tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71293333589522519072024-03-12T19:27:37.659-07:00Sensible SimplicityObserving that the simple lifestyle we all SHOULD be living now, in order to meaningfully work for a better and more humane future, may well soon become the ONLY lifestyle that remains viable. . .jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.comBlogger212125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-47537472150493979832014-06-16T18:17:00.000-07:002014-06-16T18:17:58.142-07:00Updates:Well, things have changed over the last year and at the moment I'm up in British Columbia having gotten married at the first of the year. All is well, life is good, and I'm using the moment to gather my thoughts and reflect on what has been learned over the last 7 years homesteading on the Big Island. It's been quite the adventure, some of the experiences wonderful, some quite difficult. While I'm here away from the Hawaii project, I'm going to make an attempt to put my thoughts together in a coherent fashion before they get lost. You'll find me mostly on my Youtube channel, I hope you find my contributions helpful.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brgwckWFaMs">Facing Reality Episode I</a>jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-14341676240042246512014-01-23T12:18:00.001-08:002014-01-23T12:18:22.084-08:00New Post!Yeah, I'm not dead.<br />
<br />
Started writing it today and felt I should gather my thoughts a bit. . .pretty soon.jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-24955563063908375912013-02-26T15:06:00.000-08:002013-02-26T17:34:26.570-08:00Where do we go from here?Someone asks-- and sure, that is <i>the</i> pertinent question.<br />
<br />
Having thought about this a great deal over the last few months, let me share what I feel I've learned by the experiment. This is going to sound really heavy. It is. All in all, remember, I'm a pretty robust guy that usually wears a grin and generally enjoys a good time--and I play to continue doing that regardless, and I guess I'd like to pretend that that's what one might call courage-- but the lessons learned here are tough. I am not certain in anyway what the next step for myself really ought to be, but it's useful to have a frame around the basic problem.<br />
<br />
So, I'll share with you what I've learned that's most important: It has nothing to do with growing food or trivial stuff like that. That's easy. <i>Here's</i> the real dirt.<br />
<br />
1) Sustainability isn't primarily about consumption, it's about <i>contribution.</i> It wouldn't matter one bit what one consumed if the return to the systemic whole was of higher value(in a very complicated global sense) than the net cost. We evade this conversation primarily of our baggage of cultural metaphysics-- a giant obstacle-- that a good person is more defined by what one "doesn't" do than what one <i>does. </i>Hey, stable ecosystems don't work that way-- the relative positional stability against the encroaching entropic wave is held by everything hustling to <i>give back. </i>We don't like to think this way because the immediate discovery is that few of us return anything whatsoever of value, and are quite comfortable in that. But for sure, as a complete maxim--always, <i>sustainability will require real, measurable compromises with one's short term benefit for the greater long term systemic good</i>. There's never any way around it.<br />
<br />
1b) Obviously, it's a hell of a lot easier to a return a positive good if one doesn't consume a great deal, but simply being simple by itself does not contribute a positive good. It's still consumption, just smaller scale, sometimes, and with a different fashion sense.<br />
<br />
1c) Still, it's wholly possible to live a life that does in fact give back, and not in a airy-fairy feel good about it kind of way-- but one that matters, measurably. It requires talent, integrity, and the willingness to compromise for the greater good--just about the three rarest attributes of all anymore.<br />
<br />
2) The problem of "sustainability" thus is largely an <i>ethical issue</i>, rather than a technical one. We've all the means necessary to forestall the complete destruction of the biosphere, but we're going to shit-can it because we can't be bothered otherwise, we don't give a damn, and it hardly bothers most people. This is an <i>evil</i> culture--a word not used lightly by this atheist--one that has chosen to seek destruction for its own sake. I can't hardly wrap my head around that fact-- it's kinda the tough one to stomach -- but we're all goosestepping along nicely sending the whole she-bang to the gas chambers. . .there's no hyperbole here, at all.<br />
<br />
2a) Technofabulous "solutions" are in no way steps in the right direction unless they both aid us to cut consumption and return more value. More often than not, unfortunately they're purely ways of exploiting this crisis for personal profiteering.<br />
<br />
3) The "ethics" required to solve this issue aren't going to come from a primitive culture or a historical worldview, because, of course, they never faced anything like this. The path forward, is <i>only</i> forward. This also is a tough one to stomach for many people. Hey! I get it. I understand the primitive desire to look to the otherworldly for guidance, to the holy books, to all that, to the indigenous wisdom-- just like I understand the primitive desire to hate, to fear, for violence, all the rest of that stuck there in the vastly ancient collective memories, instincts and tendencies from untold generations of survival. And it's not that all that's wholly without value either-- when Moses the Fish came down the beach with his Two Commandments for Fishes-- which fishes still follow today, that: 1) thou shalt eat all that fitteth within thy mouth and 2) thou shalt swim away from those mouths in which thou fitteth -- well, that was pretty good advice for fish. And since we share some DNA there it shouldn't surprise us that we still largely think those two commandments are probably good ideas-- more the second than the first, as the world changed some and there's plenty of things we find that we shouldn't stick in our mouth now(big big big biting mouths are still nearly universally bad, and worth running from). When Moses the Israelite came down from the mountain with his updated version of now 10 commandments, reflecting a slightly more complicated existence some of that stuff was probably good advice too-- but we must admit a lot of it seems pretty dated. . . Menstrual huts, anyone? Come on! <i>We must move forward. </i>Unfortunately, even a back to the land neo-primitivism is just as flawed a model as is any other-- <i>we must move forward. </i>There are many folk I know here who will, at this point-- especially in Puna -- with with their smug entitled enlightenment discard my point here, as I obviously don't have enough respect for the "ancient wisdoms." Ohm Shanti, baby. Well, <i>that</i> could hardly be further from the truth actually, and I have respect <i>especially</i> for wisdom of unspeakably ancient, primordial, archetypal type-- like the tendency of animals to return to a quiet familiar place when <i>they know they're about to die.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Of those of us who actually have the courage to act, it this not what our instinctive reaction to the impending crisis largely is?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
It is <u>not</u> enough.<br />
<br />
3a) This isn't to say we've got to throw all that heritage away-- no panics! But we must recognize that just like the world view of fish is necessarily incomplete to the current condition of human life, so are the musings and values of primitive cultures with vastly less comprehensive world views and much simpler systemic issues to face. In fact, as I see it, as in order to make the change successfully to the world coming-- our values would have to change so radically it's hard to even recognize them as what we've historically called human-- though undoubtedly they must be vastly more humane.<br />
<br />
3b) We must also realize that regardless of one's personal revelatory truth that one may have personally and exclusively received from the galactic overmind--it's poor taste, even a basic act of <i>violence-- </i>to expect anyone else to regard that message with any importance. To insist on the validity of stuff like that only drives fundamental wedges of discord between us-- and in fact prevents us from cooperatively addressing the concerns that face us--and they must and will only be solved cooperatively<i>. Stuff that gets in the way of our evolving humanity and enforces the trend of our destruction sounds remarkably diabolical, does it not?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
