Sandra P.Hoffman wrote:
>I understand many rural homesteaders see the
>phrase "urban sustainability" as a contradicition in terms, but I don't.
>The realities of urban life often lead down a very different eco and
>sustainability path than the realities of rural life.
In my chosen role of rural advocate I have stated publicly that urban life
is insane. I have found nothing to cause me to reconsider. Urban life is
"utterly foolish and unreasonable" and that is a definition of insanity.
The first purpose of cities was safety--today, wilderness is safer than
cities. The second purpose of cities was commerce--today corporations have
moved to or are moving to the country. The highest cost of living is in and
because of cities; urbanites and the natural world both pay horrible
prices. The greatest of all urban insanities is the complete and utter
dependance on imported food and essential utilities provided by others.
Cities provide easy groceries, easy waste disposal, easy entertainment,
easy disease-care access, easy access to that most beloved American
pasttime--shopping. City life is easier and that is why people live in
cities. It is hard to move from city to country and then to create a new
and sustainable life, and that is why I write advice on how to do those
things.
All cities were once country villages. Population concentration always
destroys place. The upper Atlantic coast area has been largely destroyed.
Coastal California has been largely destroyed. Florida has been largely
destroyed. Colorado's Eastern Range is now being destroyed. All of this
destruction is by population concentration. And so I am loathe to encourage
urban and suburban solutions because to do so is to support further such
destruction.
That said, seventy-five percent of Americans still live in an urban or
suburban setting. So more eco-gain potential exists by addressing the
sustainability issues of urbanism than of ruralism. But the odds are high
against causing any meaningful changes in cities. The current status exists
to create investor profit. Governmental efforts at change are nothing but
temporary voter pacifiers that in the long run feed the greed mongers.
Neighborhood gardens are wonderful but there will never be enough of them
and as soon as the landowner sees a profit opportunity, the gardens are
history.
In truth, suburbs are bigger eco-destroyers than cities and more good can
perhaps be done by addressing urban and suburban sprawl than any other
issue today. Suburbs are destroying huge amounts of farmland that should be
used to feed urbanites. Furthermore, suburbs are automobile dependent and
their conditions make community nearly impossible.
Concurrently while writing this I have been making and eating chicken
stirfry. Most of the ingredients are home grown, which is harder than
buying at the supermarket. It is inconvenient to go to the garden, push
back the snow and dig carrots. But I feel it is eminently sane.
Sandra, you wrote:
>While I have dreamt of homesteading, at this point in my life, I don't
>know if I ever
want to follow that dream, and if I do, I know it will not be financially
possible for the next ten to twenty years.
You, too, can find that it is easier being poor in the country than in the
city. In the country it is easier to live with less, it is easier to live a
sustainable life, it is easier to be sane, and if one is a conservationist,
an environmentalist or an ecologist, I find it is easier to feel good about
how one lives.
And with that middle name, you will be doted upon by country youngsters and
oldsters alike.
Gene GeRue, author,
How To Find Your Ideal Country Home: A Comprehensive Guide
http://www.ruralize.com/
