That article should make any American's eart burn.

And look at how few posts on this thread - a thread about halitosis would have 100+ posts by now.

Indeed this question goes to the core of all humanity. Unfortunately the only real ideology is money since it is widely held that with that alone you can acquire everything and anything. This widely held belief will not change unless there is collapse of this system and people again learn to appreciate those aspects of life with real value. Just look at history, we humans aren't any good in prevention, especially when it involves long term, big issues. We have done everything we can to denigrate life on earth. The only thing we haven’t done is a nuclear war, probably because that much is that obvious. From the highest peaks of civilization (culture, technology, science) we have reached the deepest pits of human indignity (middle ages, wars, slavery, torture, environmental catastrophy) - time and again, over many millennia. What makes you think this time we are going to be any different? Can we change collectively our very own nature? Perhaps.

I think we have a good chance if we can balance the theory, the science, and the ideologies even, with the need of every single human being to be part of this effort. We have to inspire everyone in the smallest, most practical, everyday aspects of life. It is that simple yet, so important. We cannot expect change if change is not possible in all its different scales. Again looking at historical precedents even when ultimate powers can control almost everything and create their worlds of make believe they must first and foremost make every single one of us believe and then participate. The forces of power achieve that by offering the vision but most importantly the means for participation. After all it’s not the big oil companies that use up the oil and soil our earth; it’s me and you and my friends and your friends and their friends, friends. So a society that is all inclusive and thinks and acts in basic human principles is, to say the very least, more bonded, less vulnerable, more prepared, more sustainable. Again take another good look at history, athropology, society and observe the cultures and their characteristics that survived thoughout time.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade but....

IMO one of the very key factors in rural communities, and city or suburb communities suffer from ills poster above described, ....one of the biggest factor is 'kinship'.

I guess this is rather self-evident but as to how it works is not readily apparent to most for they have become removed from any real roots long long ago.

Having a very mobile life and living in many locations tends to fray the threads of kinship, badly. Its very hard to 'go back home' when they don't even know you. And you are somewhat found to be tainted with very very different attitudes and viewpoints.

Believe me for I have been there. I am back at my place of birth but some here gave me a bit of a hard time at first. They would not trust me at all. My ancestors settled these very lands and I had kin folk all over the place....yet that shine of perhaps 'intellectualism' or being different makes a big difference in being once more accepted.

Yet after 20 years that has slowly dissolved. It took about that long. Only the older folks remembered me...and the younger ones...well now I get to look down at them and judge them as I was judged.

So community..here in the rural farm country is already in place but you may not find a place at the table unless you were actually born there and have kinfolks.

But with kinfolks nearby you are much more locked into this community. You need trust and that comes with being kin to someone who matters. Or can lend you help. Living alone and insular in the country can be very trying.

Now there are bad folks in every community. But they are very visible and the local 'word of mouth' is extremely efficient and active. Everybody knows everybody else's business and what they are up to.
Unless they are very shutmouth and then of course they are not to be trusted.

Let me offer and example. Today I am going to go see about getting a guy's electric hooked up. A friend of mine does all the bucket truck work for the town,since the town owns its own infrastructure. This other guy has had bad damage to his weatherhead and meter base and pole. They are not doing much for him since he has no reputation at all here, from a few counties away you see. But he sometimes drives a truck for another good friend of mine and he is going thru a bad divorce and has two small kids to handle. I was asked if I could expedite the work to get him hooked up since I had some favors owed by the electric guy and who yesterday asked me for a favor as well.

So I am going to 'call in' a favor and do this poor guy a favor by getting him expedited on hooking up his lines. I know he will never repay the favor. And I will have played out a favor. But his kids and a divorce I can understand. If I tell the electric guy that his base is good and wired right he will do the upper line work...all is ok then.

This is exactly how it works in small town and county outback USA.
Favors, friendship and kinfolk connections. Its alwasy worked that way. Always will. You have to be 'networked' in. Simple as that.

Airdale-the way I see community,and what has been in effect since this part of the country was settled AND....not belittling the efforts of this Key Post and those who see the need of community. Wish them luck.

Personally I keep helping with education to shift belief systems, however slowly, and I also provide tangible, "how to" type guides for the time when belief systems are crushed by reality and different behavior sets are required.

For the most part, I doubt more than a small percentage of the population will "get it" ahead of time, and even among those who do, they appear locked in structures in which behaviors don't align with stated goals and ideals.

Thinking probabilistically...having an organized group is much better than having none at all. Effectiveness is not guaranteed, but probability of a better outcome is higher.

Soil as value has been discovered by capitalists - get ready for lots of lawn sharing schemes to emerge.

Are you serious? I can see it now. Fidelity Select Soil Value Fund....;-)

Inevitable. That 'soil value' would be discovered by capitalists, who if I get your meaning still intend to transform the embodied ancient sunlight in soil back into money, repeating the process and and concentrating the wealth - ecosystem services equals the new 'leverage'! (EDIT - Actually, this has been happening already in stealth with industrial ag. The transfer of topsoil from the Plains states into the Gulf of Mexico has been an ongoing depletion fact suppressed by cheap fossil fuels. I expect that as energy profit from fossil fuels declines in aggregate, more individuals and communities will substitute labor for financial capital and generate small scale high EROI returns using natural capital (soil, sun and rain) - potatoes and root crops have 25-30:1 EROI.)

