from 19 million), with hundreds of consumers sickened in four states. (This morning it’s thousands, in more than a dozen states.)

A news report said the recalled eggs feature Julian dates ranging from 136 to 225. How many people even know what a Julian date is, anymore, or that it’s stamped on egg cartons? (January 1 is 1, December 31 is 365. So 136 is the 136^th day of the year, which in a non-leap year is May 16.) And why are they recalling eggs laid on May 16 in the middle of August? Gives you something to think about — which is why I wrote about such matters in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Raising Chickens. It has nothing to do with raising chickens, but it might be a good reason to raise them.

Speaking of interesting things many people aren’t aware of, a new survey found that 3 out of 4 Americans believe certain foods are unsafe to eat after the “use by” date stamped on the product. Anyone who has read CIG to Self-Sufficient Living knows that’s not true, and that consumers waste billions of dollars worth of food every year because of their ignorance.

The fact is, you’re more likely to get sick (or die) from fresh foods than from outdated foods. Properly stored dry goods and canned foods can last far beyond their “expiration” date. Anything that goes bad will probably smell and/or look so yucky you won’t need an expiration date to clue you in. (Think of that forgotten mushy black lettuce you dig out of the back of the bottom drawer in the icebox.) The same goes for most frozen foods.

The greater danger is in fresh meat, produce and dairy products, with poultry being the number one culprit. Here cross-contamination (using the same knife and cutting board for raw chicken, and then the salad), temperature control (keep hot foods hot and cold foods cold) and general sanitation are more important than the date.

(The news article only discussed the “use by” date, but the book also explains the meaning of “best before” and “sell by.” “Use by” is the only one worth taking seriously, but even then, use your own judgment.)

Perhaps the most interesting news from Spaceship Earth this week concerned energy. First came a series of reports from the journal Science, looking at not only the many options for renewable energy sources, but at the pros and cons of each. And yes, there are plenty of both pluses and minuses for all alternatives.

In an editorial, editor-emeritus Donald Kennedy pointed out that “The contemporary challenge isn’t that there isn’t enough oil; there is far too much of it.” That’s certainly the case in the Gulf of Mexico today, but he is also talking about emissions from transportation systems, nonrenewable energy sources controlled by empires that threaten global security, and abuses stemming from an overdependence on petroleum.

What about the old homestead idea of cutting back? That came up in another news item, this one about a survey conducted by the Earth Institute at Columbia University asking respondents to name the best ways to conserve energy. The gist of the results: most people thought first of cutting back — turning off the lights, driving less, etc. The researchers said that’s not the right answer. Energy efficiency is more important.

They do have a point, of course. Numerous studies have shown that household-based improvements in energy efficiency would cut emissions way more than fancy government policies such as cap-and-trade. We’re talking about weatherizing homes, using more efficient light bulbs and cars, even little things like changing the air filter in the furnace.

But the part that intrigued me most was the statement that increased efficiency is the only way to dial back, because of basic psychology: we ain’t about to become a nation of pedestrians, let alone do without all our electronic toys and hedonistic possessions.

And they have a point there, too, which is why I’ve been saying nothing much is going to happen until the masses have no choice. When the cheap energy is gone (probably not because we run out of oil, but because it’s not cheap any more), or when the Earth becomes degraded enough to alarm or kill more people, then we might become a nation of pedestrians, simply because there will be no alternatives.

So it was just another normal week on the Spaceship.

Ho hum.

What used to be “normal” is now something new;

The world is a much different place.

What used to be false is now known to be true,

While the old truth fell flat on its face.

What this country needs is a good revolution, and by golly, we just might be getting one.

You don’t have to read in-depth news stories to see why and how: just scan the headlines. To grab a few from the past few days: “New Jobless Claims Near Six-Month High” (more people are out of work now than during the 1930s Depression, with many running out of unemployment benefits and savings); “Bank Repossessions Drive Up July Foreclosures” (and bankruptcies are still high too);  “The Shrinking Second home: Affordable Housing for the Affluent” (ooh, those poor billionaires, having to rough it in a second home that only costs $1.25 million instead of $2.5 million, according to The Wall Street Journal); “Fed Sees Recovery Slowing.” Just yesterday it was “Markets Swoon on Fears” (and then they went down even further). More than a few financial experts see a double-dip recession, meaning we haven’t hit bottom yet… and some even expect deflation. As a matter of fact, almost 2/3 of Americans think we haven’t hit bottom yet. And for the first time in American history, most people do not think their children will be better off than they are.

On the brighter side, Americans are saving more than they have in years; “cocooning” and “staycation” have become common terms; and local, fresh, organic food sales are booming, leading to an increase in such activities as vegetable gardening, cooking from scratch, and raising backyard chickens.

Best of all, “Happiness is a side effect of the new frugality,” according to a New York Times headline. Imagine that: people are discovering that they don’t really need all that “stuff” to be happier. Acquiring goods keeps the economy going, but it doesn’t improve their lives all that much… so maybe they don’t need the economy as much as everyone thought?

Everyone but homesteaders, that is. We knew it all along. In fact, most serious homesteaders ache for major readjustments in the established social and economic structure, which would constitute a revolution in our society on a par with the revolution brought about by the Internet. A sea change in the way people think and live. After all, if you don’t mind what life has become in our times, why attempt to avoid any of it by becoming self-sufficient? Why not just join the crowd and enjoy the insanity?

