Bigger on the outside

May 23, 2017 5:59 PM

A gentle polemic from Grist against green consumerism, off-gridding, and individualism with respect to ecology.
posted by clew (9 comments total)

I find it ironic that the post about the article that discusses the need for people to reach out and not isolate themselves has no comments, so I'll break the ice...

I can see the appeal of both sides; I want a yard sometimes, and I want to sometimes not see people when I go home because I'm spent. But at the same time, I left a small town because sometimes small and insular communities tend to breed a homogeny of thought, and if you don't really fit in...you never feel you're part of that community.

Basically, I realized what I want is a small cottage on a plot of land in the middle of Red Hook, Brookyln. I'd have the space to have a little garden and grow things, but I'd also have Fairway down the street and access to a bus that could take me to MoMA or something.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:23 PM on May 23, 2017 [9 favorites]

Oooh, I have a lot of thoughts (in general agreement) but it's 2 a.m. and I'm on my phone. For now I'll say I'm a long time tiny home aficionado who doesn't really intend to ever live in one, but I learn a lot from seeing what people do. And there's a real value to people making individual decisions when they ramify back into the community -- make low-impact appliances available commercially, make more environmentally friendly zoning laws, make people think twice about buying too much -- and I laud that. And a lot of tiny housers do it so they can live a more human centered life where they spend less time focused on stuff and home maintenance. But yeah, the "off the grid, fuck the world" types are not really helping anyone. The difference I guess is people who live tiny to live more authentically human lives and who serve in the vanguard of social change, and people who live tiny to get the fuck away from the rest of us.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:06 AM on May 24, 2017

If every family in the world had its own little plot of land, enough to be self-sufficient for food, there'd be no wilderness left at all. We nearly cover the planet already, we shouldn't sprawl all over what's left.

I'm an introvert who daydreams of living a rural life, so I understand the impulse to leave behind all the pollution and pressure. But it's not really a solution to our global environmental problems. I know some greenies who are kidding themselves that their personal tastes are an ethical stance.

I also know a bunch of greenies who are working on compact (not tiny, but well under the average size for Australia) homes in the suburbs. They do the work of negotiating the local building, health and safety regulations that were written decades ago to bring them up to date with our environmental needs and newly available technology, so new buildings will meet modern eco standards even if the owners don't realise or care. They're more inspired by No Impact Man from New York and Alex Steffan from San Francisco than Grizzly Adams. Lately some have become landlords so they can increase the number of people living in sustainable housing who can't afford to build their own home.

And yet they get criticised by other environmentalists for being tools of capitalism or whatever. But we can't afford to wait for the communist revolution to reduce our impact on the planet - the permafrost is melting now. I dunno, I just think they've had a larger positive effect than people who've run away to the peace and quiet.
posted by harriet vane at 4:43 AM on May 24, 2017 [7 favorites]

I commend the author for bringing up this conversation. I disagree with many of her arguments.

First off, this kind of thinking is what turns people off to participation in communities in the first place:

But the real culprit is “the idea that you are the most important person on the planet, your happiness is most important.” The consequences of how you achieve that happiness, the injustices that those consequences might bring to others, become secondary.

Why create a dichotomy between selfish people who only care about their own happiness and unselfish people who are sacrificing for the greater good? A person's happiness should be their primary concern; pretending otherwise invites them to participate in an unhealthy co-dependence on everybody else. A better argument is that participating in communities will help an individual feel more happy... eventually. It just takes a bit of discomfort up front.

The problem of lifestyle products is a better argument. I am happy to see articles like this that point out the difference between actual community participation and the idea of community participation sold by lifestyle products. It's easy to buy into a lifestyle and live with the tenuous illusion of participation and the tenuous happiness that comes from it, but that happiness is always shaky and thus not very satisfying. Real participation leads to a more solid happiness.
posted by a_curious_koala at 5:01 AM on May 24, 2017 [2 favorites]

It's interesting that they don't approach this from the view of efficacy at all. One of the things my fellow Mefites have taught me over the years is that no one will save the world through lifestyle choices. You can live a 100% waste free life, but without changes to governmental policy, we won't stop the ice caps from melting.

I do appreciate this essay, but the last bit is unnecessary. It uses an anecdote to make it sound like "sure, it's hard work, but you can get along with your Trump-loving neighbors!" That is not a choice you can personally make if removing you and your family from their community is the basis of their political beliefs.
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:10 AM on May 24, 2017 [3 favorites]

EmpressCallipygos, I would like to hang out at your house.

Maybe do a little gardening, even.
posted by rokusan at 6:17 AM on May 24, 2017

without changes to governmental policy

Which is why I thought the lack of focus on political action was odd. The focus is primarily on "community" in a vague sense - and not what I expected, which was community organizing.

There is also the issue, large and unspoken: For some people, membership in these communities is not an option at all. For others, there is an option, but only if you hide who you are. In some cases, the answer might be to find a more welcoming community, but that's not possible for everyone.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:16 AM on May 24, 2017 [4 favorites]

On the one hand, yay for engaging with a community. On the other hand, if it really means you need to move to Boise to do it, and we just can't ecologically afford any significant individualism or even slightly, notionally, partially off-grid living, then we're pretty much doomed and may as well wait for this global civilization to burn itself down and try to save the next one instead.
posted by sfenders at 9:56 AM on May 24, 2017

I would like to hang out at your house. Maybe do a little gardening, even.

Heh; "garden" may be a little ambitious. Mainly it would be a couple herb plants and a few vegetables, maybe a raspberry bush or a peach tree or something, and then the rest of it would be just lawn, with a fence hiding me from the street so if I feel like sitting outside I can do that there without having to put on pants.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:06 PM on May 24, 2017