Comments on: Smart Decline

By: jeremylukehill

jeremylukehill — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:23:10 +0000

Curtis,

My exact words are, “There would likely be a massive loss of manufacturing jobs and an equally massive increase in manual labour jobs.”

By: Curtis Healy

Curtis Healy — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:58:12 +0000

You mention the re-advent of the small business, but otherwise your description of employment circumstance is all in the negative- with the small business exception there’s only mention of job loss.

By: jeremylukehill

jeremylukehill — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:53:37 +0000

Isaiah,

Though it may be some time before the kinds of violent shifts I am describing take place, I would suggest that scarce resources and increasing national debts have already created new, though certainly not permanent, geopolitical situations. Furthermore, I have no faith whatsoever that any technology, so long as it is being utilized by human beings, will ever result in less harm than good.

Curtis,

Yes, I mentioned in my post that there would likely be an increase in manual labour jobs corresponding to the decrease in manufacturing jobs, and yes, I think that our ability to survive in this new economic situation will require us to relearn the very practical skills that were an integral part of everyday living even within the past century, but are totally foreign to most of us now.

Dave,

I will confess that I hate the word ‘investment’, for reasons that we may have to discuss at length sometime, and I am not certain that this third way is even necessary here. As I said in the post, there may be compelling social and ethical reasons to do with rather than without, and it may be that the reasons you list are compelling for you, but I would still maintain that the default should be to live without, and that the choice to live with something should only be made if the reasons for doing so are compelling.

By: David Humphrey

David Humphrey — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:45:44 +0000

I think there’s a third way between decline and accelerated growth, namely, investment. Let me give you an example to lay beside the dishwasher you’ve mentioned. When we built our home, we made a couple of significant investments (not least in the home itself). One of them was to purchase a Miele dishwasher. This was a very significant purchase, and I won’t mention how much we spent, because its scandalous even to think about. But we felt comfortable in this decision because it represented an investment for our family. First, it was an investment of resources in something that would last. We have owned a so-called “Energy Efficient” dishwasher, and it was, as you note above, dead in a matter of years. It was made entirely of plastics and cheap electronics, and couldn’t be fixed. Not by anyone. Second, we saw this purchase as an investment in the life of or our kitchen, which is the centre of our home. We decided to not do other things in order to do this, and we did this in order to maximize the time we could spend cooking and eating together. I understand the appeal of washing dishes together, and we still do that (not everything goes in a dishwasher). But for us, the move to increase time for things other than dish washing was important. Third, we invested in our home. That is, we made a purchase that will last 20 or 30 years easily. We believe in home, in our home, and wanted to make an investment in it and in its permanence.

I think that choosing to invest is another way to escape the cycle of the throw-away economy. It may not be the greenest, or most idealistic, but neither of those inform my decisions as much as the concerns of my family and home.

By: Curtis Healy

Curtis Healy — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:24:16 +0000

Isaiah, you should look for a book entitled, ‘Paradise Forged in Hell’. It is all about the hopeful and successful communities that arrise out of imperial and geopolitical Collapes. Also look for ‘How The Irish Saved Civilisation’, for similar reading on the same topic.

Luke, I enjoyed this very much, on the stance for the benefits of a low energy dishwasher, I felt like I was watching one of ‘those how to’, or ‘did you know/ be aware’ infomercials from the sixties and seventies. However I don’t think that the upheaval will happen in much the same degree was you suggest. If all industries break into decline at the same time, the need for manual labour will actually flourish. Even if they break down systematically the absence of needed employement would be brief. I think the only bearier to be faced would be adequate hortecultural and practical ‘old wives’ advice on how to actually do the activities. And this is not bad either, we would have to become once more, explorers scientists and druids.

By: Isaiah

Isaiah — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:46:03 +0000

Interesting. Although I disagree that the crisis of scarce resources and abundant debt will produce a new, permanent geopolitical situation. It seems to me that the technologies exist that will eventually be able to reverse the situation that will be caused. My question is how can we use these upcoming destructive situations, which I think are inevitable, to produce good and to find new, more vibrant, less alienating and more convivial forms of life?