Display:
It seems to me Sustainability is locked to the high prestige of the rentier and a corresponding (?) low prestige of the producer.  Why this has come about is a bit of a puzzler, for me, since a lifetime of being a useless git seems tedious, dull, and boring.  

This was brought home by a viewing of Gosford Park's depiction of a swarm of servants beavering away to enable 16, or so, upper class twits to live their vacuous "lifestyle."   I found the shooting scene particularly appalling.  Beaters driving the game, re-loaders, dogs fetching the downed birds, twits standing in one place and pulling the triggers as fast as they could.  The whole thing made my fists itch and long for the evolution of wing mounted, pheasant deployed, Air-to-Ground Anti-Bozo missiles.

What made the whole thing possible was a fortune made supplying the British Army with the "tools of the trade" during World War One.  Altman, with his usual wit, showed this war profiteer as the only one of the twits who did anything.  The rest of the upper-class mob could have been strangled at birth with no loss to anybody of anything.  

In an Over-the-Top kind of way, this is the situation most of us in the First World find ourselves in.  Our lifestyle depends (1) the cheap production of oil, (2) the cheap products cheap oil creates and (3) on cheap money being provided to Money Market Banks to provide cheap credit to purchase the cheap products.  Both the war profiteers profits and oil-in-the-ground are non-renewable, finite resources.  As both run out the lifestyles become harder to maintain until they become impossible to maintain.  

The psychological addiction to the lifestyle does not run out, however.  In the film people go to absurd lengths to create the illusion they are living the lifestyle and are desperate to hide the truth from other people who are also creating the illusion they live the lifestyle while hiding the truth.  

One can continue the analysis by the way the producing class (the servants) re-create the social hierarchy 'downstairs' with greater rigidity and pickle-sniffing while they know their world, as the world upstairs, is a dream.  They even have a discussion around the dining table, IIRC, about how the time of the Great House is ending.  Yet they spend their time doing (essentially) useless tasks for (evidently) illusionary purposes.

For my money this is the great problem to be solved:  How to make productive work prestigious, desired, worthy.  Once that is done moving to sustainability is a matter of technique, doing this way rather than that way kind of discussion.

by ATinNM on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 09:09:49 PM EST
"Our lifestyle depends (1) the cheap production of oil, (2) the cheap products cheap oil creates..."

I'm not sure this is quite true, because of the availability of massive amounts of coal. The main need for oil is for transportation, and most of this can be replaced by some combination of electric cars and trains, ultimately powered by coal.

This means that the conflict comes down to the imbalance between coal-rich and coal-poor regions, and the side effects of burning so much coal. Ideally, the West should take these into consideration, but to do so would be a big change from how we've done things in the past.

by asdf on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 12:20:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
RBBooks has saved me the trouble of responding in detail.  (Thanks and a tip o' the hat.)

See the Perfect Storm diary and the linked article therein.

Simply put, the US doesn't have the funds to painlessly shift from oil to coal when

  •  the coal can be bought in €s rather than worth-ever-less $s.

  •  the debts of the last 50 years have to paid, rather than rolled-over

  •  consumer consumption moves from credit-based to cash-based

  •  and deal with ever higher oil prices in the chemical, pharmaceutical, and consumer products industries whose factories would need to be redesigned and retooled to handle coal tar rather than crude oil.  

(I'm not a Chemical Engineer, nor much of a Chemist, so I cannot say what the effects of the last will be.  In fact I only mention it in the hope someone or In Wales will comment and eliminate my ignorance.)
by ATinNM on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 01:15:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How to make productive work prestigious, desired, worthy.  Once that is done moving to sustainability is a matter of technique, doing this way rather than that way kind of discussion.

nail, meet hammer...

either we transcend glamour, or we make sustainability glamorous...

i know, i know...

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 09:24:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series