I link to Urban Workbench, a website that promotes sustainable living, because I like the idea. It fits into my developing philosophy of husbandry, a term so easily rejected and laughed at today because it is the antithesis of our developing culture of squander and abandon. I also like the idealistic young men and women who are committed to developing a sustainable society. Sure, they may seem a bit strange to outsiders, but there isn’t really that much difference between the engineer or developer and the man who coaxes nourishment from the land. The personality and goal are ultimately constructive, and the fruits of their labor are delicious, enjoyable and fundamentally beneficial to mankind. It is a labor of love — one that is too often overlooked by those who enjoy its benefits in their insulated world of consumption and status-mongering.
Many of us are certainly familiar with the ideological excesses of certain environmentalists, who are often painted as extremists with an anti-human agenda. Except for the radical animal rights activists, it is mostly a bum rap. However, they do not help their cause with shotgun-style blasts at men in general, and they are in fact leaving out a big part of the story. This article, for example, lashes out at white men as the villains who are destroying the environment and humanity. Is this really the case?
In a way, it is, but not for the reasons one might think. A white man can only smoke so many cigars, and can only buy so many cars and suits before his interest wanes. The appetites of a wife, however, are diverse and inexhaustible. So, too, are the appetites of a whore, as Novaseeker notes in a recent post. The near-demise of many species of whales was brought about by the inexhaustible hunger of women for fashionable products, including hoop skirts, perfume and clean lighting. How many whales did it take for a 19th century woman of fashion to lead her brightly illuminated, scented and extravagantly dressed lifestyle? How many pelts of furry, aquatic mammals, did it take to sate her appetite for luxuriant coats and hats? Of course, it was men who carried out the bloody deeds, harpooning the whales, trapping mink and otters and clubbing seals, but where did the money they earned go? Why, straight back to the “ladies” who bought these products, of course.
When I got to a certain age, my grandfather, who had worked in the gold and silver mines of the Sierras, told me a few interesting stories about his youth. He recalled payday, and said that there was a long line of miners waiting to cash their checks at the bank in Virginia City. On the other side of the street, there was a long line of whores waiting to spend the miners’ money. So if you look at what was really going on, you had desperate men risking their lives underground and poisoning the environment and themselves with toxic chemicals to bring forth shiny metals that adorned the necks and wrists of women.
It would be disingenuous to blame this entirely on women, but no more so than blaming white men for overconsumption. Feminists, on the other hand, are perfectly happy to excuse the excesses of their sisters while trashing the men who provide them with the environmentally destructive products that they so ravenously consume. And the tragic thing we see today is that we have dedicated environmental activists, most of whom are white boys, stocking the shelves of Whole Foods for yet another consumption bonanza, which may seem at first glance to be environmentally beneficial, but when the entire lifestyle of the typical Whole Foods consumer is taken into account it is pretty clear that there is no net benefit to handing the finest fruits of produce over to only those who live in large houses and frequently take intercontinental vacations to indulge their fantasies of opulence.
So, in the usual manner, the environmentally conscious guys are acting as enablers to yet another cohort of consumers who are swallowing the fine fruits of their labor out of vanity and hedonism rather than any true desire to live a sustainable lifestyle. I think both sides to this debate need to keep this in mind, and although I have no problem with the production and consumption of goods that have been produced with husbandry and stewardship in mind, it would be wise for men to recognize that we are all working for essentially the same purpose, which is far from conducive to sustainability.
11 responses so far ↓
1 whiskey // Jun 29, 2009 at 8:52 pm
MOST environmentalists today have veered away from preservation of open space and wilderness, and bio-diversity and species preservation (aka the “Croc Hunter”) and now embrace anti-human Green Hair Shirtism. Life After People, etc. is their wet dream.
Pretty much most environmentalists would pray for a plague to wipe out Western civilization, and leave untouched the non-Whites, and of course, hipsters. The latter being morally enlightened or such. [You'll notice the "Life After People" stuff never covers, say, Beijing or Singapore or Lagos or Africa.]
2 miles // Jun 30, 2009 at 12:56 am
Welmer,
I would not be suprised if hobby gardening doesn’t become a fad if the recession lasts and deepens. If you think about it, a freezer and an apple tree, a pair tree, and some potatoes, and perhaps some peanut bushes in the back yard could provide a lot of free nourishment for a family. It only costs a few seeds, which are practically nil (despite Monsantos efforts).
Welmer,
I too have tried to bring up “conservative” sustainability issues in various forums like home windmills, home solar dishes (the kind with several mirrors in a TV-satellite dish about 8 foot in diameter focused on a magnifying glass IN FRONT of a little water turbine…….so that the light is magnified to a greater strength than the square footage of the disk), but they dont seem to generate much interest.
