by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Survival was the buzzword in some quarters for a fair number of years leading up too Y2K and people imagined a variety events to be triggered by the the Millennium Bug and other such things – that never happened – and predicted the end of the world as we know it, described by the acronym TEOTWAKI.
The idea of “Survival” started in the 1970s with the book entitled “The Survival Handbook” by Michael Allaby and coauthored Monika Hanbury Tenison, John Seymour and Hugh Sharman.
“The Survival Handbook” really dealt with a kind of “back to the land” issues and self-sufficiency than the military-style “survival” and survival after a collapse of society, etc., envisaged by those that came after and especially here amongst right-wing Christians and fundamentalists in the USA.
In other words, “The Survival Handbook” and the notion of “survival” in those very early years was about sustainability and self-reliance and self-sufficiency much more and many of those old publications, articles and ideas from those early days are as valid today as then as regards to the sustainability issues that we are talking about today with regards to preventing and environmental catastrophe.
The later survival notions and the idea of survival of the Survivalists was surviving and living – of a sort – though not necessary all that comfortable (let's remember than some thought of living in caves again dressing in buckskin and fur) – after a TEOTWAKI event.
In their mind likely event that those people then were planning and prepping for to survive were anything from environmental devastation through natural forces, over collapse of society through this and other events, to a nuclear exchange between the USA and the then USSR.
It was – and with some still is – all about survival after a collapse of everything and with everything, infrastructure, for instance, destroyed, their preps include anything from toilet paper and bottled water to guns and bullets.
But is that really how any of us would want to have to carry on?
Our greatest threat with regards to just such a collapse event is our economy going south, due to oil and gas running out.
When the lights go out the proverbial is going to hit the fan for sure, and still presently most people all over the globe continue as is, consuming as if there be a competition going on as who can consume most.
This collapse is going to be inevitable if we do not change the way we live and this is where sustainability comes in.
We want to live, don't we, rather than just survive and still enjoy the good things of today, may be even better one, like computers, the Internet, etc. and this can be done if we out real sustainability on the agenda.
Real sustainability will require the use of old methods and old ways being brought back in but linked with modern and ever evolving technologies. It also may, nay will, require a new approach to community and work, to farming and forestry, etc. And this must be started now and not just when the events start happening or after.
Some people have made the move to a more sustainable life already and some quite a while ago by moving into “green” communes while others never needed to start this transition as thjey have always been there, like the Amish, for instance.
Eco communities by their very nature are small and must be kept small; 68 homes advises, Stuart W. Rose, PhD., the author of “Sustainability”.
While this is great for developing a real true community I wonder how this will house everyone and also especially as to how this can be translated to work in towns and cities.
It should and must be made to work also in such urban settings if sustainable living and fulfillment of living in such a setting is to be achieved.
Survival, in its very term just is surviving but this is not what we should be aiming at; a fulfilled sustainable life and -living should and must be that target.
Sustainable living takes some aspects of what was under “survival” with a lot more. The old “Survival Handbook” by Michael Allaby, already mentioned, is a start as to ideas, as are those ideas found in other books that basically followed “The Survival Handbook”. Books that sort of finalize the idea to a high degree and hone them, among others, are “Sustainability” by Stuart W. Rose, PhD., though they really just compliment the older ones from the 1970s and 1980s.
In many ways for real sustainable living we will all have to take a trip “back to the future” in that we have to travel back in time, to some degree, in order to get to the future and have one in that we must bring back some of the old ways with new aspects.
This is not Luddite-ism, as not one want to throw off and away – bar maybe one or two – the modern achievements that are beneficial and useful, such as computers and the Internet, etc.
Sustainability and sustainable living does not mean having to abandon what we have; all we have to do is make it really efficient and get rid of some things are are not beneficial, such as the polluting oil-burning motorcar.
The aim is to create a new way of life and living, a way that is sustainable and in tune with Mother Earth, and not to abandon everything and go back to living in caves, tepees, or in sod huts.
Technology is not the enemy if applied properly; rather the opposite, and while some things will have to change such as how we live and work, modern technology, together with old ways, will be the answer.
Sustainable living is not a “head for the hills” solution, as often advocated by survivalists and not one of “bugging out”, unless absolutely necessary, but a totally different one.
Sustainable living must be equally possible, promoted and advocated in towns and cities, especially in cities, as it is there where most people live, and not just in rural areas in “retreats”.
Sustainable living and -life has one prerequisite though, I believe, and that is one that is very unpopular with many people. This prerequisite in question is population control on a national and worldwide level. This means limiting the size of a family to no more than two children, regardless of sex. A controversial proposal, I know, but one that must be given more than serious consideration.
The current level of worldwide population growth is unsustainable and if we do not act voluntarily Mother Earth will, undoubtedly, do it or us, and Her methods will be rather more severe and arbitrary.
The other big issue as regards to being able to continue to live and thrive on this Planet is the issue of pollution.
It way be worth noting that I say “pollution” and not “CO2 emissions”, for pollution encompasses so much more and pollution is doing serious harm to all life on Mother Earth, including human life.
Pollution takes many forms and not just the form of emissions from cars, etc. It is, in fact, all that which we dump onto the Planet, from the smoke we pump out into the air from burning fossil fuels, from the poisons that gets into our watercourses and the sea, etc.
Sustainable Living in comparison to what was and still is called Survival and Survival Living by the so-called survivalists is superior.
With survival as seen by the survivalists and similar persons it was and is preparation to survive primarily man-made events, initially this was a nuclear exchange between the the two superpowers and alliances, the USA and USSR, NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization.
What we are looking at and for with Sustainable Living is to avert an environmental catastrophe and to live comfortably. We are, in fact, trying to, if at all possible, avert a catastrophe rather.
Some of the skills of survival will be of use but I do not think that guns and bullets will save the day but skills and knowledge.
With the serious possibility and probability of Peak Oil being upon us soon or having arrived already we must change over to Sustainable Living anyway, whether we want to or not.
So, let's do it...
© 2010