"Man's economy, as a rule, is submerged in his social relationships. He does not act so as to safeguard his individual interest in the possession of material goods; he acts so as to safeguard his social standing, his social claims, his social assets. He values material goods only in so far as they serve this end. Neither the process of production nor that of distribution is linked to specific economic interests attached to the possession of goods; but every single step in that process is geared to a number of social interests which eventually ensure that the required step be taken. these interests will be very different in a small hunting or fishing community from those in a vast despotic society, but in either case the economic system will be run on noneconomic motives." Karl Polyani - The Great Transformation 1944

At least Portland is educating people about what is really important. That's why this first 2 months of Obama makes me sad. Instead of dumb rhetoric and missed opportunity we got with Bush after 9/11, we now get smart rhetoric and missed opportunity after credit crisis with Obama. It all points to we will need a different metric of what we compete for before things change.

Tell us more about the "community revolution" in Portland please. Is is more than what Michael discussed here?

Yeah I wanna check out the local Grange, the Granges are full of OLD people and they're the ones who grew up with canning, Victory gardens, etc.

Are the objections to "heirarchy" as opposed to democracy based on what's practical and effective, or purely ideological?

I'll admit to having a prejudice against hierarchy, but my observation (from years of looking at NGOs in Washington and Latin America) is that they're often inefficient precisely because of the hierarchy. In efficient, in particular, in building the sort of social movement that could really carry forward their stated aims. Instead, they focus on single "winnable" issues, concentrate resources on lobbying (Washington) or implementation of "projects" (Third World), and spend inordinate amounts of time trying to please donors and build their reps.

This post also touches on something I've been thinking alot about - are existing organizations likely to be adequate for Peak Oil and relocalization activism? Or do we need completely new organizations?

But, yes, I suspect we need something new, something on the line of the "coordinadoras"/organizations of organizations I described. Transition Towns Handbook outlines one approach that seems to have taken off in the UK and New Zealand and that people are getting excited about here.

I think the best way to go about this is to just lead by example. At first you'll look like a weirdo with the suburban doomstead, but when the preps start to pay off, maybe you'll have a copycat neighbor, and then it will start a domino effect.

I wrote something some years ago for a book that never got published. The link is: http://www.willitseconomiclocalization.org/files/well/OutpostGuideWillit...

Here's a piece:

One strategy to cope with the problems we face is to drop out of
society as much as possible and live a simple life, semi-isolated
from the horrors “out there.” However appealing this strategy may
be, global traumas will most likely catch up with all but the most
isolated recluse. Reversing course and implementing a complete
overhaul of our collective lives will require massive political will
and cooperative action. I am assuming that those reading this book
are more inclined to be politically active and work for social
change.

The trouble is, all of us who’ve grown up in the more affluent parts
of the world during the 20th century are behaviorally conditioned
by a super-abundance of highly disposable material goods, nearly
unlimited Earthly travel options, and community isolation. These
conditioned mind-sets are now part of law and institutional
structures reflecting the energetic glut on the upslope of the fossil
fuel era.

Truthfully, the bad news is that changing a highly institutionalized
culture is perhaps impossible by simply “changing mindsets or
values.” Mindsets and values are more often reflections of the
material conditions of a society. Frugality as a value follows
scarcity, for example, and conspicuous consumption follows
opulence. The good news, however, is that reality is conflicting
with dominant belief systems. This conflict sets up an opportunity
to help the disillusioned or confused by offering a coherent
explanation of what is happening, and pathways to realign their
thinking with the new environment.

History shows some instances when societies have responded
wisely, and plenty of other instances when they didn’t change in
time. So there’s no guarantee that this will be successful. But how
can we improve the odds?

I was all geared up to launch a transistion initiative in my town but this article just made me realise how futile my efforts may be.

Whoa! How come? This was supposed to inspire by getting us thinking about how. I actually see a lot of similarities between the "coordinadora" approach and the Transition Towns Initiatives.

I've been around both for a long time. In Mexico, I saw community organizations that had put together amazing initiatives without the help of NGOs, though there were a few NGOs ("professionalized service organizations) out there. Elsewhere in Latin America, El Salvador in particular, I saw NGOs everywhere, trying to sell the latest donor-funded project to communities and community organizations. There was a lot of cynicism, because NGOs came in and offered their composting toilets and smokeless cook stoves without asking people what their priorities were, ignoring existing community organizations in the process.

In D.C. it's if anything worse. The NGO's (call 'em advocacy organizations) may solicit funds from people they call "members", but members have no input; the professional staff, and even more, the donors, dictate direction. The NGO's pursue narrow agendas, one by one, with little to no effort to build or join social movements.

Don't get me wrong. There are clearly NGO's that do better. And there's a great deal to be said for having a staff and money to get things done, provide continuity, and think things through. But there's clearly a distinction between NGO's and organizations rooted democratically in their communities. The latter have some real handicaps, too, as I mentioned. So we have to think clearly about what we want to do and how we want to do it as we look for organizational vehicles to address Peak Oil issues.

Michael Foley

The wiki is a great idea. I'll go take a look and see if I can add anything. Another resources is http://www.transitionculture.org, the website of the transition initiatives.

Michael