Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Politics of "Off-grid Living" and "Back to the Land"
#1
[Image: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/wp-conte...apsule.jpg]

[Image: http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/wp-co...vement.jpg]

How do you all view attempts to "leave the system", find land, and become completely sufficient on a given piece of land? Any disruptive potential here?
Reply
#2
I think there is a lot to be said about learning through limitation. For instance not having access to permanent land or the knowledge and stories which inform our approach to subsistence.

And I reckon that dropping out of the grind is very important. Getting out of the relation which are destroying us is good praxis as far as I can tell.

But I'm skeptical towards self-sufficiency. Don't mean to be pedantic, but I rather have interdependence. Which is to say that the question of dropping out seems to me one of activity and not of place. And that it is perhaps a broader question than mere survival/getting by. Or perhaps how does dropping out become an attack?

From a personal perspective I'd say that overcoming said limitations is the difficult part. I have had to learn, both materially and psychologically, how to adopt a very flexible way of doing. Or very pragmatic. There is no principle to fit all solutions. Like, food forests are great, no-till is super, but what you do if you have to migrate between land? What more short-term strategies exist? How can short-term strategies become long-term? And beyond mere access to land, what are my limitations in this sort of framework? What are the difficulties I'm facing, and how do I rectify this?
Reply
#3
(Thu, 04 Jan 2018 08:41:17 +0000, 08:41 AM)Ola Boms Wrote: Getting out of the relation which are destroying us is good praxis as far as I can tell.

I agree but also wonder how much we can leave the system. What about things like healthcare, clothing, machinery, etc?

Quote:But I'm skeptical towards self-sufficiency. Don't mean to be pedantic, but I rather have interdependence.

No reason to avoid being just as skeptical of collectivism.

Quote:how does dropping out become an attack?

Through withdrawal of labor and value.

Quote:There is no principle to fit all solutions. Like, food forests are great, no-till is super, but what you do if you have to migrate between land? What more short-term strategies exist? How can short-term strategies become long-term? And beyond mere access to land, what are my limitations in this sort of framework? What are the difficulties I'm facing, and how do I rectify this?


Do you favor nomadism?

Cheers
Reply
#4
Well, we can't really leave this world can we? As Mumford pointed out the frontiers are gone, with the social repercussions that entails. And I think it was Adorno who said something to the effect of: There is no true life in a false world. And as to your points of basic needs, then that is what I mean about interdependence. Perhaps I'm thinking of something of a modified drop-out culture/counter-culture. Which is not the same as collectivism, but perhaps rather that there is a cultural element in it all (as in stories, skills, relations etc).

I think that to a certain extent withdrawal is an attack. But I think that this also needs to go beyond something human-centered.

So the interdependence is also more of a state of being with the world at large (becoming perhaps?), which is more my contention with the story of self-sufficiency.

Where it is possible I think nomadism is a good idea. But there is also a question of how that plays out in a post-wild world? I think this whole conversation is perhaps, at least for my part, influenced by that understanding. So an attack for instance is not only dropping out, but also challenging the landscape which the dominating culture has created. I guess re-wilding of landscapes, bio-remediation and all such (as direct action) can play into that. Which again plays back to questions regarding subsistence which goes beyond a "plot of my own". You get what I'm driving at?

I reckon that there is a broad spectrum of tactics, possibilities and activities which we can engage in in this particular framework. And I'm interested in how we can move the conversation beyond the tried and tested.

And also there is the element of mental health and staying sane in this fucked up shit.

What are your thoughts on these issues?
Reply
#5
(Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:07:46 +0000, 11:07 AM)Ola Boms Wrote: What are your thoughts on these issues?

I suppose our species could eventualy attempt life on Venus or Mars. I still think building communities in hollowed out asteroids in Earth's Lagrangian points is a stellar idea. There are other ideas like floating communities in international waters. There is still a suprising amount of wilderness on Earth. And I understand this sounds mostly fictional, but it's possible...even if not very plausible. Paraphrasing William Gibson: terraforming Mars seems pointless when we could just stay here and terraform Earth.

The philosophy of certain permaculturists which asserts that the ecological footprints of a given species need not have a negative impact on the earth seems important. Often overlooked notion, and also tried and field tested. I think human beings could arrange their daily habits, their life activity, in such a way that would be wholly beneficial to the biosphere at large.

I like the idea of nomadism, too. But I'm also favorable towards sedantism and the idea of arcologies.

I agree the "plot of my own" stuff can get really boring, and at it's most toxic, nationalistic or fascistic.

Has anyone read the book "Green Mars"? There is a revolution that happens within the story that we should summarize and discuss here. Amazing to me more than three-quarters of the worlds food comes from just twelve species...seems civilization might risk collapse without wheat and corn...

But to conclude for now my central idea is to do whatever necessary and just pull off-grid with as many friends and family as possible. A sort of mass permanent back-to-the-land "strike".
Reply
#6
I think that leaving the system is in some ways not very serious, if you want to change the system. That said, if I somehow obtained an eco-village in the forest, with suitable permaculture, I would leave for there in a heartbeat. But I don't think that living "off the grid" is a binary thing. There's a difference between leading by example, and a complete withdrawal. As such, I would agree with Ola Boms. I also think that nomadism would be wonderful, but I simply see no way of effecting it.

In general I think there is much to be gained from losing some baggage. Perlman wrote: «Men who were much but had little now have much but are little.» If we are to become much again, it seems we need to have less.
Reply
#7
Yeah, realizing now that dynamic avoidance of the State doesn't end it. Can't keep on running away from our problems.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)