4) One is completely incapable of understanding the sustainability issue as a whole, and one's contribution for good or ill to the situation unless one has the personal integrity to <i>actually do the math. </i>Those that do the math, for sure, end up often being quite pessimistic-- but that's primarily because <i>most people absolutely refuse to do the math. </i>Again, it's not that our problems can't be solved-- it's that they <i>won't</i> be solved. It's an especially crummy problem if you've got some backbone to be honest about the issue-- because you'll get labeled "negative"--oh sure, negative-- chicks don't go for negative. If you cheer lead for abundance, thriving(new hot term), neo-consciousness, all that very popular, undefinable but salable nonsense you'll snicker all the way to the bank-- and you'll actually be thanked for your scam as what you're actually providing is a very valuable service-- allowing people to go along without recognizing (2).<br />
<br />
Now how's that for depressing? Best I can offer up. When I get done I'm back to the guitar. Have a couple of parties coming up that ought to be rowdy and a lot of fun.<br />
<br />
Oh yeah, the question:<br />
<br />
So what can we do?<br />
<br />
Well, if history is our guide as far as I can see the best those of us left can do is "bear witness" to the depravity of the moment. There's no way we're changing anything at this late date. Bear witness. Document. Don't let people forget what was said, and done, and by whom. As small as this is, that's not unimportant-- in fact it may be very critically important as the reckoning comes to be able to testify a) we knew what we were doing was wrong b) we did it anyway c) we enjoyed it. Again, actually, no small thing. It's not a bad thing to jam a stick in the eye of those exploiting to moment, sure, but there's a bigger issue too. See, as it goes along, with the ensuing horrors and scarcity, decisions will have to be made-- very very difficult ones. These testimonies are of some value. They may inform the conversation-- they may allow us to preserve a humane existence a little longer than otherwise. If anything multi-cellular survives this century, and that's a big if, it would be nice that at least something was learned from the grand experiment.<br />
<br />
Unless a drastic and unthinkable intervention occurs by those factions that might still have the means to do so-- a few horribly crude remedies do exist--nothing human will survive. We will either perish, or evolve to something unrecognizable in a very different world. Likely a very harsh one. Perhaps beauty there too, especially as beauty and sadness are Siamese twins. . .certainly from our perspective here, theirs then-- utterly incomprehensible. . .<br />
<br />
Good luck.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><br /></i>jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-53338520782039331742012-12-15T12:12:00.001-08:002012-12-15T12:12:51.746-08:00Objectivity vs. Permaculture.Over the last few years I've found a great deal of hope and solace in studying permaculture and have made quite the progress in building my own ecosystem here in the previously degraded forest. Things look great, and the promises of the joyful danger of "falling food" are in fact real. There is, however, a problem with whole strategy-- "permanent" agriculture has only limited means of remaining viable within a "transient" climate-- sure -- but a couple of years ago to the best of my knowledge I thought I'd be dealing with perhaps 3 degrees centigrade of warming over my lifetime-- dire for certain, but I felt with proper strategic preparations manageable. The problem is that according to the current research, to expect only 3 degrees of warming, say by 2050, is wholly unrealistically optimistic-- we've now lit off several feedback effects that promise to propel us to <i>16 degrees of warming -- a completely unsurvivable world by any normal means</i>. And this will be fast, too. If this data and these projections prove reliable-- which we should know by seeing continuing heat records set-- more Sandy's and Bophas, <i>immediately-- </i>well, that's tits up folks, and we're headed for a terminal planet by mid century. And a really tough one before that.<br />
<br />
Sorry, but no amount of hippy self reliance is going to protect you from this.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for the permaculture vision-- it began to be hipster only about 50 years too late. If we had adopted intelligent strategies a generation back-- when it was first discovered it was important to do so, well, we'd have a chance. Today, not so. No amount of composting will make up the difference. No amount organic this or that. See, we've got much bigger fish to fry-- as CO2 levels continue spinning up and up there comes a point not that far off where the ocean becomes so acidic that all of the phytoplankton <i>dies-- </i>and with it goes 60 percent or so of all the oxygen generated-- it's tough to mulch your way out of that one. Unfortunately as it's shaping up, the whole neo-"back to the land" movement is a complete blind alley-- to have a chance at survival you're not going to need nifty eco-shacks built of bamboo and lots of wheatgrass but rather a titanium bombshelter that can provide you with enough oxygen to breathe, keep you cool enough to not broil, and therein you'll be able to enjoy the various ways you can prepare GMO algae sludge for breakfast. It could probably be done, and there are those with lots of money who are trying. The budget versions of the "survival shell" may be a little grimmer than what the Walton family is working on-- but some of you with the technical skill to try may pull some extra years out. I've been mulling over such strategies for the last couple of weeks but in fact I have a hard time answering the whole "is it worth it?" question.<br />
<br />
Sorry, this is pretty grim. I've mixed feelings about even discussing the issue anymore. Here's why I've raised the issue today.<br />
<br />
I guess people have a right to know, in the same sense that your doctor has an obligation to tell you that the big blob on your x-ray probably can't and/or shouldn't be operated on. You can get second opinions, of course, and there's always going to be a doctor who is more than willing to take your money to give 'er a go.Or sell you some homeopathic cure. . .or a even a new Prius. What to do in circumstances such as this are among the most difficult-- or easiest -- decisions to make. A lot of it depends on perspective. For many people they'll find this sort of stuff impossibly depressing as the <i>party is over-- and will continue to operate in their default mode of denial.</i> For some of us, however, who have been aware and striving for years at great personal expense for a better world-- well, some of us will feel a bit of relief, in fact, as we're pretty well absolved of our responsibilities now-- <u>really.</u> I guess for us it means the <i>party is just getting started.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
What am <i>I</i> going to do? Heck, I don't know. Take up cigarette smoking? Well, considering there can only be a very few years left of relative normalcy I figure I'm going to spend a lot less time mucking around with chicken shit and more time dinking around with big guitar amplifiers. Go MESA. If I were able to get a few bucks ahead and received proper encouragement I might be tempted to weld up some bizarro complex underground bunker just for the hell of it-- the living accommodations would be a great deal like boat living frankly and few have the experience of confined space to make it work. Going outside for a stroll won't be too practical most of the time, so a lot of thought will need to be put into making things comfy and sane there in a dark tube in the dirt. Maybe I'll write a book about it called "bummersteading" or some such. . .In reality I'd encourage people not to do too much-- much drawing on the "terminal illness"' model as there isn't much one <i>can</i> do-- hang in there, keep as cheerful as possible. . .treasure each remaining day. That won't come easy, and we're not accustomed to doing that-- precisely why we're in this mess-- but as far as I can see, that's all we've got left.<br />
<br />
On other notes: see you there!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lD0Z5nKM_Ko/UMzZpFjuwGI/AAAAAAAAAPI/EENIndYDdvA/s1600/poster_from_postermywall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lD0Z5nKM_Ko/UMzZpFjuwGI/AAAAAAAAAPI/EENIndYDdvA/s320/poster_from_postermywall.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-69778136790602643852012-11-12T13:13:00.000-08:002012-11-12T15:54:46.891-08:00Subjectivity:Years ago I briefly sailed with a guy on a tall ship-- this fellow follower of Osho-- deadbeat dad with 7 kids which he'd never contributed a dime towards, a completely alienated guy whose divinely enlightened utterly irresponsible selfish behavior had alienated him from nearly everyone he knew. . .and the crew nearly immediately. And boy, he hated being "<i>judged</i>"-- whatever that means, by those behind and below him on his spiritual path. . .I mean if this guy was any more "in touch" with himself he'd be arrested for public indecency. And boy howdy we didn't get it, as he was convinced he was the Bodhisattva himself where we all thought he was just a garden variety <i>prick-- </i>anyway I was roped into philosophical discussions with him on occasion and the subject of "objectivity vs. subjectivity" came up often. He'd spout a bunch of pithy baloney and when he finally figured out I'd basically heard his party line before and wasn't much interested-- he'd bless me(nice!) and inform me that I had a good soul and somewhere along my journey I'd develop the ability to see the world with "more balance."<br />
