Memes
An article in the journal/magazine Adbusters was my first introduction to the word meme, not referring to a mini-survey for a webjournal, but referring to a unit or element of cultural ideas - the analogue to genes enabling their transmission from one host-person to another.
The concept reminded me of a dream I had sometime during Alberta Premier Don Getty's administration (1985-1992). I dreamed that I had discovered a sentence which, if inserted into a letter, would guarantee that whatever was written in the letter would become manifest in the world. I think of that dream often, imagining that there is an idea which, if simply heard, would transform the hearer to be a better ecological citizen.
I've tried to invent meme-like ideas to suit the different issues I work on. The carbon-turd, or chemical-turd, to describe vehicle emissions is the most recent.
During the last recession, when the demand for sustainable lifestyles programming was previously high, I was part of a team that offered a course Transforming Your Work and Life for Sustainability through the University of Alberta's Faculty of Extension. Part of my section included the meme-ish analysis of our modern culture, saying that it is built on two key directions: social adequacy and material wealth. Social adequacy directs us to engage in social relationships (family, community, country) only to the extent that we can keep those social enterprises functional, the remainder of our human resources should be invested in activities to maximize wealth both personally and at a macro-economic level.
"What if we switch the modifers?" I told the classes, in my early experiment in meme-transmission. "What would our lives look like if we pursued material adequacy and social wealth?" What if we acquired sufficient material assets to sustain life, and dedicated the lion's share of our human resources in maximizing the number and depth of relationships that we have with other people?
Last night I attended conan_o's presentation at the Pleasantview Community League on the construction of his net-zero energy home - a house designed to produce at least as much energy as it consumes in the course of a year. Conan poses environmental, moral, and economic arguments supporting his decision to build the Mill Creek Net Zero Energy Home. He argues that an NZH is the best investment a person can make because it will continuously provide its non-monetary value continuously for as long as it exists. Here, non-monetary value refers to electricity and heat.
Conventional thinking directs people to build/buy cheap homes so you can invest/earn money to buy electricity and heat in the market, which works for as long as your money has value. But if the economy is in recession, your investments are shrinking in value, and the cost of electricity and heat increases continuously, exactly how secure is this approach?
Conan's house will supply its own electricity and heat, true value, no matter what a loonie is worth. His permacultured yard - perennial, edible landscaping - will help feed Conan's family.
Among the things I complained about in my previous post, was "politicians who are utterly failing to advance the interests of the people". That's a pretty generic charge that could refer to anything from slow economic stimulus packages to failing to end the practice of fluoridating water. What I had in mind was economic stimulus packages that perpetuate the system of capital deployment through the hands of the wealthy into waste, inefficiency, and eventual collapse. Yesterday's federal budget offered me no hope that the Harper Government won't continue to support major industrial developments like oil sands and nuclear power plants.
"What about jobs?" people bleat. "Jobs. Jaaabs. Jaaabs."
What do you want a job for, I wonder? To pay your bills for electricity, heat, and food?
I wonder if capital were deployed differently, people could make their own electricity, heat, and food, and have to spend less time earning money at jobs.
I'm thinking about a sentence, a plaintive response to the hundreds of billions of dollars being handed out to the long list of our capitalist captains of industry who have been telling us for two hundred years to be good workers and now need to be bailed-out by the people they've been fleecing all that time:
"How many net zero energy homes could we get for that?"
The concept reminded me of a dream I had sometime during Alberta Premier Don Getty's administration (1985-1992). I dreamed that I had discovered a sentence which, if inserted into a letter, would guarantee that whatever was written in the letter would become manifest in the world. I think of that dream often, imagining that there is an idea which, if simply heard, would transform the hearer to be a better ecological citizen.
I've tried to invent meme-like ideas to suit the different issues I work on. The carbon-turd, or chemical-turd, to describe vehicle emissions is the most recent.
During the last recession, when the demand for sustainable lifestyles programming was previously high, I was part of a team that offered a course Transforming Your Work and Life for Sustainability through the University of Alberta's Faculty of Extension. Part of my section included the meme-ish analysis of our modern culture, saying that it is built on two key directions: social adequacy and material wealth. Social adequacy directs us to engage in social relationships (family, community, country) only to the extent that we can keep those social enterprises functional, the remainder of our human resources should be invested in activities to maximize wealth both personally and at a macro-economic level.
"What if we switch the modifers?" I told the classes, in my early experiment in meme-transmission. "What would our lives look like if we pursued material adequacy and social wealth?" What if we acquired sufficient material assets to sustain life, and dedicated the lion's share of our human resources in maximizing the number and depth of relationships that we have with other people?
Last night I attended conan_o's presentation at the Pleasantview Community League on the construction of his net-zero energy home - a house designed to produce at least as much energy as it consumes in the course of a year. Conan poses environmental, moral, and economic arguments supporting his decision to build the Mill Creek Net Zero Energy Home. He argues that an NZH is the best investment a person can make because it will continuously provide its non-monetary value continuously for as long as it exists. Here, non-monetary value refers to electricity and heat.
Conventional thinking directs people to build/buy cheap homes so you can invest/earn money to buy electricity and heat in the market, which works for as long as your money has value. But if the economy is in recession, your investments are shrinking in value, and the cost of electricity and heat increases continuously, exactly how secure is this approach?
Conan's house will supply its own electricity and heat, true value, no matter what a loonie is worth. His permacultured yard - perennial, edible landscaping - will help feed Conan's family.
Among the things I complained about in my previous post, was "politicians who are utterly failing to advance the interests of the people". That's a pretty generic charge that could refer to anything from slow economic stimulus packages to failing to end the practice of fluoridating water. What I had in mind was economic stimulus packages that perpetuate the system of capital deployment through the hands of the wealthy into waste, inefficiency, and eventual collapse. Yesterday's federal budget offered me no hope that the Harper Government won't continue to support major industrial developments like oil sands and nuclear power plants.
"What about jobs?" people bleat. "Jobs. Jaaabs. Jaaabs."
What do you want a job for, I wonder? To pay your bills for electricity, heat, and food?
I wonder if capital were deployed differently, people could make their own electricity, heat, and food, and have to spend less time earning money at jobs.
I'm thinking about a sentence, a plaintive response to the hundreds of billions of dollars being handed out to the long list of our capitalist captains of industry who have been telling us for two hundred years to be good workers and now need to be bailed-out by the people they've been fleecing all that time:
"How many net zero energy homes could we get for that?"