There IS a more serious side to all of this. Any movement or group that would like to make this old world a better place should have at least SOME of their members with building skills. It's pretty hard to promise people that you will build a better world if you cannot build a birdhouse.
Of course, not everyone must have construction skills--but it helps if a lot of them do. EVEN if it is only on the level of arranging the nest for a lover. If you have read some of the comments, you will see that there is a great deal of really profound insights into the human condition. Building teaches important lessons.
There are a million examples of why this is important but a recent one will suffice. The troops who occupied Japan with MacArthur had serious nation-building skills from the officers to enlisted men. They solved some real problems. The clowns who went to Iraq could build nothing. Nothing. Nation-building skills were just a detail. The same sort of building illiteracy destroyed New Orleans.
I miss the old guys who could build anything. They were a true inspiration "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
But a better way would surely be to reinvent vocational training in respect of these skills.
Everyone who leaves school should be proficient - or at least capable - in the basics of household maintenance. Those who show an aptitude - a bit of "gumption" as Pirsig had it - should be identified, developed and not ashamed of taking it on as a vocation, maybe even through reinventing in some way the apprentice/ journeyman/ master structure through a "neo-guild" (but without the barriers).
Great Diary, Techno. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
I suppose I SHOULD worry about the quality of vocational training and whether this is an immigration issue. But the truth is, I get along so well with tradesfolk and almost without exception get quality work for reasonable prices, so I tend not to worry about what that strata is up to.
I DO worry about construction illiteracy among the more "important" members of society.
For example, Al Gore's movie on climate change spent the first 90% of the film laying out a well-reasoned case for believing that climate change threatens life on earth--and that we have roughly 10 years to get our act together. Then he ends his movie with a pathetic list of suggested actions to solve these problems. And his personal "solution" is to get into the business of selling carbon offset Indulgences (shades of Tetzel).
My question is: Would Al Gore have chosen to be SO irrelevant if he actually understood how MUCH of the carbon-fired human infrastructure needed replacement, and how much time, energy, inventiveness, hard work, planning, and money, not to mention frustration, setbacks, rethinking strategies, etc. such projects entail?
I mean, if Al Gore had built so much as a birdhouse in life, there is a good chance he might have realized that replacing the most important strategy for human survival (fire) might require a plan more involved than changing lightbulbs or selling Indulgences. I was so sickened by the pathetic childishness of "An Inconvenient Truth" that I nearly threw up when leaving the theater.
And Al Gore is the product of an "elite" education and is possibly the most enlightened national politician we have. The problem is that folks in his social strata are taught that "educated elites" only have to know how to shop. For them, actually being able to build something is really quite "beneath" them. So they cannot even comprehend a problem like climate change because they literally have no skills and no relevant experience to draw upon.
Like Lennon sang in "Revolution" "We all want to see your plans." I understood that line literally--if you cannot produce, read, and construct from actual blueprints, your "revolution" will probably fail. Thanks John.
Just remember, "nation-building" is not just a figure of speech. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