<br />
And indeed I have, as I wouldn't give him the time of day anymore.<br />
<br />
Subjectivity: Balance? Surely we don't have our eyes set so close together in our foreheads not to realize that the nature of human existence is utterly, oppressively, <i>relentlessly</i> subjective? And that in fact our weak attempts to wrestle free of the prison of our own narrow perceptual set-- by a process we call objective thinking-- is in fact <i>the attempt to restore balance</i>? Hey, don't get me wrong-- there's nothing inherently "bad" about subjective experience-- it's just that it's personal, exclusive, and as such divisive-- and without a counterbalancing agent tends to destruction and violence. Currently, in our culture, which, go figure, is a pretty dang destructive and violent one, we disproportionally claim to value subjective experience. Which, ironically, in spite of all the silly books about "living in the now" or whatever-- as if there's an <i>option</i> about that-- we really go completely out of our way to avoid doing. See, most of us really hate subjective experience all the time-- stuff like going to work, worrying about insurance costs, grumpy people, all the rest-- and rather than the <i>balanced</i> strategy of "objectively" attempting to better our "subjective" experience we try to bury one subjective state with another-- but a cool, funky, often intoxicated one. And it works for a bit, subjectively. And that's fine, but not balance, and there's hardly any path to enlightenment in it, and once one figures out that the Ashram is the analog of a <i>hospital. . .well, better to chop wood and carry water.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
The purpose of living is really very simple: it's to live a life of purpose. The way to do that is to find something that one finds valuable and objectively measurably enriching and do the hell out of if. Don't be surprised if that thing you find you need to do is pretty uncomfortable. That's probably necessary to make it meaningful. . .<i>Hey, I basically hate sailing, you know. . . it's more important that you find it meaningful.</i> A lot of people aren't up for taking on such a task. We're pretty soft after all-- bummer, as it's the only game in town. Don't miss out: don't be misled by the hucksters selling you an easy way out-- You see, <i>all those folks out there telling you they know what the meaning of life is are really cowards running from what life really means.</i>jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-88360278338860308202012-10-16T21:12:00.000-07:002012-10-16T21:12:06.802-07:00Big Mitt the TakerSo on the topic of <i><u>taking</u>. . .</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Where "BIG MITT" <u>really</u> pisses me off is the smug, self-righteous way he <u>takes credit. . .</u></i><br />
<i><u><br /></u></i>
<i>For being born on third base being proud he can hit a single.</i>jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-76950352198838524822012-10-15T11:46:00.000-07:002012-10-16T21:09:03.590-07:00Objectivity vs. Mitt RomneyNow, first off, let's be clear: Obama was Goldman-Sachs' pick for president last time-- he's proven to be a fraud, now the big banks are running against his record supporting an even more vile candidate, and it's looking more and more like Romney will win. Watching the debates it's pretty clear why. Both men are running on platforms mostly comprised of fantasy and mythology, and the voters are choosing on the basis of which dream they'd rather dream rather than any basis of choice rooted in objective reality. Of the two delusional visions to choose from I find Romney's much more vile-- and it's worthy to point out some of the reasons his delusions are much more dangerous, at least in the near term.<br />
<br />
First-- Romney's claim to fame, his resume, if you will-- is all based on the notion that he's some kind of businessman. He's got the talent for "making money" -- that's American, that's business oriented, that's practical. The fact is, however, he's no talent for making money <i>at all. </i>Now, sure as shit he's got a prime set of sticky fingers and he's pretty fine at <i>taking it. . .but as far as I can see he's never, ever, created any real value on his own.</i> This is an important distinction, and I'm surprised that more "pro-business" folk can't figure that out-- in fact Romney is very <u>anti-business</u>-- at least of the "creating value" kind, which, of course, is the only kind we of average non-richer-that-god sorts have available to us. Leveraged buyouts, offshore accounts, special access to legislators--ability to buy off regulators--key to Mitt's wealth. . .this is exactly the kind of behavior that has crushed small business: it's destroyed the economy, it's destroyed access to credit, it's increased costs of doing business(and promoted regulatory burdens--stuff the Mitts can ignore, but the little guy can't)-- and most dangerously and importantly, it's destroyed to competitive marketplace. You can't compete with Mitt. He's a taker, and he'll pay a buddy to write a law so he can buy you out, saddle you with debt, steal the companies value, bankrupt you, and personally claim the loss against his profits.<br />
<br />
Let's be clear-- if you're a creator of <i>value-- you're screwed in this economy</i>-- and while the Mitts run the show(think big grabby hands when you think Mitt, it's a useful image) forget getting ahead. You could do something unbelievable amazing, like create a pill that magical cured cancer, aging, and loss of libido in one shot-- and you still couldn't make the kind of money Mitt's got. Why? 'Cause you're not going to get to go to school to learn the skills unless you pay off Mitt. You'll need to do your research at Mitt's company. Mitt will own the rights to your research anyway--as you're working for him, of course. Even if you could figure a way around that he'll just steal the research from you-- you can't afford to sue against him-- out of luck once again. Even if you got a Lesser Mitt to back you you'll still lose, as you'll pay more taxes, be forced to deal with more oversight, and eventually the Big Mitt will run you underground. No offense, nothin' personal, just business, right? Hardly. . .Mitt's business plan is no more brilliant than that of the average carjacker-- and that's written large in his life and his campaign-- from avoiding military service, to tax evasion and offshore accounts, to his double dipping business practices, his scammy relationship with politics all the way along, his sleazy peer-group--to now how he's run his campaign-- bullshit, deception, and expediency all the way through.<br />
<br />
So, with that skillset, how you figure he'll handle the reins of the US economy?jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-4763509814329840182012-10-09T14:21:00.000-07:002012-10-09T14:24:32.234-07:00By the way. . .So a friend the other day called:<br />
<br />
"Hey Jay, enjoy your recent posts, but don't you think you're really being a bit hard and extreme in your judgements about personal culpability? I mean, you're making some pretty heavy comparisons there. . ."<br />
<br />
Well, I don't know. Let's look at it:<br />
<br />
Frankly, it really doesn't matter a great deal what <i>my</i> judgements are. No one really cares and my opinions don't matter very much-- unless -- <i>unless -- they're in some sense prescient of the attitudes of </i><u style="font-style: italic;">future generations.</u> Then they may matter a great deal. I think, in fact, they <i>are</i>. Personally, I expect-- looking at the mess we're handing the future that <i>my </i>attitudes are actually pretty moderate and I try to keep a responsible level of objectivity with them. In fact, I'd suggest that forty or so years from now a guy like me struggling to survive in a poisoned, dying, brutal world will have a lot harder time having any sense of justice or moderation in his judgements at all. . .and frankly I anticipate--fear even--simple blind vengeful rage. Those people are going to wonder how the hell, <i>how the hell, </i>we made the choices we did. They're going to wonder where our courage was, and how we allowed events to unfold as they are. Those of us left are mostly going to try to plead ignorance('cept me, nah, it was obvious) but that's going to be a pretty weak defense especially falling on ears listening for a damn good explanation. And it will have to be a good one indeed, as the expectation from the historic evidence will be clear-- we were just too busy feeling smug about ourselves, stuffing our faces, indulging in wishes, and not giving a shit. So <i>yeah, I think there's a very good reason to think about how our actions right now might be judged by future folk. . .</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
