Local vs Global – Becoming Resilient
For most of human history, the majority of people worked and lived within 10 kilometers of where they were born. International trade and travel now allows us to obtain goods from overseas and easily move to other countries, but at the same time, we are now dependent on oil to transport our food to us and allow us to get to our jobs. We no longer produce local food or energy or work near our homes.
Whilst cheap imports now underpin our way of life and standard of living, loss of local employment weakens our society. Parents have to work away from their children for much of the day, leaving little time for families. A lot of what we earn needs to be spent to maintain even a basic standard of living.
Globalism offers benefits, but how can we manage the drawbacks in our individual lives – economic insecurity, vulnerability to cuts in energy, food and water and demands on our time and family life?
The first step in my mind is to think at a micro level – considering the individual or family unit rather than the economy as a whole. We tend to identify with the nation state rather than seeing ourselves firstly as individuals.
As individuals, we can’t change the way the economy work, or singlehandedly change the system. Rather than then defining ourselves as victims of the system, we can change our response to it. We can’t do this by doing the same things as before. A valid response requires some changes in mindset and lifestyle.
At present, the system is setup so that almost everything is provided at a distance. Our energy comes off the distant grid. The computer we buy is made in China. The lettuce we eat is tended by wetbacks thousands of kilometers away. We commute 30 kilometers to our job, which takes an hour each way in peak hour traffic and decisions that affect whether we get our next pay cheque are made at the head office in another country. Interaction with our neighbours is minimal and we have little in common with them except living in a suburb of people with similar socioeconomic profiles. When we earn money, tax is removed at source and managed by a distant government. Much of the remainder is spent on basics that are provided through the grid.
Clearly, this gives us little control of our lives. We are forced to be consumers rather than producers. In the area that we are producers, it is largely under the control of others – they tell us when and where to work. At the moment where it is economically expedient, we are tossed on the scrap heap and then have to try to survive without an income. Families work just to pay someone else for childcare. Much of what we earn has to be paid in taxes, or spent simply to survive. If there is a surplus, it is used to “keep up with the Joneses”.
In my view, localising ourselves is the first step in moving beyond basic survival, taking control of our own lives, and not paying the price that the system exacts on us.
The first step is to increase our resilience. This can be down in urban areas, but it is easier with more land. Resilience means no longer being dependent on global, or remote supply. This doesn’t mean trying to fuse sand into silicon and make your own micro-chips. We still need international trade, and can continue to benefit from it, but we can transform our lives by producing most of our own energy, harvesting our own water, managing sewage and rubbish and producing most of our food.
Technology now gives us the ability to disconnect from the grid. We can build houses that are superinsulated but use heat exchangers to ensure that we have fresh air inside. Photovoltaic panels allow us to produce electricity, and even sell the surplus into the grid. As you can imagine, governments on the whole are less than enthusiastic about this. We can readily grow much of our food using a small amount of land. Reverse osmosis systems allow us to treat waste water which can be used for gardening.
The next step after securing the basics of life is to look after our livelihood. The key to more control over work life is being able to be paid for producing goods or services from home, away from the control of the corporation. This also eliminates the commute time. It ensures that the employment relationship is strictly an exchange of work for money. No more “team meetings”, picnics, corporate briefings or politics.
Another option is home based employment. This is what was previously called a “cottage industry”. This may involve new technology such as personal CNC machines to produce custom goods. The best furniture that I have seen has been produced at workshops adjacent to the worker’s home. Not only does this eliminate dependence on remote economic decisions, it also restores the feeling of meaningfulness in work.
I see that people with common interests and outlooks will tend to cluster and form communities. The difference will be that a community will be more than a subdivision within a certain price range. The real community will trade locally produced energy, food and goods.
Once food, shelter, water and power is provided, and commuting is virtually eliminated, less money is required to live well. This means that more leisure time is available, which can be spent with family or for self development. This also reduces the percentage of our income that goes in tax.
In conclusion, we still need international trade. However technology now allows much of our livelihood and what is currently provided through the grid can be produced locally instead of being purchased remotely. We can transform ourselves from consumers into producers and reduce the power of the system over us. Instead of economic insecurity that comes from corporate serfdom, we can have our necessities produced by ourselves. We can gain time for our families and for ourselves by stepping out of the rat race and looking at the problem differently.
Tags: Sustainable community

May 9th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
It sounds like you’re creating problems yourself by trying to solve this issue instead of looking at why their is a problem in the first place
May 13th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
I’m not sure that I understand this comment, or why taking back control would be creating a problem.