[A word from our sponsor: I examined this in the very beginning of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Self-Sufficient Living, concluding on page 6 that “We’ve just expanded the definition of self-sufficient living from ‘providing for one’s own needs’, to ‘saving the world’.” And saving the world is exactly what the rest of the 379-page book is about, even if few readers seem to recognize it. Please read the book with this in mind. Thank you.]

Note that the good news does not concern a robust economy in any way. On the contrary, it concerns people finding comfort and satisfaction in a down economy, with reduced material goods and expectations. And this could very well indicate that we don’t need or even want the old robust economy to return because we’re better off without it.

Think about what this means. People have less money, so they spend less, meaning fewer goods are produced, which conserves energy and other natural resources. This in turn slows down the economy even more, and the downward spiral feeds on itself. If most people are okay with that, it would constitute an awesome revolution in the spendthrift consumer society.

On the other hand, the Establishment wants and needs everybody to spend more, not less, to keep the wheels turning, so its upward cycle can feed on itself. But that simply means faster depletion of all forms of nonrenewable natural resources and continued degradation of the planet.

The homestead thinking (as least so far as Countryside has been concerned for the past 40 years, and certainly as laid out in CIG to Self-Sufficient Living) is that we don’t need all the material goods the industrial world sells in order to be happy. We don’t need to waste the energy that goes into making and transporting all that stuff, we don’t need to waste the nonrenewable raw materials those goods are made of, and we don’t need the landfills and pollution they create when we toss them. This used to be as laughable as talking about organic gardening, but no more. The New Frugality is going mainstream.

Homesteaders know that everything has limits. A corn plant grows taller than a pepper plant, and a sequoia can be larger than a birch, but nothing grows forever. Not even an economy. But who is to say enough is enough, it’s time to stop and reassess the situation?

No group or individual is going to halt the madness. It has to die on its own, or, like the cancer it is, when it kills its host. In a worst-case scenario, that will happen when the planet runs out of recoverable oil and other forms of nonrenewable energy, or when burning those fuels makes the air unbreathable and the planet uninhabitable, or when water problems become dire enough to cause mass famine, or when a road or parking lot paves over the last acre of tillable farmland… in brief, when humans are no longer able to feed the monster.

It won’t have to go that far if enough people take enough small steps early enough to stave off that type of Armageddon. If they stop making and buying goods that, in reality, do little or nothing to enhance their lives and happiness anyway. Not many are willing to bell that cat, but when circumstances dictate, as they seem to be doing now, who knows?

Let the revolution begin! — Jd Belanger

A newspaper writer addressing offshore drilling recently said, very matter-of-factly, that no rational person could seriously suggest cutting back on energy use, because that would send civilization back to the Stone Age. I’ve been seriously advocating cutting back on energy use for about four decades now, and most of the time, I’m quite rational.

My argument goes like this: About 70% of our energy is used for transportation. How much of that could be eliminated without even getting close to going back to the Stone Age?

One advantage of getting old is that in scenarios like this I can compare today with when I was a kid, 60 years ago. We didn’t have a car.  We had bicycles, but my dad usually walked to work and we walked to school, church, shopping, and visiting relatives. On rare occasions we rode the bus to a nearby town, took the train on longer trips, and in an emergency, there were taxis.

We lived in a small town, but city life was similar. And my country cousins were also able to walk to school, church, and the country store.

Today my kids, their spouses, and their kids all have personal, individual cars. And I honestly don’t think they’re any better off than we were.

So, is the writer cited above talking about an honest-to-goodness primitive Stone Age, or is he just using that as a metaphor for retreating a bit from a civilization that produces (and uses) 1,000 barrels of oil every second of every day? If my childhood was what you want to call the Stone Age, I say, “Bring it on!”

Sure, everything was different then. For one thing, it was possible to walk almost anywhere. But instead of saying it’s impossible to reduce energy use without going primitive, wouldn’t it be more rational to consider making it possible to walk again? After all, we got into this mess only because the automobile made it possible!

If you think this is outrageous, check this out: Some people are actually choosing their homes on the basis of “walking scores.” Web sites such as www.walkscore.com allow you to type in an address in any of 2,500 neighborhoods in the 40 largest U.S. cities and get a rating based on the distance of certain amenities such as shopping. This doesn’t help rural-dwelling homesteaders, but then, we are supposedly more self-sufficient and eco-conscious than the average urbanite anyway. Interestingly, our rural area has seen a recent resurgence in those old-time country crossroads stores, mostly Mennonite. As it is, we often go a week or more without even opening the car door.

And of course, we’re vastly outnumbered by city people, who use most of the petroleum and therefore could account for saving most of it.

Fewer cars and miles traveled would also mean less need for new roads and maintenance, traffic lights and cops. There would be less smog and fewer traffic accidents. We’d spend less on insurance, tires, and batteries.

This is just personal transportation. We haven’t even mentioned transporting goods, especially food, which is the focus of locavores. And what about lawns… and energy slaves…

But oops, I see another argument coming: All that would raise havoc with our capitalist economic system (which is no more pure capitalism than our government is pure democracy), and that would certainly — you guessed it — send us back to the Stone Age!

On second thought, maybe that’s not such a bad idea. Then we could start over again, on a more sustainable — and rational — basis. — Jd Belanger