And no, and in that context, I don't think my positions are that radical <i><u>at all.</u></i>jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-44191973253274427272012-10-08T21:49:00.001-07:002012-10-15T12:53:31.963-07:00Pants on fire. . .So, tell me.<br />
<br />
When is the last time in a presidential election where the "biggest liar" <i>lost?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Just askin'</i>jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-90966423900790151072012-09-29T14:14:00.001-07:002012-09-29T14:14:34.011-07:00Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: VI-- continued.So, yeah, authenticity. . .<br />
<br />
It never ceases to amaze me, looking back, at how much <i>impact </i>my sailing books have had. Hey, they're really shitty books. I didn't really expect anyone to read them. They're self-published, of course, as no nautical publisher would consider having them-- as there's absolutely <i>no</i> commercial appeal-- I wrote them largely for my own benefit as a means of gathering my own thoughts-- and in general they were <i>waaaaay </i>ahead of their time. I promise you, writing about the virtues of engine-less sailing in a world of .80 gasoline in the middle of the dot.com boom was lunatic fringe material. "Sailing with Purpose" was written by a 27 year old kid trying to figure out how to live a life of authenticity, full aware that the choice to take on such a project would cost dearly-- and of course it did. I've no regrets, and no apologies for the fact that, well, that's a book written by a kid, in a kinda flip style--albeit a very earnest one-- desperately trying to figure that game out. The others followed in their footsteps in a pretty dang unvarnished, minimally edited representation of my thoughts over that decade and some of sailing. This blog is pretty similar, in fact, as I've come to believe it's vastly more valuable to be <i>real</i>, even if that exposes one's defects-- than slick. It's vastly more persuasive as it's authentic-- or as follows <i>alienating</i>. Which is fine. There are people out there who chose values(or more accurately <i>rejected</i> them) that make them my enemies and they just didn't know it until they read my stuff. May as well make that all clear. In fact now, rather than "sailing" I feel exactly the same way about my experiments in "<i>sustainability</i>" -- or more precisely our <i>failure</i> as a culture to achieve such in a necessarily timely manner-- I unapologetically intend to bear witness to our utter failure and absolute personal culpability for the destruction of planet earth. . .This also is <i>waaaay </i>ahead of its time-- people are still pretending it hasn't happened-- or are busy capitalizing on selling bogus <i>solutions: </i>I intend to provide the generations of future with a very precious gift--<u> perspective.</u> They, those kids of ours, are going to be forced by scarcity to make the most horrible of decisions and I fully intend to declare that they've <i>every</i> right to lay the blame where they need to, squarely on us-- squarely on <i>me. </i>I understand that this "bearing witness" will provide them very little comfort-- only <i>justification</i> for what actions they'll be forced to take. It's the best I can do. It's not enough for our crimes, of course. But it's something, I guess.<br />
<br />
Ok, so <i>objectivity-- or the complete lack of it-- and why it was so easy for us to murder our own children.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Just after graduating from college in the early 90's I had the lovely experience of working for the Juvenile Justice system in Boise-- and boy was that informative. I grew up in a reasonably sane, reasonably caring home and I really had no experience of the hell that so many kids start their lives in. I had no idea as to the pervasiveness of child abuse, sexual, physical, or mental-- or the full meal deal often-- but I learned a lot about it pretty quick. There's a lot that can be said about it, but for the purposes of this discussion I'll narrow it down to one hard, shocking, keen observation...<br />
<br />
<u><i>Child abusers "love" their kids.</i></u><br />
<u><i><br /></i></u>
No shit. They really do. At least from their "subjective" experience they do. They "feel" they do. They "feel" good about it. They very often feel that their abuse is even morally justified, and their abusive behavior in the best interest of the child. The obvious real objective evidence of a busted up kid bears not at all on their "perspective." Why should it? As a culture we value our <i>subjective states</i> of being ahead of our <i>objective experience</i>-- pedophilia and child abuse are just another manifestation of that indulgence. If you feel that that you're behaving in a moral fashion, well that's good enough, right? No reason to investigate the actual real practical ramifications of one's actions-- certainly no reason to hypothesize about the unknowable unintended consequences either. And what you see is what you get-- not just a culture full of child abuse but spousal abuse, abuse in our workplaces, environmental abuse-- exploitation, domination, tyranny in every kind of human relationships, violence everywhere-- notably excepting the kind where you get <i>punched back-- well, of course getting punched back subjectively <u>sucks...</u></i><br />
<i><u><br /></u></i>
<i><u>And ultimately you get a dead planet...</u></i><br />
<i><u><br /></u></i>
<i><u>You get a miserable one long before that...</u></i><br />
<i><u><br /></u></i>
Why should we be surprised? Demanding others accept the validity of our subjective experience above the knowable, observable practical reality <i>is</i> violence-- and why there is not, cannot be, and never will be <i>such a thing</i> as a <i>peaceful religion...</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Clearly, if we can demand ourselves to be "objective" for a moment, the act of choosing for our own momentary "subjective experience" ahead of the objective, real, measurable greater good <i>always</i> tends to a future of conflict. In a world with more space, and more abundance, the immediate nature of that conflict can <i>seem</i> subjectively remote-- but the trend is relentlessly reinforced. As time progresses, it becomes more difficult, costly, and even fatal for those who value humanity to choose against the societal "suicide pact" as time progresses, many who try fail, and the trend is yet again reinforced. Eventually it's only the most heroic that can stand against such values-- and they are beset even by those who would publicly claim to share their core values-- subjectively, of course, rather than objectively--<br />
<br />
This is why it is so critical today to declare-- an action is good if and only if it is in fact <i>good... and this good is always a measurable quantity. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>to be contined as well, as I've wrenches to spin. . .</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<u><i><br /></i></u>
<br />
<br />
<br />jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-45350949103391401242012-09-21T13:23:00.000-07:002012-09-21T17:45:07.781-07:00Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: VIObliquely following on the last post-- it's difficult to be currently aware of the unprecedented loss of arctic ice this summer it engendering a certain sense of impending dread. It's difficult locally to be much optimistic about this islands future if one has been paying much attention to the "geothermal" issue and taking note to the blatant lack of integrity shown by <i>both</i> the "for" and "against" camps. There's a lot of stuff in flames around the world this morning and it's obvious that my personal angst is shared by a lot of people.<br />
<br />