I think a person would need two pretty large buried lithium batteries (one charging, one in usage) to make such a “system” really go where they would requre much less power (if any) from the grid and could even be “energy positive”. The old solar panels just dont make that much juice, but the solar disks with the mirrors supposedly make a good deal more. With one wind tubine in the back yard, a person would usually be making some electricity most of the time (its either windy or sunny in my part of the world most of the time) to be put in the battery that isn’t in use, while you pull of the full one.
Thats my private little idea. We have a lot of backyards in America that could be much more usefully used than just sitting there. We have a lot of roof space that could be usefully used also.
I bet we’d all be shocked at how many youth dont know where fruit and veggies -really-come from these days. They’ve eaten out of boxes so long, they probably have no idea.
3 Justin // Jun 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Welmer, have you heard about the Christian agrarian movement (of which I consider myself a member). See for example http://thedeliberateagrarian.blogspot.com/2008/01/deliberate-agrarian-archives-christian.html
I have on more than one occasion corrected someone in some sustainability forum for spouting off with some anti-white or anti-male b.s. I have found they are also more prone to be brainwashed into the “don’t have babies” propaganda. Its quite sad really.
4 Daniel L. Taylor // Jul 1, 2009 at 5:45 am
Sorry, I’m at odds with most of the environmental movement and their romantic but silly notions of “sustainable living”. When you apply logic and cold hard analysis to the movement you cannot escape the conclusion that their ill informed ideas have caused more damage to the Earth than would have occurred without them. And that the world they envision would devastate the environment.
Take just two examples: nuclear power and organic farming. Properly managed, nuclear power has a smaller footprint on the environment for the energy produced than any other source of energy, period. It’s not even a contest when you look up the numbers. Even hydroelectric has a larger footprint. The greens have put up a very effective, though ignorant and irrational, resistance to nuclear power. They hope in vain that the world will embrace solar and wind even though those power sources would have a much larger impact on the environment than nuclear if deployed in sufficient numbers to power our world. What happens instead? With nuclear politically blocked and solar/wind costing an arm and a leg, people naturally choose the cheapest power sources available. Which means we’re stuck using coal and natural gas, limited resources with the largest footprints of all.
As for organic, to feed the world with organic food we would have to literally raze our forests and lock up all of our fresh water in man made dams. The reason our ancestors abandoned “organic” farming for modern farming methods was so that they could meet the growing need of the population without massive over consumption of land and water resources. Worse, environmentalists oppose genetic engineering which could allow us to mitigate the worst aspects of modern farming by creating plants naturally resistant to pests, droughts, etc. “Frankenfood” may invoke strong emotions, but it ignores the fact that man has been genetically engineering crops since he started farming thousands of years ago. We can just be a little more direct and effective now.
No offense to previous posters, but I think that romantic notions of sustaining one’s self off a garden and solar power system is particularly short sighted and foolish. Really try to imagine everyone doing this. Imagine the land needed for the panels, the heavy metals needed for the batteries, the water use and land mismanagement when people who have no clue about farming try to feed themselves, all compounded by inefficiencies of scale. Do you really think this would be better for the Earth? It’s great for a hand full of people who like that lifestyle, but it’s not a serious option for a sustainable society. Not unless you plan on killing off 75% of the U.S. population and returning to 35 year lifespans.
Having said all of that, I never really thought about the degree to which women drive consumption before. My compliments on the post for this reason.
5 miles // Jul 1, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Daniel Taylor,
My proposals would cost NO land whatsoever. Its for “the back yards” and “rooftops” that we all have just sitting there.
What is going on in your own backyard? A few flowers? Swingset? Is there anything on your roof?
These things would cost nothing. By the way…..Im all for Nuclear, I just know they hippies will fight it tooth-n’-nail in court, so it will take a while.
6 Welmer // Jul 1, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Daniel, I agree that scientific farming and nuclear power have had great benefits, but have you ever tasted how much better food is when you grow it in your own backyard?
I think the French offer a good example of quality farming combined with nuke power (80% of France’s electricity is nuclear) — they are exporters of both food AND energy.
I do, however, think we need to keep sustainability in mind always. Also, a little bit of survivalist know-how can’t hurt, especially when we face the prospect of a prolonged economic and cultural decline.
As for me, I love eating food I grow. Much cheaper and tastier than Safeway. The kids love it too — perhaps too much: they’ve already laid waste to one of my blueberry bushes.
