Principle #2

[Rosalux]

2.To achieve the highest standard of living possible given the resources available whilst respecting the eco-system which supports us.

What do people think *is* the highest standard of living possible, in a just, egalitarian, and sustainable human society? I'm seeing a very wide range of technology at the cookout in S&V.

[Walter and Theodor]

Rosalux,

I think standards could actually be extremely high in terms of material wealth with significant gains for global ecology. The amount of money and labour and energy wasted on completely unecessary tasks under capitalism seems incalculable. I am sort of picking up on Bookchin here and perhaps that more sane and rational parts of Bucky Fuller - I think our sense of scarcity is more enforced than it is real in any transcendent too many people too small a planet way! Further, if you eliminate disposable consumption - planned obsolecence - and then consider how significantly we would reduce environmental degredation by doing that - well things start to look pretty lavish.

Point being I have no resistance to RP'ing the Theocracy as a horrid little den of materialist commodity fetishists as long as it doesn't get in the way of the people's cooperativism. Perhaps there will be some conflicts along those lines in the future.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

Rosalux said:

What do people think *is* the highest standard of living possible, in a just, egalitarian, and sustainable human society? I'm seeing a very wide range of technology at the cookout in S&V.

And the Vanzettians are kinda hoping they clean up any pollution afterwards...

I don't believe we should return to eking out a living from the moss we scratch from rocks, but I do think that the Western expectation of living standards is far in excess of sustainable.

Frankly, immersed in a culture which is dependant on consumerism it is difficult to assess what would be achieveable if all the wasted resources W&T mention were put to productive use.

As for S&V, we tend to have rather modest individual expectations, where it is standard for most people to work six days a week (three mental, three menial) while collectively aspiring to the deployment of major technologies such as harnessing wave and tide power with the assistance of allies.

[vequalsv0plusat]

Rosalux said:

2.To achieve the highest standard of living possible given the resources available whilst respecting the eco-system which supports us.

What do people think *is* the highest standard of living possible, in a just, egalitarian, and sustainable human society? I'm seeing a very wide range of technology at the cookout in S&V.

Well, the world GDP in 2002 was $32.2 trillion; if one divides this by the number of people on this planet, one gets $5367 per person. Given currency exchange rates, the pooling of resources that would occur in such a society, and possible scientific advances (among other things), this would definitely be enough to allow everyone in the world to live in reasonable comfort for a year.

[Rosalux]

But what do you mean by comfort? Just enough calories & nutrients to live on, a wide variety and plenty of excess of bioregional products, or fresh fruit in midwinter? Should people be able to live alone in their own apartment? Should they have to live in a communal building but get their own room? Should the electricity be on 24/7? How far should you walk in a day, and how much should you expect to carry for yourself? Does comfort mean heated or cooled rooms for nakedness, or should you have to wear a sweater in the winter? Hot water for a bath or shower every day, or every other day, or once a week? Should people have one day a week off, or two, or three, or none? One everyday outfit and one ceremonial, or a whole American-style closet, or something in-between?

[Walter and Theodor]

Rosalux
are you asking theoretically or in more real life today kind of terms? I think the whole thing issue is difficult because the lense we have to look through is so distorted.

In the US school children make little pictures that say things like "Every extra napkin is another dead tree" and these are posted on the walls in cafes but we know that they aren't being taught anything about corporate irresponsibility and corrruption around these issues.

I think something is suspicious about that...I don't think that means abandoning individual responsibilities but everyday I walk by shops that have refrigerators without doors or cafe's with wide open doors and hot air blasting out onto the street These are completely unregulated and unrestricted but then my energy company sends me helpful conservation information recommending that I never put anything warm in my refrigerator and to keep the heat as low as possible while turning it off over night. It all seems inescapably redolent of the proles being made responsible and morally accountable for the environment while the ruling class go about their merry way raping the planet. It all seems a bit Christian.

I am interested in the question because I actually conserve a lot...I try to be conscious about these issues and I put a lot of energy into thinking about what and how I buy things as well as how I live my life around necessity versus luxury ....but in the back of my mind there is this feeling that I am a complete fool, that I have been completely manipulated by the worst excesses of bourgeois ideology.

My opting for a sweater is meaningless in the face of any SUV driver anywhere in the world and they could be taxed beyond all recognition tommorrow with significant popular support but I am too busy sorting my plastics and making sure that my shampoo doesn't have laurel sulfate in it to join a pressure group?

Well that and playing this game.

[Rosalux]

Mostly, I'd like members of the AnarCom to think about this stuff as they flesh out their visions of their nations. I'd like to have a thread like this for each Principle, so that we all have some space to think about our ideals, and so new people can get a good idea of the variety of ways they're applied inside the Alliance.

I think you're right about it being important to be a responsible citizen first and a responsible consumer after, in real life. But here we're really in the position of imagining a new and different society. Which is hard - you're trying to look at the new world through your old eyes, and you're bound to fail. But the thought experiment is really interesting and possibly useful.

I think Westerners in general and Americans especially have a really inflated idea of "basic comfort", and are willing to sacrifice a lot of things that I find more basic (enough sleep, stable families, civic involvement, not oppressing others) for material possessions & comfort. The few small communities I've seen that try to not buy any food produced by exploitive use of either land or people, for example, work like dogs and still do without a lot of things that most Americans think of as staples, while often failing at their goal of sustainability. Some of that is from being imbedded in the larger capitalist system, but also I think that the amount, kinds, and relative price of food that Americans expect is inherently unsustainable, not just a problem of the current system. Ditto our transportation, family structure, and housing. So, taking into account resources - time, energy, material objects - you have to make some choices.