Yet I can hear it: But hey, don't be so negative, Jay! The new Iphone is available today, that will save us all! Or some such new and shining thing or approach-- maybe not Iphones but new generations of solar panels, or new political moments like Occupy Wallstreet, or new approaches to taxation carbon credits, or any of the rest of it. But none of this "new" stuff really heartens me much, especially some of the touted "new paradigm" airy fairy stuff some spout-- as I know without a doubt the core issues facing humanity and the planet are not "epistemological" in nature-- neither are they ecological, or political, or technological. They are in fact <i>moral</i> issues first and foremost: <i>issues of basic human integrity, honesty, and objectivity</i>. Shallow minds like to shrug off our current woes as some inevitable result of <i>human nature. </i>This a broadly held but remarkably ignorant world view, as it's all but self-evident that if within the human mind there <i>didn't</i> exist the basic capacity for honesty, objectivity, and cooperative benevolence-- humanity would have never survived our pre-historical existence and our species would have been stuffed out as yet another failed evolutionary experiment a million years ago. Bullshit-- it's our obvious and unique innate capacity honest objectivity that makes us human-- this is the core of human nature itself -- not intelligence, nor language, nor thumbs: all of these we share with plenty of our earthly co-inhabitants. No, it's the ability to look at the world objectively(at least as objectively as the physical constraints of the universe allow it to be possible) to grasp the systemic import of that objective knowledge, to manipulate it conceptually, and to act in a manner that has the ability to enhance the global systemic viability-- this makes us <i>human</i>. From that realization of the evolutionary role of the human species--and why it might make sense for such ecological capital to be invested in one species-- it can be seen as core to "human nature" the ability to enhance, consciously, systems that otherwise would be constrained to much slower and perhaps less viable processes. Of course this terminology I use, "larger systemic viability" is me speaking the perspective of a modern, educated, atheist-- observing the emergent phenomenon of evolutionary processes and biological determinants-- paying a certain respect to the appearance of a teleological nature of the whole. Others from other times might be comfortable with simpler concepts of "God's Will" or even the Tao-- but we would hope that as we go along our innate objective "human nature" would guide us to worldviews with ever higher levels--or depths-- of objective understanding. While it may be colloquially cute to speak in these more primitive terms, and while without a doubt there's knowledge to be inherited from such world views-- for a modern mind to hold such concepts as equally as valid as the informed modern secular view, is, well, nothing short of <u>retarded</u><i>. To deliberately do so in the face of evidence to the contrary is at its core-- <u>inhumane.</u></i><br />
<i><u><br /></u></i>
And is core to the root of our current moral crisis.<br />
<br />
Why? Because if we can accept for the moment my assertion of the innate nature of humanity's capacity for rational objectivity-- it certainly is reasonable to suggest that as with all of our other innate capacities-- the ability for language, or mathematics, or even perhaps music-- our objective nature if not appropriately stimulated, or if deliberately <i>stifled-- may not develop. </i>And this is <i>critical, as objectivity is central to moral behavior.</i> In fact, it's very reasonable to argue that the first and foremost, and most humane moral task of any evolved human being is the utter commitment to be honestly, authentically objective. For without this, whence comes the criteria for any subsequent moral judgement? Moral judgments obviously cannot be made effectively constructively from incomplete or inadequate understandings of reality-- less so from fantasy or delusional word views-- rarely <i>if ever</i> from reality based on the wishing of things being a certain, often purely preferential, way.<br />
<i><u><br /></u></i>
<i><u>To be continued... in the meanwhile</u></i><br />
<i><u><br /></u></i>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/dFs9WO2B8uI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<i><u><br /></u></i>
<br />jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-119967581071161362012-08-29T10:35:00.000-07:002012-09-21T13:38:24.846-07:00Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: VWell, it's time someone point out the fact that Mitt Romney is the Antichrist, after all. I mean he <i>really is.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
The conversation kinda came up over on the <a href="http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/2012/08/16/chicken-coop-automatic-open-in-the-morningclose-at/">forum</a>(yup, that's the right link, you'll need to roll through it) where the various virtues or lack of our current system, culture, all that were discussed a bit. And the fact that Mitt Romney is the Antichrist has only a bit to do with his fetish for holy underwear, believing God is an alien from Kochab, that he gets not only 70 virgins upon his transmigration but a whole fucking planet to rule--calling his wife from her tomb is purely optional, however-all that horseshit. It has only a bit to do with Mormonism in general, although it's ideal as an unique American kind of religion-- a cross between the weakest feel good version of Christianity, homeopathy, and multi-level marketing. Nah, demonstrating that he's the Antichrist comes down to a very simple observation.<br />
<br />
See, the whole Christian tradition--back in the day, was largely a reactionary one against the heavy legalistic nature of Judaism-- and rather than a whole book of rules or books of rules and castes of privileged interpreters of the rules was posited a very simple set of <i>principles:</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
1) God has a plan and a "will" to be expressed in Creation.<br />
<br />
2) It is man's proper role to fulfill that "will." To choose against God's will is, frankly the <i>definition</i> of a sin.<br />
<br />
3) The messianic message was one of demonstrating the Christ-manner of fulfilling God's will. It is, in fact a lifestyle of attempting strive for that fulfillment, which is always the greatest, most important systemic "good"--and in fact often requires personal sacrifice for that "greatest good." And of course that stunt on the cross a pretty good example of all that, in fact.<br />
<br />
3a) For those whose eyes are glazing over already-- hey, I said "GREATER GOOD." The "Christian" lifestyle <i>was</i> one of deliberately manifesting "god's will" by seeking that "greater good." As if God's will could be anything <i>other</i> than the greater good, right?<br />
<br />
3b) And hey, sometimes the "personal good" has to give a bit to serve that greater good, right? Sometimes it's nice to share.<br />
<br />
3c) Of course--to deliberately, systemically seek the "personal good" over the greater good of "god's will" is core to the "Christian" definition of evil.<br />
<br />
Now you sure as hell wouldn't know this looking at the modern church-- which is pretty damned <i>evil</i>--but from this perspective it's pretty easy to see where early Christian traditions of aiding the poor, vows of poverty, communal-ism came from. And it's also easy to see where tasty biblical zingers like "it's more difficult for a camel to crawl through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven"-- as well, it's pretty tough to amass a big pile of dough seeking the "greater systemic good"(read: utterly impossible.) Or, of course "give on to Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's" which, certainly, translates to "Caesar can kiss my ass." There's more; <i>lots more</i>. In fact the whole New Testament is <i>loaded</i> with that kind of stuff and in fact very sparse about telling people what to do with their weenies-- ah, but that's another topic.<br />
<br />
So now the Antichrist stuff: Back in my Bible School days it was often impressed on me by scholars who had some understanding of translation that the "anti" part of "Antichrist" wasn't a very fitting translation, as it suggest an almost Zoroastrian god vs. devil slapdown kind of confrontational character. Not at all, many insisted-- and it would be much more accurately translated as "instead-of" rather than "anti." And indeed, the "Instead-of-Christ" has a very important connotative difference, and in many ways more insidious. And what would that Anti/Instead-of-Christ stand for? Well, of course against or at least as an alternative the the Christ message-- again, <i>man's role is to personally fulfill god's will by aiding all creation find its teleological expression of the greatest good</i>-- the alternative probably would be something very much like "seek the personal good and fuck everyone else." Now let's not be to silly about seeing how this all works out-- as very often such a person wants to fuck over other people <i>and</i> feel good about it(personal good)--even self-righteous and entitled about it-- so it's very nice to wrap the whole thing up in some pseudo-bible-babble where once can pretend to believe that it's <i>actually</i> God's will to give <i>you</i> a whole pile of toys and other people <i>nothing</i> and that's ok because it's in God's plan for some people to go hungry. Never can know god's will really-- pass the steak sauce? Sure, all that sounds very silly and self serving phrased that way-- but hey, that's what makes the modern church go round--sermons based on that kind of language caters to a crowd who can offer up way better tithes that them "smelly serve poor kinds."<br />