7 Daniel L. Taylor // Jul 1, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“My proposals would cost NO land whatsoever. Its for “the back yards” and “rooftops” that we all have just sitting there.”
You can’t feed yourself off your backyard or power yourself off your roof. Not even close. For people to become self sufficient the population would have to return to living on farms. To become self sufficient electrically would require even more land. We don’t have enough land for 300 million people to do that.
Backyard gardens for a few fresh items are fine, but don’t think for a minute that if everyone had one it would be some great advance for environmentalism. More likely water and soil mismanagement on a mass scale would render it a disaster. We don’t see that now because the only people gardening are people actually interested in the topic.
“By the way…..Im all for Nuclear, I just know they hippies will fight it tooth-n’-nail in court, so it will take a while.”
Good to hear you’re for nuclear. Now if only more people would get on board…
8 Daniel L. Taylor // Jul 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm
“Daniel, I agree that scientific farming and nuclear power have had great benefits, but have you ever tasted how much better food is when you grow it in your own backyard?”
It’s not always automatically better, and I don’t understand why people act as if it is. I’ve tasted good and bad food from both gardens and the local store. I’ve noticed a much larger correlation with time of year which makes me wonder if gardens perhaps have a better reputation because they simply aren’t used off season.
“I think the French offer a good example of quality farming combined with nuke power (80% of France’s electricity is nuclear) — they are exporters of both food AND energy.”
It never ceases to amaze me that U.S. environmentalists have managed to block nuclear while France has become a shining example of nuclear power. We invented nuclear power for crying out loud. We should be at 90%+ nuclear for electricity. The coal and natural gas we’re using for electricity right now could then be used for auto fuels until something better is developed than the fossil fuel powered ICE. Instead we use our fossil fuels for electricity and depend on expensive and unreliable foreign oil for transportation. What a waste.
It probably has something to do with the cold war. Generations have associated the word “nuclear” with the word “holocaust.”
“I do, however, think we need to keep sustainability in mind always. Also, a little bit of survivalist know-how can’t hurt, especially when we face the prospect of a prolonged economic and cultural decline.”
I agree with both points. I guess my point is that most of what passes for “sustainable living” from the environmental movement is in fact not.
“As for me, I love eating food I grow. Much cheaper and tastier than Safeway. The kids love it too — perhaps too much: they’ve already laid waste to one of my blueberry bushes.”
There’s nothing wrong with having a backyard garden. I only lashed out at that because of the number of times I’ve heard someone say “if we all just did this…”. A backyard garden is neither here nor there when it comes to sustainability. It’s not a terrible burden on the Earth, but not a great benefit either. My guess is that if everyone did it, it would quickly become a burden.
9 sestamibi // Jul 1, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Whiskey–
Right as usual. I was way ahead of the curve on this years ago when we discussed environmentalism as a religion in the energy and environmental policy college class I taught . . . back in 1976!
If you want a roadmap to where this is all leading, read D. Keith Mano’s 1973 novel “The Bridge”.
10 sestamibi // Jul 1, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Daniel/Miles–
Although my backyard configuration (and proliferation of local small critters) preclude a garden, it was always something I enjoyed when I lived in the northeast and midwest–but for the activity and not for the output.
Differences in quality with store bought produce were imperceptible for most of the vegetables I grew. I once grew peas–what a waste of space! Very little yield, a pain in the butt to shell, and I couldn’t tell the difference between them and Bird’s Eye.
Tomatoes were another story, however, as was okra with its beautifully delicate pale yellow flowers. I also grew parsley, which seemed to repel insects, and basil for pesto. Stick with the herbs–a lot more bang for the buck.
11 miles // Jul 1, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“You can’t feed yourself off your backyard or power yourself off your roof”
I never suggested that one could feed themselves from their backyard. I suggested an apple tree, a pear tree, a few peanut bushes could provide some free food and not really be much of a burden. Two are trees.
“Power yourself off your roof”……………..Solar disks can provide a great deal of energy, combined with a wind turbine, I think you’d be shocked at how much electricity you’d make. There are “off-grid” houses that do indeed make all of their own electricity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h9FLvj2ZJM&feature=related
I have plenty of room for 3 or 4 of those in my backyard, and would happily allow the government to put one back there if they halved with me the electricity made from it.
Im willing to chip in and do my part.
Like you DT, Im all for nuclear and I bring up the French in Energy arguments with leftys all the time and enjoy watching their faces go slack when I do so. They have no answer for it. Their “heroes”, the french do it. The reason they are against it? They hate America and Wesetern Civilization with such a blinding passion that they can’t concieve of anything that would actually be good for this place as a positive.
Leave a Comment