Different people roleplay this differently, especially given that Nationstates assumes your population is constantly growing. I assume my people have no high-tech health care, for example, or any serious reliance on electricity, because I think industrialism is inherently hierarchical. I also just plain ignore the population figure coming from NS. S&V admits his society puts human wants ahead of ecological sustainability. The idea that capitalism is so wasteful that a cooperative system would inherently be more productive and less abusive to people & the environment is certainly arguable - though I'd be interested in people RPing some of the cost-savings methods, instead of just the resulting bounty.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

I'm not sure about putting human wants above ecological sustainability, however, we do put a degree of industrialisation above the pristine preservation of the environment.

Huge, mass production plants may be the most efficient but are unsustainable. They also produce surplus, which is wasteful. Smaller units are less efficient in the use of resources and use of energy but are more easily maintained at output levels which fulfill requirements rather than merely pumping out product for the sake of it.

Particularly on Sacco much local transportation of product (rather than passengers) relies on the internal combustion engine. There are fewer roads on Vanzetti and so fewer vehicles. We have some railways on both for wider distribution where this is necessary.

We do have a maglev line running from Huxley-on-Sea to Passionara but as that was built with assistance from CACE and uses much foreign technology, its lifespan without on-going assistance is limited and it will probably be dismantled.

As most people live within walking distance of wherever they work, foot is favoured although a number of cycles are available (on a first come first served basis during peak people movements).

This tends to mean that communications around the islands are mostly electronic via telephone, fax and some computers.

The tidal power system Canute through the Zapatista Straits aimed to provide a much greater consistency of electric power. However, although the theory of Canute is homegrown (maths is a hobby on S&V) much of the engineering expertise is from CACE. Consequently, it is running at test capacity rather than its planned total output. Completion in the foreseeable future looks unlikely. Planned power cuts are common at night but there are quite a few power outs during the day when the system is overloaded.

We have solar, hydro and wave power but these are currently expensive (in labour) to maintain and feed into an incomplete grid.

[Rosalux]

(sorry, i didn't mean to speak for you.)

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

(tee hee, I wasn't correcting you, just elaborating on your point)

[FreeLandofAIM]

On AIM, there are vehicles around, as well as a steam train, (solar power is being looked into as a transition) but for the most part, people like to walk. This means that walking from one side of the island to another certainly takes awhile, but the communes makes everyone welcome and at home.

Transport in the case of emergency comes in the form of cars and ambulances, and hospitals are run by members of various communes who qualified at the training facilities here or abroad.

AIM sees many travellers arrive here who are disillusioned with their countries. This is certainly beneficial to the free skills exchange, which is one of the basic structure of cooperation within the communes of AIM.

Materialism is not part of the make up of AIM, everything is based on a need rather than a 'want'.

Life to outsiders here may appear simplistic and primitive, but technology is improving all the time.

Solar power, wind power, and energy given from chicken poo are also looked at.

[vequalsv0plusat]

Rosalux said:

But what do you mean by comfort? Just enough calories & nutrients to live on, a wide variety and plenty of excess of bioregional products, or fresh fruit in midwinter? Should people be able to live alone in their own apartment? Should they have to live in a communal building but get their own room? Should the electricity be on 24/7? How far should you walk in a day, and how much should you expect to carry for yourself? Does comfort mean heated or cooled rooms for nakedness, or should you have to wear a sweater in the winter? Hot water for a bath or shower every day, or every other day, or once a week? Should people have one day a week off, or two, or three, or none? One everyday outfit and one ceremonial, or a whole American-style closet, or something in-between?

I'm pretty sure most people would be able to have a standard of living similar to that of a typical American middle-class family. (Of course, their actual lifestyle may be quite different, as people in such a society would not be driven to consume unnecessary resources through corporate advertising.)

But as for how much they would work and such, in an anarchist society, I suppose it would vary from person to person. The amount of time a person would work would depend primarily on how much he'd be willing to work, how much society needs his skills, and how many people there are with his skills.

[theyellowspot]

v_equals_v0_plus_at said:

Well, the world GDP in 2002 was $32.2 trillion; if one divides this by the number of people on this planet, one gets $5367 per person.

well, i only earned around $4000 last year, and only about $200 this year, i'm doing fine. though i think my standard of living is probably way lower than most people's, in my ideal society it would be very easy to do. First thing would be to cut out rent, this is the biggest expense for most people i know. in The Armed Republic of The Yellow Spot, all domiciles have been appropriated either from the landlords of the previous capitalist state, or from the bank in the case of people who were living in single-family homes technically owned by the banks because of mortgages and all that. People do not need to pay rent, everyone is an "owner" of the space they currently live in. There are no single owners of multi-family buildings.

as for the second greatest expense, food, this problem is being worked on as well. while during the years leading up to the downfall of the previous capitalist state dumpster-diving had become not just popular, but necessary for many people, home gardening (as well as Community Gardens, all using principles of Permaculture of course) also became very popular. because the government wasn't providing for the food needs of the people, people started to grow their own. fortunately people have been very good about also growing crops like apples and walnuts, to also help with the deforestation problem left behind by our capitalist predecessors.

because of these and many other factors, noone works what we would consider "full time". work necessary for the functioning of society is all voluntary, and with rotating positions in most positions to limit job fatigue. There is a bit of "public pressure" involved in convincing people to do the work that needs to be done. everyone knows that if work isn't done, people won't have the "things" that they want, like electricity (mostly solar, wind, and Human Power[washing machines and many others are all bicycle powered]), computers for playing NationStates, and hemp-made clothing and books.

As well as the widespread planting of fruit/nut crops, industrial hemp has become quite fashionable as a replacement for paper and fiber products. Since we can get 4 times more paper per acre than that from an acre of trees, much energy (human and other) and time is saved in the production of all our cool books and stylish pants.