<br />
So how does this in fact make Mitt Romney the Antichrist? Because I suggest to you that he's taken the "all about me" alternative anti-christ message further, more indulgently, more profoundly, and more successfully than any human being in human history--and if he wins the presidency, he'll effectively taken the "antichrist" gospel to the highest level of success and power possible on planet earth! -- and if that doesn't in fact make him "the man!" I really don't know what rates. And that is, in fact, <i>a little freaky. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Especially because ol Captain Holy Underwear believes in a literal apocalyptic battle and has the power to initiate it in his hands.</i><br />
<br />
<br />jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-29417202165015988522012-08-23T22:03:00.001-07:002012-08-23T22:03:28.596-07:00I know, I know. . .Mitt Romney?Very little around here, for sure, busy, busted finger-- thank a hydraulic ram for that.<br />
<br />
Anyway, to my mind, how bas-ackwards is Mitt Romney?<br />
<br />
Well, if you look at it, he'd be a conservative, morally, if he were running for <i>Pharaoh</i>.<br />
<br />
Ya might want to think about all that. I'm not kidding.jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-78768393156014525662012-06-04T11:22:00.000-07:002012-06-04T11:22:08.511-07:00A Reminder:Checking out the news this morning. . ."both" sides. . .<br />
<br />
Hey, sticking one's head up one's as so hard and far that it forces a smile <i>isn't optimism.</i><br />
<br />
<br />jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-21236926926223241922012-04-27T11:15:00.003-07:002012-04-27T11:15:54.305-07:00J. Free Band, May 2We'll be playing the Black Rock Cafe at 6:30 or so Wednesday, May 2. We're sounding better than ever, have a full show of fun original tunes, look forward to seeing you all <a href="http://jfreeband.blogspot.com/2012/04/black-rock-pahoa-may-2.html">there!</a>jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-76090942920902774132012-04-23T20:27:00.001-07:002012-04-23T22:02:13.850-07:00GeothermalSo I've been asked about my opinion a lot lately on the whole local "geothermal" thing, so I thought I'd drop a few notes here about the whole deal.<br />
<br />
First, my opinion on whether I'd support such or not--which is: "<i>I don't know.</i>"<br />
<br />
And I think that's a good position for a lot more people to hold, as I find often that those with the strongest views are the least informed. Maybe we could clear up a few misunderstandings here and ask a few intelligent questions.<br />
<br />
First, let's be clear. Geothermal is <i><b>not a renewable energy source</b>. </i>It IS an "<i>alternative</i>" energy source, and an important one. You must drill for heat just like you might oil, and while the "hot spot" under the island will be there for a very long time, the rate of harvest of that heat from the rock surrounding the drill site is much higher than the replenishment rate, and eventually, especially on an industrial scale, you use the viable amount of it up, and you've got to re-drill somewhere else. How fast is and how much you get out is largely speculative until you drill, though good predictions may be made, and other unknowns involve how much erosive and corrosive dilapidation of the well casings will occur, and how fast, and how soon they will need to be replaced. It's not like one sticks a hole in the ground and electricity comes out. But compared to many other alternative energy schemes, especially biomass to energy-- it has the <i>potential</i> to be vastly more effective with vastly lower complications-- and it uses proven, scalable industrial technologies. There's very little pie in the sky on that score.<br />
<br />
Second, it's completely unclear about how if at all the local economy will be helped in the slightest by expanding current geothermal capacity. It's not at all like the proposals pledge to delivering megawatts at competitive industrial rates at all, it's not at all like the actual business entities that profit by ownership of the projects will return any of the value to the local economy(a few jobs, sure, but you can say the same about the guys delivering gasoline in trucks.) There is some systemic risk of property damage present, and in fact appears to me that local value, and <i>heritage</i>, is being harvested without due compensation for that risk. A weak pledge of "lower electrical rates" isn't enough to set those concerns aside. It would help a lot if real numbers were discussed, but of course no one wants to do that because no one really knows whats down there, and it's the fact that we're held hostage by high and rising oil based costs that makes Hawaii as compelling to the geothermal industry as much as the fact that there's heat down there.<br />
<br />
Third, comparisons keep getting made to Iceland. These aren't very fair. Iceland is an island, but one pretty close really to industrial centers, it's very far away from China, it has a capable educated workforce, and it has tons of hydro power as well. It has an electrical grid that is capable of supporting industry and a history of it as well. It has serious ports capable of shipping real industrial capacity in and out. <i>It has its own currency and banking system</i>, that it can manipulate for favorable purchasing of raw materials. It has a government that recently went through major upheaval and threw the bums out. Hawaii, and Puna in particular possesses <i>none</i> of those characteristics-- it only has hot rocks. So why on earth would a geothermal company want to drill here if there's no customers doing anything worth purchasing it? Well, it doesn't take much speculation to figure <i>that one out</i>-- but again, not a bit of local benefit for those taking the risk and loss of value. Remember, that heat in the ground is energy <i>just like oil is</i>, <i><u>it's worth money just like oil is</u></i>, and nobody has any business taking that resource away from the common state ownership without due compensation for its value. Seriously!<br />
<br />
Lastly, <i>without other checks in place</i>, adding geothermal does nothing at all, <i>at all</i>, for the environment. It simply adds capacity to make it easier to consume what we already do and more so. We'll burn both the fuel we currently do and the geothermal electricity as well. That's a net loss for the ecosphere, and there's really no other way to spin it. I know that's a bummer, and a lot of people can't bang this one through their heads, a fact others exploit-- but "conventional energy" plus "alternative energy" equals <i>more consumption. </i>And sorry to say, but that's bad. If we had caps on consumption in place, by perhaps credits or tax, that might not be the case, but without 'em, well, you just get more dead penguins. So let's drop any pretense of the "green" angle, OK???<br />
<br />
So heck, I don't know, but a lot of things would be pretty helpful to clear things up. 1) A pledged rate of delivery per KWH, and numbers at discount for industrial users. Iceland pays 4.3 cents per KWH-- maybe the developers could <i>commit</i> to a <i><u>contractual obligation</u></i> to delivery at 10 cents? 2) At <i>least</i> a discussion of something like the oil funded Alaska State Fund or some such, where residents are compensated for <i>the loss of their natural resources.</i> 3) A sensible discussion of the alternatives, even if just to clear the air of misunderstandings about algae based biofuel or other such horseshit. 4) a reasonable discussion of global fossil fuel depletion at the state level, free of baloney, as the whole island economic plan needs to kinda wake up-- seriously, and let's get climate change on the table as part of the discussion as well. Otherwise, we're looking at status quo piecemeal profiteering, and that's not going serve anyone, 'cept a few, at all.<br />
<br />
Just my two bits. I do believe that geothermal <i>could be</i> a boon for the Big Island. I also am certain that we must do something, <i>as the status quo of reliance on diesel fuel is extremely dangerous. </i>We are hanging by a thread on that score. It's just important that while we face that urgency we don't sell ourselves out in the rush to do so.<br />
<br />
Feedback, of course, is welcome.jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-22702276897817320542012-04-21T19:51:00.001-07:002012-04-21T20:01:17.944-07:00Earth DaySo a friend ( I use the term loosely, for sure) says. . .<br />
<br />
"Hey Jay, saw your last post, how's your Earth Day?"<br />
<br />
I respond. "Actually, I've never actually done the Earth Day thing much, and pretty much think it's stupid."<br />
<br />
He snickers, "Yeah, but you seem a little down in the dumps about all that. . ."<br />
<br />
"Sure," I say, "The big picture is grim indeed."<br />
<br />
"Tell me something I don't know," he rolls his eyes. "Told ya so."<br />
<br />
"Did you?" I reply. "Must not have been paying much attention."<br />
<br />
He grins. "So what you going to do now that you've given up on sustainability?"<br />
<br />
"Well," I say, "Let's be clear. Sustainability could have worked. It worked for me. We as a culture simply had to care enough to make the sacrifices to lead the world by example for a future where it worked out for everyone." I pause. "I haven't given up on sustainability at all, it's just that as a <i>concept</i> it's obsolete. Now it's a basic matter of survival."<br />
<br />
"Sure," He laughs, "Must get ya down."<br />
<br />
I shake my head, "Intellectually, absolutely. But strategically in my personal life it seems things couldn't be better."<br />
<br />
"I bet." He replies.<br />
<br />
"Look," I say, "I've got 9 acres of mixed forest and koa trees, more food outside the door than I could eat, even if kinda boring. It's paid for. I've got really no bills to pay at all. I've learned a great deal about sustainability and learned primarily that sustainability was about efficiency, economy, and diligence. About doing the math and being as slick and skillful as possible. That's where your quality of life comes from." I pause. "I've the skills and infrastructure to live on a footprint that isn't even 10% of my peers, and on an income that most would consider dire poverty. It's pretty comfortable really."<br />
<br />
"Bullshit" he snorts. "I love the inefficiency of my F250, and I can afford it. I like my big house. I like spending money, even before I made it." He leans in for effect. "I love spotted owl eggs for breakfast."<br />
<br />
"Very nice," I reply. "It may be that efficiency is an acquired taste."<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>There in the air lingers an awkward pause.</i><br />
<br />
"So," he grins, "you still haven't answered my question. What you going to do for your next stunt?"<br />
<br />
"Funny you should ask," I reply. "I filed all the paperwork last week. I'll be bidding against <i>you</i>. . ."<br />
<br />
<br />jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-35401646905712165402012-04-04T20:28:00.000-07:002012-04-04T20:49:51.378-07:00I hate losingWell, it's taxes again and that always puts me in a crappy mood, but I doubt it cheers many. Still, it forces one to take the time to sit down and really sort through the last year and enumerate a lot of things one might often not take the time to put in such detail. For myself, over the last few years with my work in sustainability I've had to put a lot of time in with a calculator in hand--working out in as much detail as I honestly could what it really meant to live a life where the balance of one's activities contribute to an "measureable good" rather than "purely harmful" and I've learned a lot about it. I've learned personally, for sure, that while it takes a serious person sincere effort and significant compromise, it's completely possible and reasonable comfortable to earn an income and live a life confident that one isn't participating in the larger ecocide. I've learned a lot and it's brought me insights and a whole new set of skills-- as well as a vastly more accurate understanding of the dynamics of the systems that we inhabit. It's been a lot of work but also a lot of fun. Nothing, <i>nothing</i>, is more precious than the simple joy of discovery. And while unforgiving of ignorance, ineptitude, or dishonesty, a life of authentic benevolence is pretty rewarding in its own way, if what many might call austere. After a couple of decades of lifestyles that demand such a high level of integrity it simply becomes impossible to kid oneself about stuff anymore, not as a matter of morality but simple fact: one just loses the knack for it.<br />
<br />
In that spirit and having set the calculator aside its time to report a important truth. <i>We're fucked.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>I mean <b>really</b> fucked.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
Now I know I've often been accused of being a doomsdayer, but in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, I believed that it was going to be <i>difficult</i> indeed to avert the crisis looming from over-population, resource depletion, and climate change-- very difficult in fact, but I hadn't believed it impossible. In fact, I believed that it was possible for courageous individuals to move personally in their own lives towards that goal and in fact set an example that many others, paralyzed in the headlights, might be able to follow. So, that's what I set out to do personally, and that's what I've done now for the last 5 or so years. And in fact my message has been inspirational to many, and convincing as well. But it's been motivational to damned few-- and our culture as a whole has moved even further from solutions to even and ever worse policies-- in fact the rate of destruction has significantly increased. I have been wrong about my fellow man and his grasp on reality and the depth of his love for life and his children. And so, a time comes when it's time to call "abandon ship" -- well, I pride myself on being the kind of sailor(or human being) that would be the first to sound a high water alarm but the last to head for the lifeboats, but that time comes even for me. And, well, fact is, <i>it's here.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>So what's that mean?</i> Well, for me personally, different strategies now make sense. Where I had deliberately lived very modestly and frugally I'm force to admit that to do so no longer matters. Whatever I elect to consume will be consumed by the suicidal raving hordes. While I deliberately limited my income to both not contribute to malignant governmental policies and programs and lighten the actual impact of my "earning" to levels I could actually clean up-- I'm forced to admit to do so no longer matters. The hordes will take care of all that too. While I doubt I'll quit planting my trees or stewarding my few acres of forest for whoever or whatever survives this century, I'll do so strictly for and as my own pleasure-- besides, it's now become a habit to think that way and I enjoy the trees. These actions that I had taken in the past are no longer in my mind practical, perhaps not even morally defensible-- as we've entered a world where preservation for much is no longer an option, and we must desperately grasp and protect all of that which we possibly can in whatever manner we might. This is now a triage formula situation. Much must be categorized <i>lost.</i> In this context and again, different strategies are called for--and uncomfortable judgments must be made.<br />
<br />
<u>As I see it now</u>, perhaps the most imperiled and endangered parts of the evolutionary wealth of our planet aren't so much rare trees, forests, or ecosystems-- but much to my surprise <i>it is indeed the better and most evolved elements of humanity that</i> is the most threatened. I took for granted that others felt the way I did, and would act how I might see humane. I was wrong about that, and in fact that generosity, honesty, courage, integrity, intelligence-- which might well be claimed to be the highest and most advanced expression of the evolutionary process, and certainly the most precious as it's from here solely comes the valuation of the rest-- it's precisely <i>these elements</i> that are in greatest risk of loss. As we drift further into graver circumstances I see not the best elements of humanity exhibited but more often than not the worst--certainly not noble heroism but rather bestial delusional brutality. Certainly I knew the veneer of civilization was thin, but I did not anticipate it would prove to be so brittle.<br />
<br />
So, anyway, stay tuned for the explosion of creative energy that will be my next project, tuned to these necessities, freed of certain constraints. . .<br />
<br />
And so sure, there are those who may smugly find themselves satisfied at sneering at my personal admission here, and point to it as a failure. "We knew the ship was lost all along" some might laugh, "there was never any point in even trying to save her." And sure, there may be some slant truth in such a statement, but in fact as we go down together some may discover that my time at work at the pumps and bilges in desperation has conditioned me to be a damn fine swimmer. . .<br />
<br />
So I'll chock it up as a personal win, thanks.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<br />
<br />jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-69876948244684910012012-03-31T15:02:00.001-07:002012-03-31T15:02:54.444-07:00J.Free Band Tonight!That's <a href="http://jfreeband.blogspot.com/2012/03/j-free-band-in-pahoa-march-31.html">us</a>, at PVC in Pahoa, starting 8:30 or so. It should be fun!jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-5102162154894483412012-01-25T20:27:00.000-08:002012-01-25T20:28:04.100-08:00Context:This very well delivered talk worth one's time.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=1208">Here:</a><br />
<br />
Now? More blather about sustainability?jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-36074787989512255492011-12-08T10:07:00.001-08:002011-12-17T19:07:43.200-08:00The Greatest Enemy of Progress:A bit of a revelation shared here this morning. After <a href="http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxWaiakea-Jay-Fitzgerald-Why">my TEDx presentation in Hilo</a> here a couple of months ago and a few follow up encounters I've had to admit that there were some very fundamental issues pertaining to climate change(and of course our debt issues, and resource depletion as well--it's all the same problem, after all), stuff that I'd really made the mistake of overlooking. . .I think most all of us made the mistake of overlooking. . .kinda on purpose a lot of times.<br />
<br />
Let me posit a new meme, a prime requisite for engendering progress. . .<br />
<br />
<i>The greatest enemy of progress in the modern world isn't ignorance, but rather cynicism.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
In speaking to a lot of people, one finds as the polls confirm, that the number of people who are in denial about the big issues of today are really pretty sparse, less than 1 in 5, and generally hold their views not because of any sort of thoughtful position but rather of selfish kneejerk ideology. They're unreachable, of course, but their rhetoric can resonate with a larger population--desperate to dismiss the evidence. Still, honestly, in speaking to people, this sort of stuff doesn't account for the main reason for their unwillingness to act.<br />
<br />
Here's why progress is stalled.<br />
<br />
1. People dismiss the <i>data </i>not because of the lack of persuasiveness of it. They don't get even as far as looking at it. They feel justified in dismissing the data even <i>before looking at it</i> because of the <i>lack of evidence</i> that "the evidence" seems to be persuasive <i>to the very people that claim to find it persuasive</i>. We are accustomed, hardened even, to a perpetual onslaught of sales pitches-- of people talking their book. To to be able to sniff out and reject claims on the basis of the apparent integrity of the one espousing them may be cynicism, pure and simple-- but in our culture it's also a very valuable survival skill. It's especially worth considering in this case, as there is a large moral component to all of our pressing issues, and there's an reasonable expectation that one who was in possession of such important truth would, well, "walk the walk." And there's very very very few examples of this, especially among "leading spokes-people," whatever that might mean. . . oh yeah, I guess I mean those people who have enough affluence and free-time to spend more than their share of time holding a microphone. Strike one!<br />
<br />
2. Now, of course-- <i>it doesn't help a damn bit </i>that very often those ( talking the talk, not walking the walk) very often get involved in all sort of commercial ventures somehow loosely attached ideologically to "the issues"-- and set out in an obvious attempt to maintain their current unsustainable lifestyles by peddling "sustainable living." Whether pimping alternative energy, green building, whiz-bang technology, setting out to be some kind of eco-fabulous talking head, selling homeopathic tinctures that offset CO2-- or whatever, <i>anything other than cutting consumption. . . </i>Well, you know, people don't really like hypocrites, especially hypocrites that are selling stuff. Now sure, there's a certain amount of commerce in all of this stuff as hypocrites have a vested interest in buying stuff from other hypocrites in an attempt to try to give their cute tricks some credibility, but the larger audience doesn't buy it-- they see right through it, or at least think they do. For them it's simply further evidence that the "issue" is a scam. Cynicism Strike two!<br />
<br />
3. Now here's the real kicker: The thoughtful individual who is mostly informed of the data, but full aware of 1 and 2 asks themselves. . .<i>Wow, I'd really like to try to make a difference, but to do so will require some hard work and meaningful sacrifice. But I can't do it alone, and if I make sacrifices while others do not I gain <u>nothing</u> and only </i><b>lose</b><i> in both the short AND the long run. </i>Sure! Straight up, clean game-theory here, and <u><b>they're absolutely right and rationally justified in holding such a position. This is, in fact, not an attitude held of ignorance at all, <i>but rather a well informed one.</i></b></u><br />
<br />
Strike three! No wonder we're not getting anywhere. Whoops, rather to say, <i>no wonder we're actually losing ground. </i>Those of us who would set ourselves up as "advocates' for a better world would do well to realize that we're not very convincing-- and the reason we're not very convincing isn't that A) our facts are weak, nor B) people are too stupid to understand our argument-- <i>it's that we ourselves come across lacking integrity and commitment personally and that we belie our own message by our actions and lifestyles.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
We will not make any progress until we realize at the core of all these issues is a willingness to sell out the future for short term gain. We will not make any progress until there is meaningful economic justice and equal opportunity, across nationality, sex, race, or class. We will not make any progress until there is meaningful economic equality. This inherent fairness is critical, as it's simply impossible to ask those to choose against themselves for the greater good while <i>others</i> in positions of privilege exploit the greater good. . .and in fact <i>profit</i> by the fact of lack of justice and the crises engendered by it.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
This is why it's patently obvious that guys like Al Gore and other eco-fabulous jackasses like that are the absolutely worst spokemen for "sustainability"-- and they'd do us all a great service if they dried up and went away. I mean, come on! Let me tell you some thing for certain-- if we actually get there, I promise you this: <i>A sustainable planet can't have any Al Gores on it!</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
So, those of us who would want to strive for a better world had best attend to our own affairs first, and once we've been successful enough to possess a solid enough display of integrity to defeat objections 1) and 2) by our own commitments to justice, <i>only then</i> are we in a position to take on objection 3). Otherwise, let me suggest, or "shout out" actually, <i>you're not helping a thing.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-3205028352349532802011-11-29T09:51:00.001-08:002011-11-29T10:00:09.228-08:00Rocket Stoves Revisited.Cooking for Thanksgiving last week gave me the urge to re-post some old stuff on rocket stoves, as it's been of interest for some time. And it should, as these are an ideal transition technology to utilize local biomass in a simple and practical manner. You'll start to view your strawberry guava as an asset rather than a pest-- grab yourself a good pair of loppers and harvest some fuel.<br />
<br />
Enjoy! Questions answered and plans available.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/rkSr4fTPrDk?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Here's the <a href="http://sanityandsimplicity.blogspot.com/2008/10/rocket-stove.html">link</a> to old articles on the same.jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-23709436868275822022011-11-27T14:22:00.001-08:002011-11-27T14:25:02.449-08:00Re-forestry Season:Record amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere this year-- what can one do?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/U586wttDb1A?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
UH has nice trees on occasion, selected for forestry. Give 'em a ring!jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-72454156909446939952011-10-25T11:20:00.000-07:002011-10-27T18:06:50.740-07:00My TEDx Presentation in HiloHope you enjoy!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/6RozTk8kSd8?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129333358952251907.post-55069422992116416682011-10-12T11:31:00.000-07:002011-10-12T11:32:55.136-07:00Occupy Wall Street Hilo: Oct 15Details <a href="http://malu-aina.org/?p=881">here:</a><br />
<br />
Our discussion <a href="http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/2011/10/02/wall-street-protest/page2/#post29">here:</a><br />
<br />
There is potential that this may be a pretty interesting moment in history. We'll see.<br />
<br />
<br />jaywfitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16595735135764976764noreply@blogger.com0